Originally Posted by terpfan101
But they still were too much a part of BA and were hindered by BA's costs of being a legacy (employees treated the same was a huge factor). I meant they should have come out with a new airline sort of let it be known that BA's safety record etc was behind this new product then after a short while remove BA from the picture and it would be a separate brand/product and even company yet still owned by BA.
I think you will find the GO employees did not have the same legacy benefits as BA mainline and were not treated the same at all. In fact in Cassani's book she was at pains to point this out IIRC. In the early days GO operated under BA's AOC and made a point of saying they had BA's safety culture etc but were quite separate.
In fact your post is quite confusing as what you are saying GO should have done is exactly what they did do
