NickB

Catering in ET HAD improved. It is a fact, period: some flights that were without food are now with food. You may not like what is being offered (I think that we will all agree that this is not gourmet food) but it is still an improvement on what was there before.

You know, LYS is not the only airport in Europe. Yes, some people have had their flights switched from T5 to T1. Others have had their flights switched from LGW to T1 and some from T1 to T5.

As to service being "DRAMATICALLY" (sic) reduced for the handful of destination moved from T5 to T1, yes you no longer have the T5 Flounge which is very good. But the T1 lounge is imo quite comparable to the LH or AF lounges at their respective terminals.
If you mean increased time form connections, yes that is right:connections will be somewhat less convenient if you fly from LYS/TLS/DUS and BSL (and easier if you come from other destinations such as MRS/BGO/SVG). But less us keep a sense of proportion. If I was to look for drama, it seems to me to be more in your post than in the changes you complain of.

Gee, if I ever needed to explain to anybody what over-dramatisation means, I think that this post would be a good starting point.

JOUY31

I think most of us, including myself, have resorted to hyperbole at some point in time, over an issue we feel strongly about .

irishguy28

That option already exists...but you in fact need to pay more than just that 20 EUR (i.e. you must buy a Y, B, or M fare).

This change is all about giving you less for your money - not more!

orbitmic

In fact I shall be more specific on the effect on me, bearing in mind that of course some others may react very differently to me.

- I regularly fly between Nice and London or vv. If I do Gatwick, I routinely happily pay about £20-30 (€25-40) more to fly BA, often up to £50 if I can fly from LHR if I can fly .

- I also regularly fly between Nice and Paris. As mentioned, I recently reserved several of them and was not interested in paying even €5 more to fly AF to ORY as compared to U2 to CDG (or not interested in paying €20 more to fly AF to CDG).

JOUY31

Many thanks for the info . It is always interesting to see how different people can evaluate a new offer, depending on their own context and goals.

orbitmic

Thanks. Indeed, I have no doubt that reactions and expectations are first and foremost individual.

When editing my post, I actually deleted its previous version, which, in a nutshell was an answer to stimpy's point about BA service. I was just saying that different people have different expectations of what is good or not, acceptable or not, but that as a frequent user of BA ET within Europe, particularly on band 2 and 3 flights, there can be absolutely no question that the ET service has improved this year with the reintroduction of food (while hot meals are maintained on band 4 flights ie about 3 hours and longer). So while I can totally understand people thinking that one strategy or another is better, I think that it simply would not be accurate to say that all airlines are choosing the same strategy to try and survive/progress in the (difficult) current competitive context and that it is important to acknowledge that such strategies vary all the way from total low-costisation of some airlines to service improvements in all classes (undoubtedly at a financial cost). That's the context in which the bullet points above should be read.

stimpy

Right, there are a bunch of others that were switched to LHR T1 as well. You can see them on the BA site I'm sure. And this fiasco is purely down to BA management. Yes BAA and the UK government make things hard, but BA isn't capable of managing within the framework of what they have. So they significantly reduce their service to many customers.

And I don't think I am overstating the decrease in my experience. It is my experience after all. I've transited LHR hundreds and hundreds of times (not an exaggeration) and I know how wonderful T5-T5 transfers are compared to the many years I had to go from one terminal to another. BA has asked all these customers to take a huge step back in time to the awful days of the past. It's not just about losing T5 GF. It's sitting around in the cold waiting for a bus, long bus rides, up and down stairs and escalators and elevators, etc. And no time at all for a lounge or a shower in most cases. When transiting an airport becomes that bad, it is really a big impact on the overall travel experience. I'm almost sugar-coating it if you think about how tired you can be after an intercontinental flight, or if you think about the luxurious time you could have spent in a CCR cabana.

stimpy

All I have heard in this thread about BA's improved ET service is the re-introduction of food. I maintain that bad food is no better than no food, but what about everything else that happens on a flight? BA hasn't improved at all. As an ET passenger, I don't feel that BA treats me any better than an LCC. With the exception of my Gold benefits of course. And of course AF gives me my Plat benefits and LH does what with Star Gold on cheap flights?

Try comparing BA's ET with an LX Euro economy flight to see the difference.

orbitmic

Sorry but (1) I don't believe that most people would agree that ET food is 'bad food', it is just mediocre food (I don't like their wraps, but they are no worse than LX's sandwiches and definitely better than AF ones) and (2) regardless of whether what is served in ET is, in your perception, no better than no food at all in your view, I am 100% certain that a majority of ET flyers would disagree with you on that. It's as though you made the argument that because you think that Hollywood movies are rubbish, no entertainment is just as good as those bad films, that because the quality of the French press is really low (my view) no newspaper or those newspapers is just as bad (I would never say so), or that because AF wine is rubbish (my view again) it would just the same if they served no wine at all (again, I would never say so) or that AF coffee in Europe is such a disgusting mixture (my view again) they might as well not serve coffee at all (no). Regardless of your individual taste, I don't think that one could seriously make the argument that for passengers, getting free food, free drinks - including alcoholic drinks, free entertainment, or free newspapers on board is just the same as not getting it. I'm not sure what proportion of your flying is in economy but quite a lot of mine is and I can assure you that most people I know value these things - albeit differently depending on their individual taste and they see more such free things as improvements and the disappearance as such free things as deterioration.

I'm not too sure what else you wanted BA to improve in their European economy offer. They have a full bar service which AF does not offer, they offer newspapers as before, they show flightmaps on all their A319-20-21 flights which AF does not and films on longer European flights as AF does, BA allows the same size of hand luggage as AF but with no weight limit unlike AF. If you have specific ideas about where BA is 'below par' on their ET experience, by all means do say, but flying quite a lot of European economy flights every year with AF, KL, BA, LH, LX, AZ, and more it is not obvious to me. Yes, sure I would love BA to offer the same food quality as TK on their European flights but:

(1) regardless of whether you 'like' those improvements or not, BA HAS improved the value of ET in most people's view by offering a food service that was no longer offered outside of breakfast for several years,

(2) AF has not done anything to improve the European economy experience even by in their own perception. At the same time, they have taken several measures that have clearly worsened it since NEO: no more full bar in Y, foodless service on much longer flights, no more hot food in Y (that change already happened before NEO).

As for transit, ultimately, there are only so many flights that can depart from a given terminal. I have done the T1-T5 transfer many a time, I don't like it and much prefer T5-T5 transfers but is it worse than a 2G-2F transfer? certainly not. And in fact, the great improvements of CDG are the one thing that has significantly improved for AF for transiting passengers, but that is an ADP investment not an AF one.

stimpy

I disagree, as most people would prefer to eat a proper meal at their destination on a < 1 hour flight (we are talking about SH in this thread, right?) But there is no point in continuing this debate. It really doesn't matter.

You are completely wrong on that point. AF made a very large investment in the terminal changes at CDG. ADP built the structure, AF did the rest. And of course all the associated costs with the transition. And of course pay the rent.

orbitmic

No, we are talking all short and medium haul flights (basically from 1 to 4 hours) as all types are affected by the Mini offer - from a 1hr BOD-ORY to a 4hr MRS-TLV - and all will ultimately be affected when Mini is generalised as per AF press release.

Agreed

NickB

True (although I cannot believe that somebody has measured as you would resort to hyperbole ) but then it is appropriate for other posters to bring back some perspective by pointing out when it is the inner drama queen screaming in us rather than the calm, measured voice of reason speaking.

NickB

There were a few (I mention most of them in my post above) but there were also quite a few moved from LGW to T1 and from T1 to T5. Win some, lose some.

"fiasco"? Again, we are in hyperbole territory. And again: "many customers": so do tell me: how many customers won with the terminal changes and how many lost? You must know, to be able to conclude that "many customers" saw their service reduced rather than increased.

I am afraid that we are in hyperbole territory again. I repeat: sense of proportion, please. Yes: it is not ideal but it is not a stint in Luzira prison, is it, and it is in any event hardly apposite to the current discussion.

I can fully understand that you find the experience unpleasant and would rather avoid it. Fair enough. But let us keep a sense of proportion.

stimpy

Sure, let's keep a sense of proportion. Why all the concern about food on a SH or MH flight in economy? Why all the concern about tiny issues with domestic flights? And craziest of all, why in this thread the hint of a suggestion that AF will soon no longer exist? Tempest in a teapot?

And the BA routes moved from T5 to T1 are I believe:

Basel
Belfast
Düsseldorf
Hanover
Luxembourg
Lyon
Toulouse

Multiply all those flights (multiple per day per route) by all the passengers by 365 days per year. It's a pretty big number.

San Gottardo

One factual comment, and then some food for thought.

On the facts: from what we know will happen at Lufthansa/Germanwings is that Germanwings is a separate structure that has lower costs, to match the market economics of the routes served. However, Lufthansa is aware that it risks losing many passengers outside FRA and MUC that used to be loyal, and therefore maintained all status perks for SENs etc (lounges, luggage, etc). Also, for a higher fare passengers get what is something like an ECO+ product or a Premium Economy product or whatever you want to call it: sit in front of the plane, free food, etc. And I think they can earn miles on these flights. So the way they have chosen is to have a low cost structure on which they then add a more "valuable" offering for a higher fare - the opposite of Air France, which keeps its high cost structure, but then for the Mini offering substracts many services.

I do agree that Lufhansa takes a risky gamble with that strategy. It risks alienating passengers that are deterred by flying with an LCC outfit (personally I don't like it at all). But at least it really gets its costs down for the European network, and it really makes a well-founded entry (actually expansion) into the LCC segment.

Some food for thought: throughout this thread we have mixed up the passenger perspective and whether or not it will be successful. The passenger perspectives range from "they finally are an official LCC, just the fares are not" to people applauding the lower fares and the fact that status pax still get some benefits ("Ok, we go to prison, but at least we get a bed by the window"). Different attitudes towards one and the same offering - it's moot to debate whether a car is a four wheeled means of transportation to go from A to B or whether it's a great cult object that provides its owner with fun and joy.

I and some others have focused less on the passenger perspective, but on what this means for AF strategy. This is where I am very skeptical. The two weaknesses in my mind are:

1. The LCC business model is successful not because it attracts many customers by offering low fares; it is successful because costs are lower, which in turn allow for lower fares, which then attract passengers. Air France doesn't have low costs and from where it is now will find it difficult to be a low cost operator. Moreover, "costs" in this context refer to a very very large extent to things that aren't visible to passengers: salary cost, staffing rosters/working hours, administration costs, marketing, pension commitments, IT systems, processes and procedures, airframe usage, use of outside contractors, handling and airport fees, etc. For instance, having an efficient IT system has more positive impact than squeezing in an extra NEO row into an A318 (especially when seats are sold at a loss). Air France has a much higher cost base along all these dimensions and because of a legacy built over time finds it very difficult to reduce it. Reducing the cost of catering and baggage handling resp. making people pay for it is nice, but does not address those cost elements which make a true low cost carrier. Which is why I - and many others - remain convinced that the traditional AF mainline structure cannot be a true LCC, which in turn will handicap its initiatives in that direction.

2. Air France tries to be everything to everyone under one brand. This is a bad idea, and smart airlines have never done it. For two reasons: the one named above (it is not possible to achieve in the same structure/brand the low cost levels needed to compete in the LCC space), and because diluting a brand is always a bad idea. A number of airlines have set up separate operations and done so successfully, e.g. Qantas/Jetstar, Lufthansa/(old) Germanwings. Those airlines which have tried to offer "an LCC-type service within the full service brand" have seen this end in disaster, because the entire offering was dragged down by the new LCC mentality but not sufficiently to have low costs. Look at SAS, Iberia mainline, many of the US carriers. The brand and the product is completely inconsistent: you can end up flying Premiere from Tokyo to Paris and be welcomed by the limousine and the Premiere Salon, only to continue in a NEOized A32S to Madrid or Berlin where the overall service mentality on the ground and in the air has (to have) a distinct LCC flair - not a good idea, which explains also why Lufhansa has kept its full service mainline offering from MUC and FRA, so that it has a coherent offering between longhaul and feeder flights.

I believe there is merit in AFKL pursuing the cost-sensitive market segment. But the AF mainline structure is not the right one to do that. They should take Transavia or HOP or whatever, separately. Why this doesn't happen? Maybe because their management doesn't see clear enough, maybe because AF staff oppose it. Which proves the point many people here have made already, namely that staff cost are AF's real problem and are not being sufficiently addressed; and my point about legacy costs which are difficult to bring down. It's all nice to have new managers and so on, but that's like saying you bring talented new junior offices on the bridge of the Titanic after it has crashed into the iceberg.