Globalist

So agree, also wondered how u can use this benefit at airports not served by BA. Wonder how many BA lounges there are at non BA destinations

I have never used the benefit, although I was happy it was there. I thought about it once in Singapore when flying kl but i was not alone and open doors was only for 1 and not a guest.

Generally gch's are well travelled and senior people, the email was an insult to our intelligence. Here is a nice benefit, taken away and nothing offered to offset. Like many said there is not much difference between silver and gold and it has just become even less.

Globalist

TravellerFrequently

In the quite a few years that I have been a GCH, I only remember using it once at LHR T4 when I was flying KM and once when I was flying BD to EVN on a BA codeshare (my SCH colleagues were not allowed access).

I have always thought that it was a benefit that I and many would use very seldom, but a 'nice touch' anyway.

In practical terms, it will make probably no difference to my travel experience as I usually fly BA anyway, but I still have a small sense of having 'lost' something.

I also tend to agree that the differential between Gold and Silver, covered in another thread, have been in a process of erosion in recent years.

I still enjoy the GF at LHR, however, which is probably the biggest benefit to me for my many European trips.

Oneworldplus2

Sorry if this has been posted in the previous pages, but Qantas took away anytime access for QF Platinums this year too.
Here is the thread that was on FT
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qanta...ess-going.html

Also, if you go to the Australian Frequent Flyer community, there were 1600+ replies to this very issue.
Can be found here; Platinum "anytime" lounge Access ceases from 1 February 2011

HAM76

Obviously, BA lounges are relevant only when flying to destinations not served by BA, not when flying from those airports... which further reduces the usage in many cases.

HAM76

I could hardly ever make use of this benefit. Most of my non-BA flights are in the Schengen area, so no BA lounge. BAs US lounges open just for a few hours and are sometimes in a separate international terminal, hence no use for domestic flights.

Still, whenever I was flying I was reminded of this benefit, because BA has enhanced away the BA lounge in HAM years ago. At ojer airports I checked the lounge only to find out it is in a different terminal or closed. It was just part of finding out what lounges are available to me and which would be better.

Frequency of using the benefit is not the same as frequency of thinking about the benefit. They took away rarely used but highly visible benefit.

arcticfox

I find myself agreeing with henky - well in part at least:

The cynical veneer of "...but you told us you wnted to get rid of it...!" was indeed a masterlass in how NOT to deliver bad news, and was an insult to the average FF's intelligence.

And I can just about agree that BA may have thought it a cost-cutting measure which would have minimal impact and therefore could be removed without much impact.

But this latter argument is a far too myopic view - I agree with other posters that if you are taking something away, it makes sense to replace it in some way, ideally with something that is of value to the customer but which has minimal cost to you, if not which generates revenue for you (I would instance the ability to give a limited number of lounge passes to GCHs for when they travel with more than the +1 limit, or the option to buy a limited number of them - to encourage those travellers who DO get to fly a large number of business flights on BA ourtesy of their employer to also invest their personal cash in BA for the "family" flights. My gut feel is that in such cases, your prices can still be above the other full carriers and SIGNIFICANTLY above the low cost carriers and the proposition will still be attractive to many.

This type of focusing, but still keeping BAEC a premium product makes sense. To permanently erode the difference between Gold & Tin (it does feel more brassy week by week) and also erode the general product compared to the competitors AND the LCCs is nothing more than a "race to the bottom", and BA is not well placed to win such a battle.

If there is a problem with a significant number of people in, say, GVA and LGW - well, find a targetted way to address this. Either bring in local restrictions (a pretty unimaginative and negative approach) or evolve your "Open Doors" product by offering a limited number of "vouchers" (real or electronic) which can be used in the course of an EC year. Sweeten the pill further by offering the option for an again limited number of "paid" lounge entries for when you are flying with more than one. And then set up your entry systems in the problem locations to ONLY allow a certain number of non-BA flying passengers every hour/ half hour to avoid overcrowding and then rigidly apply the rules - the benefit was, after all, only offered when capacity allowed. You could go still further and do a bit like Wimbledon and find a way (ticket/key/token) where you track the non-BA flyers entering the lounge and again on exit so it "frees up" a slot for the next person. As far is I can tell, I think such a system would only be needed in a couple of fairly high traffic locations and while there are certainly some setup costs, the ongoing costs are minimal.

BA needs to change its thinking from "how can a save a little more money without p!ssing off my premium passengers so much they change allegiences" to "how do I offer such an attractive package for a sensible cost that they do not need to even consider anyone else".

Think of it a different way - FFs, by their nature, fly a lot and want to do so with maximum convenience, comfort and confidence for when things do go wrong. The FF programmes were conceived to try to offer this to those who fly most regularly on the highest priced fares. As happens over time, what has been a good idea and "differentiator" for one airline is quickly copied by others. Soon everyone is doing it and what was once a differentiator becomes the norm. Then it becomes a straight competition on quality and price, and thereafter a competition on price alone. We seem to be entering that territory.

To break out of that cycle, a company has to offer a new, more compelling proposition than the competitors. Since the "generic" quality level are all "good enough" and competing on price alone is a mugs game, the offering must become more tailored (and hence complex) to offer a BETTER proposition to the widest number in the target market while keeping overall costs lower. On the one hand you need to offer more of value but on the other limit the overall costs. That takes skill, effort and far more imagination than the average brainwashed Harvard graduate. It is one area Richard Branson was often very skilful at.

To look at the issue yet another way - virtually all FFs I know have status (of varying degrees) with multiple alliances. They spend an inordinate amount of time, thought and effort to analyse where, when and how to apportion their flying (and hence cash), irrespective of what their company travel policies may say. In most cases they deliberately end up with multiple shiny plastic not out of any uncontrolled obsession with status, but as a sort of "spread betting" policy to cover the fact that, on occasions, their alliance of choice just doesn't have a sensible routing between the locations they may infrequently need. And so people "hedge their bets". They split their loyalties. The airlines whose FF offerings no longer "stand out" lose out.

Henky, you are perhaps the worst possible example of this as someone who has (fortunately for you) managed to "spread bet" yourself into 2 other alliances without flying with them (or intending to). Fortunately BA has not yet succumbed to the dangers of status matching and filling its lounges with even more people who NEVER intend to fly with them unless there are no other options. This I applaud. But if they are REALLY serious in becoming the premium FF airline of choice, then they have to offer more not less. They must stand out from the crowd so much that there is no NEED to spread bet accross programmes. Yes, that probably also means achieving status should consequently be harder not easier. Threshold should be raised, the cheapest flights should earn no TPs but at the same time the product should be made the best in class. I for one would become more loyal if I had had to work really hard to earn the best bit of plastic in the industry if I knew that, on those occassions when I couldn't fly BA or OW, BA turned round and in effect said - "no worries, we know we can't fly everywhere all the time. But we really value the efforts you make to chose us at all other times, so have a G&T, a newspaper and a comfy seat on us. We know you've earnt it. But just remember to keep earning it with plenty of premium spend when you can".

hfly

I recently read an article where some twit at BA waxed on about how charging for seat assignments is making the airline "Hundreds of thousands of Pounds a Year!!!!". Really? Was it worth it? Because I can guarantee you that just the first month of that idea cost them "millions of Pounds for that year!!".

cat 35

dismal communication to the point of insulting. you dont deserve loyalty.

qwest01

I used this benefit at LGW on Sun 8th flying EZY to PMI. Why EZY - well BA only do PMI from LCY and why would I drag me & mrs Qwest all the way to LCY from Hants to fly at more cost when LGW is so much more convenient.

Why a holiday destination is served out of LCY god alone knows.

poggs

In the beginning was the Plan.

And then came the Assumptions.

And the Assumptions were without form.

And darkness was upon the face of the Workers.

And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of ...., and it stinketh."

And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odour thereof."

And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."

And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertiliser, and none may abide its strength."

And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."

And the Directors then went onto the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth and is very powerful."

And the Vice Presidents went unto the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of the company; with powerful effects."

And the President looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.

And the Plan became Policy.

This is How .... Happens.

jaguarpig

Spot on ^

Yahillwe

Haven't read the whole thread, and really don't understand the whole magnitude of the change (didn't get the email, but my daughter did). So an analogy would be like going home and knocking on the door, only to be told by your mother that you can't come in anymore.

J-Class

I think you've hit the customer psychology right on the head. BA has invested enormously to create brand loyalty among its most profitable customers. Part of that brand loyalty is the idea that BA is an extension of home - we all feel more comfortable on a BA flight or in a BA lounge. As I think Jeremy Clarkson once put it rather more colourfully, you may have just got on an aircraft in some rotten godforsaken part of the world, but the minute a grey-flannelled English homosexual offers you a cup of tea on board, you are home.

Having a BA lounge as a fallback when forced to endure some other, nasty airline which doesn't feel like home, was helpful - most importantly because the use of the lounge reinforced the positive relationship with BA as one's natural home. It's dumb of BA to throw enormously valuable positive brand associations such as this out with the bathwater.

NickB

Just because you use a service rarely does not mean that you do not value it. Many people have various forms of insurance they barely ever call on at all. It does not follow that they regard it as superfluous.


And BA have created an incentive structure for us to shift flights towards other airlines to keep that status elsewhere rather than putting expenditure beyond the silver qualification point
It seems to me that you underestimate the strength of sentiment on it. If it was just a question of ridiculous phrasing of the email on something we could not care less, we would just laugh it off and the thread would not have grown as rapidly as it did.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the change of policy itself, and not just the wording of the email, has touched a raw nerve.

matthandy

I don't think that is a comparable analogy. You are using the insurance, in the form of the protection that it offers (and also complying with the law of the land in certain circumstances), just not calling off all of the services that it provides.

I find it interesting that many people on here are up in arms about something that they admit they have never or hardly ever used. I agree that it is a significant benefit that is being taken away and the way in which it was done is pretty poor.

I think that BA could have replaced it with some access vouchers that can be used a few times a year, or to 'guest' more than the agree limit into the lounges at times.

I agree that the difference between Gold and Silver just shrunk even more, to be honest, I'd never aim to achieve Gold deliberately, I just don't see what it offers over Silver that is a significant differentiator.