NickB

Maybe, maybe not.
1) the upside will be immediate whereas the downside will be over a longer period.
2) Either way, this is not going to bring BA down to its knees and the effect will be intermixed with other factors which will be difficult to disaggregate so with relatively no meaningful way of calculating how much the policy ends up costing, if anything. So it may or may not change regardless of whether it is ultimately beneficial or detrimental to BA.

hfly

OK, to my knowledge that is generally not how it works. Generally an airline signs a long term lease for a lounge, they pay a certain amount of rent and may have to sign up to certain airport operated catering, staffing companies, etc However if it is an same airline operated lounge there is not that sort of arrangement.

Prospero

Folks, a polite reminder on posting etiquette : by all means challenge the ideas and opinions stated by others - this fuels positive discourse. That said, any future commentary directed at individuals may be removed. Let's keep the discussion civil and level headed, please.

Thanks for your understanding

Prospero
Moderator: BAEC forum

HilFly

Does that mean I can't complain about GCHs cluttering up the Club lounges???

DWFI

No!!!!! We must maintain the post count!

Paralytic

Ok, let's keep a running total. This board probably has the most irate audience so should at least be indicative of what BA might be losing.

Paralytic

What do you mean by airline operated?

Eg, the DFW example I gave up thread - do you think that is airline operated? Do you think there could be a per-passenger charge there?

littlefish

Ok. Let's suppose BA cut the OD benefit for cost reasons.
Let's also suppose the cost reasons include a (real) per passenger charge for a BA lounge visit.

Running that one along ... I don't see how the OD GCH is the problem. Either the per passenger charge is too high (some-one at BA has messed up the contract negotiation - across the whole network?) or the sums are seriously flawed (not only the 'financial hero' has got it wrong but the next two levels of review and endorsement are up the spout).

Sadly, I do not have faith in middle managment in most organisations to weed out flawed short-term propositions. In pre and post privatised entities my experience is the short-termism and own-department centric natures are worse.
BA is a case in point where long-term focus, on the customer, comes cross as sketchy to say the least. With the new guy at the helm I was rather hoping for a rapid improvements.

henkybaby

(PUTI) I am still with HIDDY as far as the rationale for this move is concerned and I still don't think it affects us much. I still think that our irritation is caused by the way it is communicated.

Without getting into details I know where the communication originated and I also know that this topic on FT gave them a lot to think about. Maybe they will not 'correct' this communication fallacy but I am pretty sure that future communications will take into account the commotion this has caused.

I still believe that WW-HIDDY and some other posters are the voice of reason but you can't disarm an emotional reaction with rational arguments. I hope BAEC takes into account that the incorrect communication of a relatively minor change caused a disproportionate reaction.

GUWonder

Some chunk of AA customers who only earn AA Gold (OW Ruby) or AA Platinum (OW Sapphire) status could "euro-cheat" and get BA Gold (OW Emerald status) very easily relative to getting the equivalent OW Emerald status with AA. I guess doing that to get Open Doors access is pointless at this point, but otherwise this won't change a thing for those interested in such course.

If AA and BA were required to treat the other airline's OW elites no worse than its own elites of the same OW elite level, then would that mean BA would have had to provide Open Doors access to AA Executive Platinums (OW Emeralds)? I am not sure there is anything to suggest that this may be the reason for the change in BA policies for BA Golds, but it did seem like something to think about.

hfly

henky, who is this "us" you refer to? If you read through the last 700 or so posts ypou would see that this is a valuable perk for many, and not coincidentally the many that could VERY easily fly other carriers and drop BAEC all together. Some are emotional for sure, something they value is being taken away and for BA's own good people are trying to help BA help itself.

Regarding the wisdom of other posters and "voices of reason" I dunno, when they assert 20 things, 6 meaningless, six obvious, 6 reasonable and 2 off the wall, how can one make such an easy judge? For me the only voice of reason that I see is that BA drops OD at LGW and cancels the announcement everywhere else.

henkybaby

us=the GCH in general

and I don not get that the lat 700 posts indicate that the actual removal of the benefit itself is the problem since most people seem to indicate not really using it. It is the way BA communicated it that rubs people the wrong way. But maybe people who really feel that this impacts them can prove me wrong...

GUWonder

That is true for lots of retail environments, including airport retail environments. Yet of people I know to have done contracts for airlines/ groups of airlines and/or for airports/airport owners/operators, none has even hinted at a dedicated airline lounge involving such a sales-based or "per visitor" type of charge arrangement being entered into by the airline with an airport owner/operator (or commercial space manager/"reseller"/whatnot) for an airline-dedicated lounge.

GUWonder

I don't mind the communication as much as I mind the loss of the benefit I have used often enough to value it.

With regard to the communication from BA, I can see how BA could try to claim its communication was not built upon a lie and can accept that its claim has some reasonable basis. [I made an earlier post about that.]

henkybaby

I believe you are the exception (based on the past 700 posts and the fact that this a very biased sample)