Why the flight were always late? How come?
Nov 23, 2012, 1:55 am
#16
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: Mucci de la Cuisine Aérienne du Réseau Courte Durée de British Airways
Posts: 4,704
Why the flight were always late, but I am not quite sure. How come? They have be an improvement on-time performance. Helps those passengers to get in the aircraft on-time and save the time. Must reduced the congestion. Because it was too many aircraft are awaited for takeoff from LHR. I knows there is no new third runway and they have to be reduction the congestions. All airlines will have to shifted out of LHR. Because it was too many airlines at LHR. Due to the slots controlled. LHR is an slots restricted.
It's time to start built new third runway for LHR. Must demolished the old house and they have to bring more room for third runway extension. All airlines have to be reduced the congestion. Because LHR Is getting more extremely overcrowded. There is no more slots available. BA have to fixed the congestion and improved on-time performance. I think it's time to built third new runway immediately. They have to save the time. I really am.
It's time to start built new third runway for LHR. Must demolished the old house and they have to bring more room for third runway extension. All airlines have to be reduced the congestion. Because LHR Is getting more extremely overcrowded. There is no more slots available. BA have to fixed the congestion and improved on-time performance. I think it's time to built third new runway immediately. They have to save the time. I really am.
However flights do tend to run on time when the weather is good. If we have high winds or fog, then we do get delays but in general it is quite good.
Hopefully your trip to Basil will be fine but even if there are delays, the BA staff at LHR will look after you and rebook you but hopefully you will sale through with no problems.
Nov 23, 2012, 2:25 am
#17
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: BA GGL, A3*G, Mucci de l'expertise des Apps
Posts: 3,365
BA are always late because operating flights on time (or even operating them at all sometimes), is not in their company ethos.
Every airline has to decide where it's priorities are. Do they want to operate flights on time, or do they want to save money?
Now because there is going to be some delay at LHR, BA have decided for the 2nd option, and in fact to not bother even trying to operate on time even if they could. They just say "oh but we fly to Heathrow and it's the airports fault".
BA fly slower than most of the other big airlines, and if they are late they won't fly any faster as this just uses more fuel, and as mentioned before, money saving out-ranks schedule performance at BA.
At other airlines (operating from the other major hubs of Europe), on-time performance is more important and thus they will spend a little more money on fuel and get there a bit quicker.
The same principles apply at BA with regard to cancelling flights. It's much easier for them to just cancel flights en-mass rather than actually TRY to operate flights sometimes. Money saving is No.1 , passengers are much less important to BA.
Every airline has to decide where it's priorities are. Do they want to operate flights on time, or do they want to save money?
Now because there is going to be some delay at LHR, BA have decided for the 2nd option, and in fact to not bother even trying to operate on time even if they could. They just say "oh but we fly to Heathrow and it's the airports fault".
BA fly slower than most of the other big airlines, and if they are late they won't fly any faster as this just uses more fuel, and as mentioned before, money saving out-ranks schedule performance at BA.
At other airlines (operating from the other major hubs of Europe), on-time performance is more important and thus they will spend a little more money on fuel and get there a bit quicker.
The same principles apply at BA with regard to cancelling flights. It's much easier for them to just cancel flights en-mass rather than actually TRY to operate flights sometimes. Money saving is No.1 , passengers are much less important to BA.
Nov 23, 2012, 2:33 am
#18
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: Mucci de la Cuisine Aérienne du Réseau Courte Durée de British Airways
Posts: 4,704
BA are always late because operating flights on time (or even operating them at all sometimes), is not in their company ethos.
Every airline has to decide where it's priorities are. Do they want to operate flights on time, or do they want to save money?
Now because there is going to be some delay at LHR, BA have decided for the 2nd option, and in fact to not bother even trying to operate on time even if they could. They just say "oh but we fly to Heathrow and it's the airports fault".
BA fly slower than most of the other big airlines, and if they are late they won't fly any faster as this just uses more fuel, and as mentioned before, money saving out-ranks schedule performance at BA.
At other airlines (operating from the other major hubs of Europe), on-time performance is more important and thus they will spend a little more money on fuel and get there a bit quicker.
The same principles apply at BA with regard to cancelling flights. It's much easier for them to just cancel flights en-mass rather than actually TRY to operate flights sometimes. Money saving is No.1 , passengers are much less important to BA.
Every airline has to decide where it's priorities are. Do they want to operate flights on time, or do they want to save money?
Now because there is going to be some delay at LHR, BA have decided for the 2nd option, and in fact to not bother even trying to operate on time even if they could. They just say "oh but we fly to Heathrow and it's the airports fault".
BA fly slower than most of the other big airlines, and if they are late they won't fly any faster as this just uses more fuel, and as mentioned before, money saving out-ranks schedule performance at BA.
At other airlines (operating from the other major hubs of Europe), on-time performance is more important and thus they will spend a little more money on fuel and get there a bit quicker.
The same principles apply at BA with regard to cancelling flights. It's much easier for them to just cancel flights en-mass rather than actually TRY to operate flights sometimes. Money saving is No.1 , passengers are much less important to BA.
Nov 23, 2012, 2:46 am
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
?IMO, I expect an airline to design its timetable around the realistic expectation of when the flight will arrive rather than a theoretical best time which is regularly missed due to, eg, congestion. This makes timetables far more reliable and therefore something that you can reasonably rely on.
Nov 23, 2012, 3:37 am
#21
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Blue
Posts: 193
I think all airlines factor in some holding time at Heathrow into their timetables. Take BA v SAS, flights departing around 17.00 on a Friday evening:
SAS OSL-LHR 2:20 LHR-OSL 2:10
BA OSL-LHR 2:25 LHR-OSL 2:05
Pretty similar times, wouldn't you say? With the times to Heathrow being a little longer than from.
SAS OSL-LHR 2:20 LHR-OSL 2:10
BA OSL-LHR 2:25 LHR-OSL 2:05
Pretty similar times, wouldn't you say? With the times to Heathrow being a little longer than from.
Nov 23, 2012, 3:41 am
#22
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: Mucci de la Cuisine Aérienne du Réseau Courte Durée de British Airways
Posts: 4,704
I think all airlines factor in some holding time at Heathrow into their timetables. Take BA v SAS, flights departing around 17.00 on a Friday evening:
SAS OSL-LHR 2:20 LHR-OSL 2:10
BA OSL-LHR 2:25 LHR-OSL 2:05
Pretty similar times, wouldn't you say? With the times to Heathrow being a little longer than from.
SAS OSL-LHR 2:20 LHR-OSL 2:10
BA OSL-LHR 2:25 LHR-OSL 2:05
Pretty similar times, wouldn't you say? With the times to Heathrow being a little longer than from.
Nov 23, 2012, 3:53 am
#23
Join Date: Aug 2005
Programs: BA Blue
Posts: 33
Every airline has to decide where it's priorities are. Do they want to operate flights on time, or do they want to save money?
...
The same principles apply at BA with regard to cancelling flights. It's much easier for them to just cancel flights en-mass rather than actually TRY to operate flights sometimes. Money saving is No.1 , passengers are much less important to BA.
...
The same principles apply at BA with regard to cancelling flights. It's much easier for them to just cancel flights en-mass rather than actually TRY to operate flights sometimes. Money saving is No.1 , passengers are much less important to BA.
I would have thought it was exactly the opposite.
Nov 23, 2012, 4:02 am
#24
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Salisbury Plain
Programs: BA: Silver,
Posts: 1,197
But late from when? push-back, take-off, landing or at the gate? Or even doors open, or through immigration and baggage...
The times that I have pushed back on time but waited ages for a take-off slot, or taken-off late, but arrived on time... Or the dreaded, land on time but to a remote stand and had to wait for the steps...
I think that BA is pretty good at getting its passengers to their destinations at (or about) the published times.
The times that I have pushed back on time but waited ages for a take-off slot, or taken-off late, but arrived on time... Or the dreaded, land on time but to a remote stand and had to wait for the steps...
I think that BA is pretty good at getting its passengers to their destinations at (or about) the published times.
Nov 23, 2012, 4:18 am
#25
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: BA GGL, A3*G, Mucci de l'expertise des Apps
Posts: 3,365
As for cancelling flights, this is mostly just my frustration at BA failing to get me home for Christmas the last 4 consecutive years when they could have operated flights but simply chose not to. They are of course well known in the industry for simply cancelling an entire days flying programme rather than just specific flights when there is the first sign of a disrupted travel day.
Nov 23, 2012, 4:37 am
#26
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kent, UK
Programs: BA Gold, SPG Platinum, Marriott Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,809
Can you cite some examples of this? I'm quite sure that an entire day's flying programme would amount to easily 500+ flights and disruption of many, many thousands of passengers, not to mention the cost of all of that to the airline. Your conjecture is wonderful, but where is the evidence?
Nov 23, 2012, 4:40 am
#27
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canterbury, UK
Programs: BA Gold, IHG Diamond + Ambassador, Accor Gold, Avis President's Club, Heathrow Rewards
Posts: 2,471
Nov 23, 2012, 5:18 am
#28
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: in a cabin
Posts: 6,521
BA are always late because operating flights on time (or even operating them at all sometimes), is not in their company ethos.
Every airline has to decide where it's priorities are. Do they want to operate flights on time, or do they want to save money?
Now because there is going to be some delay at LHR, BA have decided for the 2nd option, and in fact to not bother even trying to operate on time even if they could. They just say "oh but we fly to Heathrow and it's the airports fault".
BA fly slower than most of the other big airlines, and if they are late they won't fly any faster as this just uses more fuel, and as mentioned before, money saving out-ranks schedule performance at BA.
At other airlines (operating from the other major hubs of Europe), on-time performance is more important and thus they will spend a little more money on fuel and get there a bit quicker.
The same principles apply at BA with regard to cancelling flights. It's much easier for them to just cancel flights en-mass rather than actually TRY to operate flights sometimes. Money saving is No.1 , passengers are much less important to BA.
Every airline has to decide where it's priorities are. Do they want to operate flights on time, or do they want to save money?
Now because there is going to be some delay at LHR, BA have decided for the 2nd option, and in fact to not bother even trying to operate on time even if they could. They just say "oh but we fly to Heathrow and it's the airports fault".
BA fly slower than most of the other big airlines, and if they are late they won't fly any faster as this just uses more fuel, and as mentioned before, money saving out-ranks schedule performance at BA.
At other airlines (operating from the other major hubs of Europe), on-time performance is more important and thus they will spend a little more money on fuel and get there a bit quicker.
The same principles apply at BA with regard to cancelling flights. It's much easier for them to just cancel flights en-mass rather than actually TRY to operate flights sometimes. Money saving is No.1 , passengers are much less important to BA.
Since T5 opened and the 35 minute conformance rule was implemented BA's on time performance has sky rocketed and still is much better than in the past. Suggesting that they would have a policy in place of delaying flights to save money is frankly speaking, rubbish
Nov 23, 2012, 5:52 am
#29
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,208
Apologies again, the cost saving part was specifically with reference to trading fuel efficiency for shorter flying time.
As for cancelling flights, this is mostly just my frustration at BA failing to get me home for Christmas the last 4 consecutive years when they could have operated flights but simply chose not to. They are of course well known in the industry for simply cancelling an entire days flying programme rather than just specific flights when there is the first sign of a disrupted travel day.
As for cancelling flights, this is mostly just my frustration at BA failing to get me home for Christmas the last 4 consecutive years when they could have operated flights but simply chose not to. They are of course well known in the industry for simply cancelling an entire days flying programme rather than just specific flights when there is the first sign of a disrupted travel day.
Nov 23, 2012, 6:28 am
#30
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Munich, Algarve, Sussex or S.F Bay Area
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, A3*Gold, AA Plat, HH Gold, IHG Plat Amb, Marriott Plat
Posts: 4,163
Can you cite some examples of this? I'm quite sure that an entire day's flying programme would amount to easily 500+ flights and disruption of many, many thousands of passengers, not to mention the cost of all of that to the airline. Your conjecture is wonderful, but where is the evidence?
December 19th-22nd 2010 !!
I was stuck connecting from VS (EWR) to MUC. My BA connection was cancelled "due to weather" while Lufthansa was still flying for a further 4 hours. BA was not reachable by phone for 2 days. I ended up booking a Lufthansa flight at my own cost. My claim for reimbursment was met with a paltry "You rebooked voluntarily and therefore relieved us of our duty to fly you to MUC". My claim for hotel expenses was rejected for the same reason. Even my request for refund of the unused portion of the ticket was rejected since EWR-LHR costs more than EWR-MUC.
Was I angry, you bet I was. Did I stop flying BA because of that? No. Just know what you're getting into. My luggage arrived in MUC on January 2nd and I succesfully claimed €800 for that although I needed a lawyer to get it.