Sep 29, 2013, 4:07 am
Last edit by: 710 77345
A Food Safety Inspector from the London Borough of Hillingdon has inspected the food preparation areas of the Concorde Room and Galleries First Lounge at Heathrow Terminal 5 (run by BaxterStorey on behalf of British Airways) and has indicated under the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme that Food Hygiene and Safety is POOR:
It's an appalling score, putting the lounge in the bottom 10% of food establishments in England (worse than many burger vans and kebab shops!).
A 5/5 score was awarded in the past year to BA's T3 and (unspecified) Galleries T5 lounges (whilst under Compass' control prior to handover to BaxterStorey). Galleries Club Lounges in Terminal 5 A were reassessed in September 2013 and scored 4 (North Lounge) and 2 (South Lounge) - both are discussed here. Aer Lingus, Cathay, AA, Virgin and other airside lounges all scored 5/5. Gordon Ramsay's Plane Food received a 2/5 rating (food being cooked in a different way to the manual, burgers being kept warm rather than hot, a broken fridge and washing hands in a "utensil only" sink).
5 days after the score was first revealed on Flyertalk, BaxterStorey posted a statement just prior to a story being published in the Daily Mail (which was sourced from this thread!). A spokesperson for British Airways said "We work with BaxterStorey to provide a high quality service to customers using our lounges, and take all feedback seriously. We continue to invest in our product and are currently renovating our kitchen facilities.”
The Council's Report was obtained by Fife, published in .pdf here. The reasons for the poor score were not just the kitchen facilities, but included the following areas for immediate rectification:
Out of Date Ingredients: eggs and quince beyond their safe use-by date were being served to passengers.
Meat Stored at Room Temperature: ham sandwiches and cooked ham left at 16°C/61°F. The maximum safe temperature is 8°C/46°F
Hot Food Not Hot Enough: sausages and scrambled eggs left at 50°C/122°F. The minimum safe temperature is 63°C/145°F
Dirty Kitchen: 7 separate areas were found to be so dirty they needed an immediate thorough cleaning.
Cross Contamination of Food: a member of staff handled raw salmon, then immediately performed other kitchen duties without removing their gloves, or washing their hands, risking cross-contamination.
Risk of Access by Rats, Mice and Insects: a long gap in a kitchen back door required immediate filling to minimise pest entry points.
In addition, BaxterStorey were given until the end of September to accurately record the training given to their staff - Compass did not pass on their training records to BaxterStorey, and as BS had no record of training performed since it took over, BS was unable to hand any record of compliance with training standards to the inspector.
It's an appalling score, putting the lounge in the bottom 10% of food establishments in England (worse than many burger vans and kebab shops!).
A 5/5 score was awarded in the past year to BA's T3 and (unspecified) Galleries T5 lounges (whilst under Compass' control prior to handover to BaxterStorey). Galleries Club Lounges in Terminal 5 A were reassessed in September 2013 and scored 4 (North Lounge) and 2 (South Lounge) - both are discussed here. Aer Lingus, Cathay, AA, Virgin and other airside lounges all scored 5/5. Gordon Ramsay's Plane Food received a 2/5 rating (food being cooked in a different way to the manual, burgers being kept warm rather than hot, a broken fridge and washing hands in a "utensil only" sink).
5 days after the score was first revealed on Flyertalk, BaxterStorey posted a statement just prior to a story being published in the Daily Mail (which was sourced from this thread!). A spokesperson for British Airways said "We work with BaxterStorey to provide a high quality service to customers using our lounges, and take all feedback seriously. We continue to invest in our product and are currently renovating our kitchen facilities.”
The Council's Report was obtained by Fife, published in .pdf here. The reasons for the poor score were not just the kitchen facilities, but included the following areas for immediate rectification:
Out of Date Ingredients: eggs and quince beyond their safe use-by date were being served to passengers. Meat Stored at Room Temperature: ham sandwiches and cooked ham left at 16°C/61°F. The maximum safe temperature is 8°C/46°F Hot Food Not Hot Enough: sausages and scrambled eggs left at 50°C/122°F. The minimum safe temperature is 63°C/145°F Dirty Kitchen: 7 separate areas were found to be so dirty they needed an immediate thorough cleaning. Cross Contamination of Food: a member of staff handled raw salmon, then immediately performed other kitchen duties without removing their gloves, or washing their hands, risking cross-contamination. Risk of Access by Rats, Mice and Insects: a long gap in a kitchen back door required immediate filling to minimise pest entry points.
Response from BaxterStorey [lounge food hygiene "poor" rating]
Sep 26, 2013, 7:25 am
#91
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 2,741
as mentioned before, it is great pity that posters here don't check their facts first.
In my second trip through the CCR this week, I can confirm that chatting to the BS manager (again) both approach to service in the kitchen and hardware in the kitchen have undergonechange since the assessment, which makes much of the commentarty on here just the usual second or third hand under informed, rear view mirror armchair expert pivoting. Fact.
In my second trip through the CCR this week, I can confirm that chatting to the BS manager (again) both approach to service in the kitchen and hardware in the kitchen have undergonechange since the assessment, which makes much of the commentarty on here just the usual second or third hand under informed, rear view mirror armchair expert pivoting. Fact.
But regardless of status, as a user of the lounges, I feel entitled to give my opinion, based on the facts that are available to me....
Sep 26, 2013, 7:26 am
#92
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: EDI
Posts: 792
And here is the food inspection report:
www.joe.org.uk/ba.pdf
www.joe.org.uk/ba.pdf
Sep 26, 2013, 7:37 am
#93
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 11,570
I find it odd the letter from Hillingdon is dated 29th July (the inspection was clearly carried out in the morning so likely it was typed when he got back to the office) but BS say they got it on 3rd September. A family friend runs a F&B business I am almost sure they received their rating/report within a week or so.
BS also say they got the report the same time it went on the FSA website. I find that hard to believe, given the letter says it will take 2-4 weeks from the date of their letter, which is 29th July. We can conclude that BS are BSing with regards to how long they have had to deal with it. I find it bizarre actually that they say they got it on 3rd September!
BS also say they got the report the same time it went on the FSA website. I find that hard to believe, given the letter says it will take 2-4 weeks from the date of their letter, which is 29th July. We can conclude that BS are BSing with regards to how long they have had to deal with it. I find it bizarre actually that they say they got it on 3rd September!
Sep 26, 2013, 7:48 am
#94
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,192
I find it odd the letter from Hillingdon is dated 29th July (the inspection was clearly carried out in the morning so likely it was typed when he got back to the office) but BS say they got it on 3rd September. A family friend runs a F&B business I am almost sure they received their rating/report within a week or so.
BS also say they got the report the same time it went on the FSA website. I find that hard to believe, given the letter says it will take 2-4 weeks from the date of their letter, which is 29th July. We can conclude that BS are BSing with regards to how long they have had to deal with it. I find it bizarre actually that they say they got it on 3rd September!
BS also say they got the report the same time it went on the FSA website. I find that hard to believe, given the letter says it will take 2-4 weeks from the date of their letter, which is 29th July. We can conclude that BS are BSing with regards to how long they have had to deal with it. I find it bizarre actually that they say they got it on 3rd September!
And as much of the remedial actions are 'immediate' it would not make sense for that to be held back until a written report was submitted.
Sep 26, 2013, 7:48 am
#95
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
Sep 26, 2013, 7:50 am
#96
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold, LH Sen, MUCCI, Junior Jet Club.
Posts: 8,099
Some of the comments on the DM article are hilarious!
Sep 26, 2013, 7:51 am
#97
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
If this is the real report then it is terrible reading. Out of date food, hot food kept too cool, cool food kept too hot, cross food contamination, no hand washing ....
I hope we see this on the FOI site just to reassure it is the real report.
Not doubting ... just cautious....
I hope we see this on the FOI site just to reassure it is the real report.
Not doubting ... just cautious....
Sep 26, 2013, 7:54 am
#98
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,866
as mentioned before, it is great pity that posters here don't check their facts first.
In my second trip through the CCR this week, I can confirm that chatting to the BS manager (again) both approach to service in the kitchen and hardware in the kitchen have undergonechange since the assessment, which makes much of the commentarty on here just the usual second or third hand under informed, rear view mirror armchair expert pivoting. Fact.
In my second trip through the CCR this week, I can confirm that chatting to the BS manager (again) both approach to service in the kitchen and hardware in the kitchen have undergonechange since the assessment, which makes much of the commentarty on here just the usual second or third hand under informed, rear view mirror armchair expert pivoting. Fact.
So checking my facts I found the following:
An anonymous poster to an Internet forum purports to have had a confidential conversation with an unnamed employee of Baxter Storey. That is a fact. Just to be clear, the posting and the purporting are definitely factual. The rest cannot be concluded to be facts.
Said employee purportedly said "approach" to service and "hardware" had changed. Excellent! Cannot deduce any facts from this purported exchange other than if it did happen said employee didn't really understand that the issue was relating to hygiene. However, given the anonymity, lack of independently verifiable evidence etc, I cannot be termed as factual.
One other fact that can be substantiated is that there was an independent assessment of the food preparation which found it to be hygienically deficient. Or as you'd say yourself - Fact!
Sep 26, 2013, 7:59 am
#99
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: EDI
Posts: 792
If this is the real report then it is terrible reading. Out of date food, hot food kept too cool, cool food kept too hot, cross food contamination, no hand washing ....
I hope we see this on the FOI site just to reassure it is the real report.
Not doubting ... just cautious....
I hope we see this on the FOI site just to reassure it is the real report.
Not doubting ... just cautious....
[Name redacted]
Principal Environmental Health Officer
Port Health
Public Protection
Residents' Services
London Borough of Hillingdon
Her telephone number is 01895 277411
Sep 26, 2013, 8:01 am
#100
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
In my second trip through the CCR this week, I can confirm that chatting to the BS manager (again) both approach to service in the kitchen and hardware in the kitchen have undergonechange since the assessment, which makes much of the commentarty on here just the usual second or third hand under informed, rear view mirror armchair expert pivoting. Fact.
Sep 26, 2013, 8:05 am
#101
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Entirely reasonable. I got this early by asking very nicely. If you want to verify the report, it was obtained from:
[Name redacted]
Principal Environmental Health Officer
Port Health
Public Protection
Residents' Services
London Borough of Hillingdon
Her telephone number is 01895 277411
[Name redacted]
Principal Environmental Health Officer
Port Health
Public Protection
Residents' Services
London Borough of Hillingdon
Her telephone number is 01895 277411
It is a truly terrible report that is totally mistifying. How on earth do they have "old eggs"? Are they buying them cheap? Do they not know you have to keep ham refrigerated for it to be safe? Do they not know that warm food creates dangerous bugs if not properly heated? And fancy not washing your dirty hands in front of a food inspector doing an inspection.
This is a terrible report and shows that management BA or BS couldn't be bothered to even have a look.
Sep 26, 2013, 8:05 am
#102
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,866
And here is the food inspection report:
www.joe.org.uk/ba.pdf
www.joe.org.uk/ba.pdf
Nothing to do with compass.
Nothing to do with hardware.
Nothing to do with change of contract.
Just rotten food preparation practices, rotten dirt, cross contamination, food left out, food not kept hot, out of date food etc etc etc.
Ah but I know someone who talked to the man who said they were getting a new microwave and that sorted it all out.....
Sep 26, 2013, 8:12 am
#103
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: EDI
Programs: BD*G -> BA Gold + A3*G (now dropped to BA Silver)
Posts: 1,083
How can confidence in management be rated high in the report?
Good management would have ensured all stock was in date.
Good management would ensure that staff were aware of food handling practices (one person there was preparing raw salmon with gloves on and didn't change their gloves to perform other duties).
Good management ensures the food is stored at the correct temperature.
Good management ensures that the equipment is kept clean.
The only issues in the report you could blame the kitchen itself on are items 4 (kitchen wall surfaces) and 7 (pest control).
After reading that report I'm surprised they didn't get a 1. There's no way I'd be confident in that management.
Looks like the testing was conducted entirely during breakfast time which is a shame as that's my favourite meal in the lounge.
Good management would have ensured all stock was in date.
Good management would ensure that staff were aware of food handling practices (one person there was preparing raw salmon with gloves on and didn't change their gloves to perform other duties).
Good management ensures the food is stored at the correct temperature.
Good management ensures that the equipment is kept clean.
The only issues in the report you could blame the kitchen itself on are items 4 (kitchen wall surfaces) and 7 (pest control).
After reading that report I'm surprised they didn't get a 1. There's no way I'd be confident in that management.
Looks like the testing was conducted entirely during breakfast time which is a shame as that's my favourite meal in the lounge.
Sep 26, 2013, 8:17 am
#105
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: EDI
Programs: BD*G -> BA Gold + A3*G (now dropped to BA Silver)
Posts: 1,083
Compass are mentioned, but its only a small part. They kept the staff training records.
So that meant BaxterStorey didn't know what training the staff already had! Whether that's Compass deliberately withholding the info or BaxterStorey not asking for it we don't know.
One thing is for certain, if there was no evidence of training BS should have put them on refresher courses. I say it again, confidence in management also needed a poor rating. This further proves it.
So that meant BaxterStorey didn't know what training the staff already had! Whether that's Compass deliberately withholding the info or BaxterStorey not asking for it we don't know.
One thing is for certain, if there was no evidence of training BS should have put them on refresher courses. I say it again, confidence in management also needed a poor rating. This further proves it.