Is it just me or are BA really starting to suck all of the joy out of flying lately?
Feb 20, 2015, 6:08 am
#121
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Programs: BA LTGold; LH Senator; HHGold; Bonvoy Plat
Posts: 1,370
Once upon a time there was an airline which epitomised everything that was good about its country. It flew from airports all over its land, offering a cheery greeting and unrivalled service to its ever loyal passengers. Each was offered a gourmet meal accompanied by fine wines and after dinner liqueurs, even on UK domestics. The cabins were immaculately clean and the fully-flat J beds were the talk of the aviation industry. No plane ever left the UK late and if there was trouble in foreign lands, the airline sorted it out without a murmur of discontent. Every passenger was happy as sated on haute cuisine and fine wine they drifted off to sleep as the crew read their favourite bedtime story ...
... Sorry, I just woke up. How the memory can play tricks on you! I was just dreaming what BA was like 10 years ago!
I am sorry, I do think this is being looked at with rose-tinted glasses, by many with either short or overly-rosy memories.
I have flown BA regularly since the 80s. BA ten years ago was different to now (and so was BA 15, 20 or 30 years ago) but I wouldn't say everything then was better though.
Who would prefer: The old seats in F, nevermind J? The lounges at LHR? The old IFE systems? Tiny or no operation at LCY? No redemptions on AA TALT? No pre-flight food ordering?
Somethings have stayed the same: extent of route network, punctuality, speed between A - B (excepting loss of Concorde), quality of crew, basic service pattern.
Worse? Cost of redemptions (but be careful where you pitch your comparison as BA have made things more and less costly over the years), contents of amenity kits, items Club Kitchen (or Larder if we are going back that far), quality of booze (wines are noticeably worse) or quality/choice/ availability of food.
It strikes me that if you look at the variables then BA have improved somethings whilst clearly cutting others. It is after all a commercial organisation in an ever-changing environment.
Over the last 20 years we have seen the rise of the LCCs, a massive drop in air travel post 9/11, increased competition from (often subsidised) Gulf carriers, catch up improvements by the NA competition, the banking crisis and less generous corporate travel policies.
What we haven't seen however is a massive increase in real terms prices - indeed quite the reverse - it is cheaper to fly today than it was in the 80s and 90s. That suggests to me that we have a highly competitive environment which is benefitting customers by keeping prices down whilst ensuring the maintenance of a reasonable quality product. Of course it's not the old Super Club product or the catering offering in the late 1940s First, but nor is it the equivalent price and we can reach Australia in less than a week!
As for the service losing its sparkle. For me it hasn't, but I am a frequent leisure flyer.
When I spent 10 years commuting for work, I would have said my daily train service had lost its sparkle. The fact that over that time slam-door trains had gone, airconditioning had arrived, seat comfort was better, there was complementary catering in First and the trains ran on time wouldn't have figured in it, I would still have said the sparkle had gone.
Now was that the train operator's fault or just my perceptions being coloured by thoughts of the tedium of yet another train journey?
... Sorry, I just woke up. How the memory can play tricks on you! I was just dreaming what BA was like 10 years ago!
I am sorry, I do think this is being looked at with rose-tinted glasses, by many with either short or overly-rosy memories.
I have flown BA regularly since the 80s. BA ten years ago was different to now (and so was BA 15, 20 or 30 years ago) but I wouldn't say everything then was better though.
Who would prefer: The old seats in F, nevermind J? The lounges at LHR? The old IFE systems? Tiny or no operation at LCY? No redemptions on AA TALT? No pre-flight food ordering?
Somethings have stayed the same: extent of route network, punctuality, speed between A - B (excepting loss of Concorde), quality of crew, basic service pattern.
Worse? Cost of redemptions (but be careful where you pitch your comparison as BA have made things more and less costly over the years), contents of amenity kits, items Club Kitchen (or Larder if we are going back that far), quality of booze (wines are noticeably worse) or quality/choice/ availability of food.
It strikes me that if you look at the variables then BA have improved somethings whilst clearly cutting others. It is after all a commercial organisation in an ever-changing environment.
Over the last 20 years we have seen the rise of the LCCs, a massive drop in air travel post 9/11, increased competition from (often subsidised) Gulf carriers, catch up improvements by the NA competition, the banking crisis and less generous corporate travel policies.
What we haven't seen however is a massive increase in real terms prices - indeed quite the reverse - it is cheaper to fly today than it was in the 80s and 90s. That suggests to me that we have a highly competitive environment which is benefitting customers by keeping prices down whilst ensuring the maintenance of a reasonable quality product. Of course it's not the old Super Club product or the catering offering in the late 1940s First, but nor is it the equivalent price and we can reach Australia in less than a week!
As for the service losing its sparkle. For me it hasn't, but I am a frequent leisure flyer.
When I spent 10 years commuting for work, I would have said my daily train service had lost its sparkle. The fact that over that time slam-door trains had gone, airconditioning had arrived, seat comfort was better, there was complementary catering in First and the trains ran on time wouldn't have figured in it, I would still have said the sparkle had gone.
Now was that the train operator's fault or just my perceptions being coloured by thoughts of the tedium of yet another train journey?
Feb 20, 2015, 6:30 am
#122
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,212
The airlines you mention along with quite a few others have managed to survive albeit at varying levels of success without offering lie flat seats. It also makes a mockery of the ''race to the bottom' comment BA attracts just because they've yet to introduce an unobstructed access to aisle seat for all in J yet. Let's not forget Virgin were the first or one of the first to offer a lie flat seat and look how they've ended up.
Despite the impression Flyertalkers gives it's not solely the quality of the onboard product that makes an airline successful it's a combination of many things.
Feb 20, 2015, 6:40 am
#123
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 2,741
That said, the onboard product itself comprises the hard and soft product; and the soft product consists of the food, drink, amenities and service elements.
The only thing that has been consistent in CW in recent years is the hard product; everything else has changed (mainly for the worse).
Since people still fly BA CW in large numbers, it must be because the hard product is still good in comparison to the competition. However, as soon as most of the competition goes ahead of BA, I suspect BA may face troubled times.
Feb 20, 2015, 10:35 am
#124
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Programs: QR Silver, BA Silver, FB Gold
Posts: 360
[.....]
I don't expect to be made to feel special nor do I expect a dining experience equivalent to that of a restaurant. Neither do I expect to have the same sleeping experience that I get in any Travelodge bed. Apart from travelling a great distance quickly and safely for not a lot of money compared to other public transport what is it I'm missing?
I don't expect to be made to feel special nor do I expect a dining experience equivalent to that of a restaurant. Neither do I expect to have the same sleeping experience that I get in any Travelodge bed. Apart from travelling a great distance quickly and safely for not a lot of money compared to other public transport what is it I'm missing?
1) Experience a reduction in the soft product experience compared to, say, last year or the year before; while
2) Having to pay BA the same for it (if not more) than I was paying last year or the year before; and more (as like as not -- almost never less) than competing airlines charge; with
3) A FF programme that, for me, used to make up for point 2) above, but is about to be devalued sufficiently that this is unlikely to continue being the case in the future.
Feb 20, 2015, 10:46 am
#125
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,940
It has mentioned on here and on numerous other threads that BA has to make cutbacks to compete with the subsidised Middle East airlines. Is there any hard evidence that they are actually subsidised, as all of them seem to deny it? Is it not possible that they simply have a lower fixed cost base and they run more efficient operations?
Feb 20, 2015, 10:47 am
#126
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
I'll bet that many of the perennial complainers - those who seem to hate every single thing that BA does, yet keep on choosing to fly BA even though they could go elsewhere - stick with BA because they do actually see that BA still provides a better overall package for them.
Feb 20, 2015, 11:04 am
#127
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA, VS, HH, IHG, MB, MR
Posts: 26,871
It has mentioned on here and on numerous other threads that BA has to make cutbacks to compete with the subsidised Middle East airlines. Is there any hard evidence that they are actually subsidised, as all of them seem to deny it? Is it not possible that they simply have a lower fixed cost base and they run more efficient operations?
They benefit from:
Lower cost workforce (as does every business outside the West)
No historic pension liabilities
No fuel guzzling older aircraft
No unionisation
Modern multi runway airports that reduce delays and allow 24/7 working which improves utilisation of assets
And, more importantly
A shift in global power as emerging middle classes come out of India and China and Asia and the centre of gravity moves south, from (historically for aviation) London.
Look at what Ryanair has achieved with no unions, no pension headache and modern aircraft.
Feb 20, 2015, 11:07 am
#128
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
The constitutional set-up in those countries makes it very difficult to work out exactly what is going on. Plus there are questions about characterisation, too.
These difficulties, I think, are illustrated by a couple of points that are often made against the airlines. You'll see how hard it is to work out whether or not there is any subsidy, even if the allegations are true.
1. Commercial airlines like BA / IAG have to borrow at market rates for commercial companies. The rates depend in part on market ratings - the lower-rated the debt, the higher the interest rate. BA / IAG debt is (was?) rated as junk (like many/most other airlines' debt). So the interest rates are relatively high. In contrast, it is said that because the Middle East airlines are part of the State, they are allowed to borrow at the much lower interest rates that sovereign debt pays.
2. Aviation fuel tends to cost less in the Middle East. There are some obvious reasons for this. It's possible that there are some other non-obvious reasons. A Middle East international airline will (very broadly speaking) buy about half of its fuel in the Middle East at these rates, and half of its fuel downroute at (often) higher rates. But an airline like BA will only buy a tiny fraction of its fuel in the Middle East, even if all airlines at Middle East airports are able to buy fuel at the same rates as the Middle East airlines. (The latest statement that I saw about this from Emirates was opaque, though, about whether EK might nevertheless get a bigger discount for quantity when buying in Dubai.)
What's a natural advantage, what's a benefit collaterally derived from government actions and decisions, and what's a subsidy? You can probably see the problems in trying to work it out.
There are other things, too. The basis of crew recruitment and employment, for example: Without legislative change to match the legislative regimes in place in the Middle East, BA couldn't set up a cabin crew operation in London in which it employs the brightest and best from around the entire world, regardless of any pre-existing right to work in the EU, on tax-free salaries. And even if legislation did allow BA to match what the Middle East airlines do on crewing, the unions wouldn't be happy. So again, there are issues of characterisation here.
Feb 20, 2015, 12:07 pm
#130
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,212
Feb 20, 2015, 12:10 pm
#131
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A metal nomad
Programs: Mucci des Delices Exotiques,Order of the Platinum Hairbrush,Her Royal Diamond
Posts: 23,735
OP, yes I agree with your thoughts entirely.
I know FT is an extreme end of the passenger spectrum, but it must be a little concerning to BA that the overall tone of posts seems to have taken such a significant turn for the worse over the last 12-18 months.
Just from a personal perspective I do about 8k TPs a year with BA but only use them when flying west. If I have a choice between them and Emirates its EK every time going south / east. The product is significantly better in F and also significantly cheaper. So BA is not my first choice for about 30-40% of my LH travel. Extrapolate that over a large number of customers and it must start to become a little concerning?
I know FT is an extreme end of the passenger spectrum, but it must be a little concerning to BA that the overall tone of posts seems to have taken such a significant turn for the worse over the last 12-18 months.
Just from a personal perspective I do about 8k TPs a year with BA but only use them when flying west. If I have a choice between them and Emirates its EK every time going south / east. The product is significantly better in F and also significantly cheaper. So BA is not my first choice for about 30-40% of my LH travel. Extrapolate that over a large number of customers and it must start to become a little concerning?
I do love BA, but they are getting less and less of my money.
Feb 20, 2015, 12:22 pm
#132
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A metal nomad
Programs: Mucci des Delices Exotiques,Order of the Platinum Hairbrush,Her Royal Diamond
Posts: 23,735
A bed, a shower and your door to close the outside for privacy. You get that with EK for the same price as BA. Plus a car both ends. And an incredible quiet clean, calm lounge in DXB, with your own immigration. No lines no headaches.
Feb 20, 2015, 12:35 pm
#133
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: BA Gold/Marriott Gold/HH Diamond/IC Plat Amba
Posts: 5,992
You don't have to be. If you're paying your own way, you don't ever have to have anything more to do with BA if you don't want to. And it's only rational to ask yourself from time to time - or even all the time - whether the package you're getting for the money you're paying is good enough to be worth buying, or whether another supplier will give you a better deal.
I'll bet that many of the perennial complainers - those who seem to hate every single thing that BA does, yet keep on choosing to fly BA even though they could go elsewhere - stick with BA because they do actually see that BA still provides a better overall package for them.
I'll bet that many of the perennial complainers - those who seem to hate every single thing that BA does, yet keep on choosing to fly BA even though they could go elsewhere - stick with BA because they do actually see that BA still provides a better overall package for them.
Feb 20, 2015, 12:38 pm
#134
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A metal nomad
Programs: Mucci des Delices Exotiques,Order of the Platinum Hairbrush,Her Royal Diamond
Posts: 23,735
It has mentioned on here and on numerous other threads that BA has to make cutbacks to compete with the subsidised Middle East airlines. Is there any hard evidence that they are actually subsidised, as all of them seem to deny it? Is it not possible that they simply have a lower fixed cost base and they run more efficient operations?
Feb 20, 2015, 12:42 pm
#135
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A metal nomad
Programs: Mucci des Delices Exotiques,Order of the Platinum Hairbrush,Her Royal Diamond
Posts: 23,735
The major US airlines are using all kind of pr (being print etc etc) to spread their propaganda about the ME3. They want public pressure so that the US govt changes the Open Skies regulations.