SpurMan

It's not that exciting. It discusses 4 instances of crisis management in relation to incidents involving BA: BA38, T5 opening, the cabin crew strike and the Volcano going off in Iceland. It's only a short paper so does not give any deep insights into BA's crisis management protocols and procedures.

The authors discuss the impact of the actions taken by BA, from staff, to use of social media, to websites and the like, and how it affects their Brand Image and Buzzfeed ratings, and what was most likely to affect brand rating.

In essence: BA38 was handled well, concentrating on the skill of the crew, T5 was badly handled as there was no info and when there was it was slow, and then they tried blaming BAA before Willie Walsh stepped in and talked about corrective action, Crew strike was handled relatively well, concentrating on still running the service when crew were on strike, though it did have a detrimental affect on brand perception, and finally the Volcano, which was handled a bit slowly but didn't have any real impact as so many airlines were affected.

All in all not the most thrilling of papers I have ever read, but quite an interesting brief overview of 4 quite different crises and BA's reaction to them, for better or worse.

henkybaby

Thanks for the feedback. ^

Sounds like one of those keen-sense-of-the-blatantly-obvious publications then.

Tobias-UK

Of course it was, it makes the statement more credible

Global321

Yes, no one else in the Star Alliance never corrected it. We will agree to disagree.

um, ok. Thank you.

I guess that is where we leave it... down to a critique on colors and italics, with all of us waiting for more research before changing our POV.

henkybaby

No, it is a critique of your 'factual claims' without proof. Like uni, you can't quote without references. Everyone except you has provided some kind of research....

Global321

I am disappointed in you henkybaby. You are better than this.

I have admitted when I could not find an external reference, instead citing your often claimed mantra of best practices/common sense/experts while admitting without documentation it is the same as what you profess. (Very few people on FT actually admit when they cannot back something up with a relevant piece of evidence. I pride myself on that. How about you?) While you have provided a reference here or there, I did not find them relevant to our discussion, but, at least you tried.

I have provided plenty of links or easily searchable terms. You simply stating that they are not specific enough only means they are not specific enough for you. It does not mean they are not accurate or relevant. But, you are entitled to your opinion.

henkybaby

I cannot prove a negative.

All I can say is that none of the 'guidelines' issued advise to paint over the logo. Empirically I can only conclude that it is definitely not the SOP.

Not really...

Global321

Correct. Exactly. You got it.

henkybaby

Goodbye...

Global321

Cheers!

Prospero

Thank you. Here's another image taken approx 2 weeks earlier with titles clearly displayed...


http://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-777_G-YMMM_british-airways_71670.html

Global321

I don't know about clearly as it is behind a fence and obscured from even this photo, but, I will grant you that they did not attempt to paint over it.

And I will also conceed BA handles things there own way.

JAXBA

KSNV News3LV filed this 'no-real-news-to-report-yet' story about G-VIIO last night:

http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/...XAZ7CrKxA.cspx

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSNV News3LV

Currently the plane is not airworthy because it is missing several key components, including one of its engines, which is a central part of the investigation.

The owner will eventually have another issue to contend with as well: Where the plane currently sits at McCarran is not a maintenance area.

There are environmental regulations that would prevent any work from being done to the aircraft in its current spot. That means the plane would either have to be towed to another area, or dismantled altogether and trucked to a different location.

Apparently the decision on whether to write off or not has not been made yet. The article suggests that writing off would be more expensive than repairing. No indication on whether the value of salvageable avionics and parts is taken into account though.

1010101

Another factor - this will be the second 777 write off. Insurance costs will surely take a big hike if they scrap it.

henkybaby

But the question remains : who's insurance ?