angry_flyer

I recently flown with BA from London, it was a 5 hours flight. When people book and pay high price for such a company, they expect an adequate service.

Now I'm not going to complain about the permanent 30 +/- minutes departure delays that is usually caused by cargo handling and and by sending cabin luggage into hold luggage compartments in the lower deck as no space left, as many idiots bring their entire home with them into the cabin. and I'm not going to talk about circling London for about 20 minutes when landing in Heathrow as it is always busy.

I'm actually going to talk about airport handling. So you expect that such a company, to use Jet bridges, and to not to park in a remote location and use buses.

I fly over 50 times a year, with many airliners including low cost ones. On multiple occasions, BA parked in a remote location and bused the passengers to the airport. A Wizzair experience for the price of British Airways.

The last time they did this, I knew that the same aircraft is going to be parked for 10 hours, so that happened because the pilot apparently didn't want to dock with jet bridge and then drive the aircraft back to the parking. being lazy? or saving some money?

Why on earth they portray themselves as top class airliner when they sometimes worst than Wizzair?

I honestly can't complain about Wizzair and Easyjet, passengers get exactly what pay for, but when it comes to BA, I feel scammed. I never had a problem with low cost companies. But whenever I fly with BA I become angry!

Is there any reason why to fly with BA?

adrianjc32

The vast majority of BA services are on jet bridges. Sometimes over night parking plans necessitate the aircraft being placed off stand to allow various things to take place overnight and also to allow the set up for the aircraft needed on stand to depart first thing in the morning.

It's frustrating, but not just about cost saving. And sadly unless more terminal space is built (whizz simply won't happen in the short term) there really aren't any alternatives.

atmorris

Most major Airlines are the same at there home bases of remote stand parking for LH and SH Flights, so this issue is not unique to London Heathrow or to BA.

missdimeaner

I don't think it's a case of being lazy, the pilots don't choose where they park the aircraft.
As stated up thread it's more to do with space constraints at LHR, I can't think of a time I have jumped for joy with the thought of leaving from gate A10, but I have also had SH flights that have been bussed to the terminal where the trip to passport control has been considerably shorter - and been one of four passengers on the CE bus.

Fitch

I see what you did there

Hoch

Aside from a delay due to hand luggage having to go in the hold, I think this is an example of not being BA's fault but either LHR or its operators. Having to circle or go into a stack is not within BA's control but a product of a busy LHR. Similarily and as already noted, bussing has more to do with capacity constraints at LHR T5 than BA trying to save money.

Unfortunately, these are annoying occurrences and will continue until there is an expansion (whenever that will be).

H

Johnnieboy

I like the thought of pilots just parking up wherever they like, "here'll do" :-)

Virazuno

Whilst there are some frustrating consequences of IAGs seemingly limitless cost-trimming strategy, I do think this rant is a tad unfair to the airline.

lorcancoyle

I always thought the holding patterns at LHR were so they could be on the look out for a space freeing up - first officer peering through some binoculars etc

I do wonder what KPIs are in BA's contracts with airports and ground handling firms for these sorts of things. Stumbled across a Ryanair ground handling agreement a while back and they had various things specified in detail (though certain parts were redacted)

stevehh

I agree that "bus jobs" are tedious and annoying. But this an airport issue - not an airline issue. So the OP blames BA unfairly.

BillyBleach

Thats the worst rant I've read on here. Are you the low-cost equivalent of a ranter?

rareair

I'd love to read the agreement to see just how much MOL got away with when FR was at its nastiest!
At some bucket and spade outstations it might have been possible to pay FR for the right to handle for them, and still be very profitable from a cut of boarding pass printing and excess luggage fees. Think of it as buying a Dick Turpin franchise!

AndyFlyer

Just thinking about recent experiences of being coached: Qatar 787 at their new DOH airport (not a pretty inbound experience, although the 'premium' bus was at least air conditioned), Thai at Suvarnabhumi (a 747) on arrival, Emirates at Dubai (departure, where we thought we were being ferried to Abu Dhabi it seemed to take so long), SAA at Capetown when there were 'free' gates...so it does happen around the world. Airports just seem more and more congested these days.

BA Humbug

You had my sympathy with this sentence in your rant, then immediately lost it with everything else after.

BA isn't the only legacy airline frequently at home base remote stands -- take Lufthansa for instance. I would say ~70% of the time I fly with them through FRA, I end up on a remote stand. As others have said, capacity issues at an airport are not in an airline's control.

However, that being said, it brings me to why I support your quoted sentence (and nothing else in that rant). LH provides tarmac service for its most frequent HON flyers and F passengers, so yes, I agree that services could be implemented within BA's control to lessen the hassle for its top customers. However, I suspect that it is more than wishful thinking on my part

DYKWIA

He doesn't seem to like El Al either...