Buy on board: Implemented on BA short haul - opinions on the concept
Jan 30, 17, 2:37 pm - Wikipost
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dec 11, 17, 3:28 am
#3751
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: Executive Club: Gold - Flying Blue: Gold
Posts: 970
Originally Posted by Southlondonbonviveur
It shows a service orientated Captain showing outstanding spirit despite working for an employer/company that seems to have forgotten about customers.
Dec 11, 17, 3:32 am
#3752
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Switzerland
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton Honors Diamond, Nordic Choice Hotels Silver, Avis Preferred Plus
Posts: 4,934
Originally Posted by orbitmic
I must say that I agree with BA6948 on that one. Whilst what you suggest would probably end up solving the situation, I do not think that passengers should really be put to the further aggravation/wasted time of paying and reclaiming the price of their drink. BA should have a proper procedure in place to offer all passengers the required refreshments in cases of extended delays without passengers needing to know what to do. It would be basic common sense and organisation for an airline to plan that and indeed most do. In fact, I believe that BA used to have proper procedures in place before BoB, but somehow, nobody bothered to replace/adapt them after BoB was introduced and that is simply not acceptable. Similarly, whilst such delays occur on the ground, one could always buy their own food or drink at the airport and seek reimbursement, but any decently organised EU airline, even the FR's and VY's of this world has procedures in place to give customers vouchers at airport so that passengers needn't go through such hassle. Onboard should be even easier and I know that U2 and any EU legacy carrier on which I have experienced such issues know what to do.
So yes, in the current context, passengers could/should do what you suggest to not suffer further and by the way, they should complain to BA in no uncertain words that they had to do that in the first place, but in my view it is a significant and unacceptable service failure on BA's part not to have planned for such events which are, after all, hardly unusual (major weather disruption or mechanicals or strikes with pax on the plane, etc)
So yes, in the current context, passengers could/should do what you suggest to not suffer further and by the way, they should complain to BA in no uncertain words that they had to do that in the first place, but in my view it is a significant and unacceptable service failure on BA's part not to have planned for such events which are, after all, hardly unusual (major weather disruption or mechanicals or strikes with pax on the plane, etc)
Dec 11, 17, 5:34 am
#3753
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: BAEC Gold, EK Skywards (enhanced Blue !), Oman Air Sindbad Gold
Posts: 5,681
So there were two main options here, in terms of contingency arrangements :
A. Put in place a dedicated action plan (as outlined by orbitmic).
The key objective being to ensure that by one means or another, every affected passenger is at least offered the basics (a hot drink and some food), at no cost, and as promptly as possible.
B. Do nothing different at all.
Just send the BoB trolley (with whatever level of supplies it happens to have) trundling down the aircraft ; charge for all items as normal, telling aggrieved passengers that in these circumstances they can claim back the expenditure.
Plan A is wholly customer-focussed, and would help significantly to alleviate ongoing discomfort and anxiety.
Plan B - whilst not remotely customer-focussed - makes life a lot easier for BA because it involves nothing in the way of additional resource, planning, or effort.
And as regards B, there is also the potential financial benefit to BA that many passengers will not actually bother to make retrospective claims for reimbursement. Those who do might even have their claims initially questioned/denied on spurious grounds (“we suggest you claim from your travel insurers”), in the hope that they will go away/give up.
After the fallout from the infamous IT debacle in which the airline hardly covered itself in glory, one might think that BA’s senior management would be especially keen to rebuild trust & credibility, by giving every impression that the welfare of their customers is a top priority. Not so, it would seem.
Dec 11, 17, 5:52 am
#3754
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,561
The biggest issue with the IT meltdown was NOT the actual IT meltdown itself, not even the cheap overseas outsourcing. The biggest issues were the following:
1) There were dozens of flights ready to go, passengers through security, etc. The problem was that there were few managers senior enough to have any experience in dealing with such an issue as BA had gotten rid of most of them. Even bringing in those off duty was NOT enough. In other words, BA has little to no contingency in place and basically hopes that there will never be IRROPS.
2) Even when these managers were brought in, there were barely any stocks of alternative arrangements, such as boarding cards and stickers, something STANDARD at all outstations, because some idiot had decided not renew any orders for them repeatedly for years as "they were no longer needed" in today's high tech world. Having spent the requisite 10 or 20k over the previous 5 years would have not negated the problem, but could have reduced it significantly.
Now looking at this disaster, it is not the first time that it has snowed in London, it is not the first time that there has been a need for de-icing, or secondary de-icing. This in itself is not a disaster and weather can happen at any airport and to any airline. The difference is that of course BA with its BoB never actually planned on what they would do for pax that were severely delayed, even if it puts BA in a situation where they are actually breaking regulations. I find it ironic that Sr. Cruz, just days after his asinine comments about "very short haul" flights is now in a position where yesterday's IST pax are possibly STILL in transit to LHR, a dozen hours later, after being delayed, then circling London forever, then landing in Liverpool, and I would hope somehow now in London, yet they probably were not given a cup of water until they deplaned in Liverpool......maybe. There is not even a debate here about drinking the disgusting tank water or not. There simply would not be enough.
You know it is things like dealing with weather and Irrops that is supposed to make people trust airlines like BA. Otherwise they really are Easyjet and Ryanair.
1) There were dozens of flights ready to go, passengers through security, etc. The problem was that there were few managers senior enough to have any experience in dealing with such an issue as BA had gotten rid of most of them. Even bringing in those off duty was NOT enough. In other words, BA has little to no contingency in place and basically hopes that there will never be IRROPS.
2) Even when these managers were brought in, there were barely any stocks of alternative arrangements, such as boarding cards and stickers, something STANDARD at all outstations, because some idiot had decided not renew any orders for them repeatedly for years as "they were no longer needed" in today's high tech world. Having spent the requisite 10 or 20k over the previous 5 years would have not negated the problem, but could have reduced it significantly.
Now looking at this disaster, it is not the first time that it has snowed in London, it is not the first time that there has been a need for de-icing, or secondary de-icing. This in itself is not a disaster and weather can happen at any airport and to any airline. The difference is that of course BA with its BoB never actually planned on what they would do for pax that were severely delayed, even if it puts BA in a situation where they are actually breaking regulations. I find it ironic that Sr. Cruz, just days after his asinine comments about "very short haul" flights is now in a position where yesterday's IST pax are possibly STILL in transit to LHR, a dozen hours later, after being delayed, then circling London forever, then landing in Liverpool, and I would hope somehow now in London, yet they probably were not given a cup of water until they deplaned in Liverpool......maybe. There is not even a debate here about drinking the disgusting tank water or not. There simply would not be enough.
You know it is things like dealing with weather and Irrops that is supposed to make people trust airlines like BA. Otherwise they really are Easyjet and Ryanair.
Dec 11, 17, 6:08 am
#3755
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kennington
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,803
Originally Posted by hfly
I find it ironic that Sr. Cruz, just days after his asinine comments about "very short haul" flights is now in a position where yesterday's IST pax are possibly STILL in transit to LHR, a dozen hours later, after being delayed, then circling London forever, then landing in Liverpool, and I would hope somehow now in London, yet they probably were not given a cup of water until they deplaned in Liverpool......maybe. There is not even a debate here about drinking the disgusting tank water or not. There simply would not be enough.
Does anyone senior at BA have any idea what it is like to be trapped on a packed aircraft for four hours, not moving and with almost no information from the flight deck, with no food and water? Do they even care? No doubt they are pleased that they can blame this fiasco on the weather, and be off the hook for EC261, even though other airlines appear to have mostly got their passengers to where they wanted to be.
Dec 11, 17, 6:33 am
#3756
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,477
Originally Posted by BA6948
I think passengers should get food and drinks for free in the plane. They are already frustrated and tired. What's the point of making them pay to reimburse them later. BA have lost their mind.
Dec 11, 17, 6:37 am
#3757
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,477
Originally Posted by subject2load
So there were two main options here, in terms of contingency arrangements :
A. Put in place a dedicated action plan (as outlined by orbitmic).
The key objective being to ensure that by one means or another, every affected passenger is at least offered the basics (a hot drink and some food), at no cost, and as promptly as possible.
B. Do nothing different at all.
Just send the BoB trolley (with whatever level of supplies it happens to have) trundling down the aircraft ; charge for all items as normal, telling aggrieved passengers that in these circumstances they can claim back the expenditure.
Plan A is wholly customer-focussed, and would help significantly to alleviate ongoing discomfort and anxiety.
Plan B - whilst not remotely customer-focussed - makes life a lot easier for BA because it involves nothing in the way of additional resource, planning, or effort.
And as regards B, there is also the potential financial benefit to BA that many passengers will not actually bother to make retrospective claims for reimbursement. Those who do might even have their claims initially questioned/denied on spurious grounds (“we suggest you claim from your travel insurers”), in the hope that they will go away/give up.
After the fallout from the infamous IT debacle in which the airline hardly covered itself in glory, one might think that BA’s senior management would be especially keen to rebuild trust & credibility, by giving every impression that the welfare of their customers is a top priority. Not so, it would seem.
What comes to my mind is that with the current BOB, onboard items for sale are technically belong to another company. BA's crew must be frustrated as they wish they could help but the company policy says otherwise due to the ownership.
BA had shot themselves on the feet. I do hope Mr. Cruz accept the debacle is his doing and resign. Or at least change course on BOB.
Dec 11, 17, 8:01 am
#3758
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: LHR, LGW
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 2,548
I have just read on Business Traveller that Etihad are offering Y passengers on long haul some limited BoB items for purchase in addition to their complimentary offering. I think this is a far better approach to a BoB than BA's offering on short haul.
If they re-continued to offer complimentary snacks and drinks of a limited variety but you had the option to purchase much higher quality or unique items such as a decent champagne or a local craft brewed lager/ale, maybe a decent coffee experience or herbal teas, more substantial food offering etc. BUT you could still order a coke, orange, breakfast tea, heineken, water, crisps, basic snacks all complimentary, this still would generate income for BA but retain the customer/crew interaction.
This would have a better affect for the pax experience in my view. People will always fork out for the luxury niceties in life beyond basic offerings. I mean how much of a dent in the bottom line is it to BA to offer free coke, water or standard PG tips tea?
If they re-continued to offer complimentary snacks and drinks of a limited variety but you had the option to purchase much higher quality or unique items such as a decent champagne or a local craft brewed lager/ale, maybe a decent coffee experience or herbal teas, more substantial food offering etc. BUT you could still order a coke, orange, breakfast tea, heineken, water, crisps, basic snacks all complimentary, this still would generate income for BA but retain the customer/crew interaction.
This would have a better affect for the pax experience in my view. People will always fork out for the luxury niceties in life beyond basic offerings. I mean how much of a dent in the bottom line is it to BA to offer free coke, water or standard PG tips tea?
Nov 7, 18, 1:40 am
#3759
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,986
https://skift.com/2018/11/05/airline...r-drink-carts/
Interesting article on Skift about this (more related to EasyJet), but same principle applies. Interesting that "big data" doesn't already paint the correct picture, a good case being United with the tomato juice.
Interesting article on Skift about this (more related to EasyJet), but same principle applies. Interesting that "big data" doesn't already paint the correct picture, a good case being United with the tomato juice.
Jan 9, 19, 2:53 pm
#3760
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SFO/SJC/OAK
Programs: AA, SPG
Posts: 85
Sharing my recent experience on WAW-LHR-LAX with all segments on BA.
I traveled back home over the holidays with my family, not realizing that even water will NOT be complimentary on WAW-LHR leg.
This was unexpected and shocking. I had a short connection at LHR and first thing I did was run to the cabin crew to ask for a cup of water, because "your previous flight didn't provide any". She commented that this is norm on the flights within Europe and there's lot of discussion about this move.
I understand that BA wants to be competitive with low cost airlines, but if that's the case 1) lower the price of the ticket to match them and 2) be more transparent about the "benefits" of flying with BA before I board the plane.
Thank you.
I traveled back home over the holidays with my family, not realizing that even water will NOT be complimentary on WAW-LHR leg.
This was unexpected and shocking. I had a short connection at LHR and first thing I did was run to the cabin crew to ask for a cup of water, because "your previous flight didn't provide any". She commented that this is norm on the flights within Europe and there's lot of discussion about this move.
I understand that BA wants to be competitive with low cost airlines, but if that's the case 1) lower the price of the ticket to match them and 2) be more transparent about the "benefits" of flying with BA before I board the plane.
Thank you.
Jan 11, 19, 3:03 pm
#3761
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Executive Club Blue
Posts: 461
I wonder if Virgin Atlantic's potentially increased shorthaul clout if the Stobart/FlyBe deal goes through will have any impact? I can't see them wanting to cloud their lounghaul brand by charging for drinks and snacks following rebranding.
Jan 11, 19, 3:25 pm
#3762
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK.
Programs: SQ LPPS, A3 *G, BA Silver aiming for Bronze
Posts: 1,369
Originally Posted by zappomatic
I wonder if Virgin Atlantic's potentially increased shorthaul clout if the Stobart/FlyBe deal goes through will have any impact? I can't see them wanting to cloud their lounghaul brand by charging for drinks and snacks following rebranding.
Jan 11, 19, 3:32 pm
#3763
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Executive Club Blue
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by lhrpete
Didn't they charge for the brief period they operated LHR-EDI/ABZ? It was operated by Aer Lingus IIRC but I never tried it.
Feb 7, 19, 11:47 am
#3764
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 356
According to BA, BoB is very successful. I've mostly had negative experiences and observed crews struggling with the pace of service but the BA press spin is that customers love it.
IAG was recently reported as the most profitable airline group - how about acting accordingly as a top airline and provide complimentary drinks/snacks in Europe and on domestics rather than hiding behind the LCC competition excuse!
IAG was recently reported as the most profitable airline group - how about acting accordingly as a top airline and provide complimentary drinks/snacks in Europe and on domestics rather than hiding behind the LCC competition excuse!
Apr 18, 19, 2:37 pm
#3765
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 356
Advance fare of £250 quoted for a one way Athens to LHR, hand luggage only and BoB. British Budget Airways.
