Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 27287464)
I've read all the comments here with interest and now we've got to Saturday I thought I'd have a go at putting down my views. I think it's well known I fly a lot of both ET and CE.
The one thing that has struck me, reading many (most?) of the posts is the oh-so-English nitpicking at the precise language deployed by BA to justify this change. It's a complete waste of time: BA had to put over some script on why it is changing, and this "shooting fish in a barrel" response from some FTers gets nowhere. Another script, another barrel shoot, it doesn't change the outcome. It's just taking the debate on BA's terms, no matter how much one is riled or twittered by the particular choice of words. I doubt that *I'm boycotting BA now" will work in isolation, certainly for LGW services but also for LHR, for different reasons. Contrary to some of the commentary here, BA LGW and U2's prices are broadly similar on a route for route comparison and so with the most modest of fare adjustments BA can get the passengers it needs. On longer trips to Spain and Greece the income stream from buy on board will probably be very useful. I'm not (yet) as persuaded about shorter hops. Comparing STN and LTN to LHR fares is a non-starter. The domestic argument is also unpersuasive. Why? Because out of LHR BA has a monopoly, ditto for some LCY routes. Plus with the notable exception of LCY itself, all domestic routes have lounges at both ends. What will make a difference? Only one thing, as far as I can see. There are a number of Europe LHR routes where BA does very well - GVA, AMS, NCE, DUS, FRA, TXL, ARN. High priced ET, decent CE sales, quite a fair bit of longhaul connections, largely corporate. If BA starts to lose ET and connecting customers on these key routes, and/or corporate accounts - and on most of them there have legacy alternatives, albeit not at the same service frequency - then BA will need to think again. However note just how antediluvian Deutsche Lufthansa AG and AF-KLM are for both fare structures and corporate deals compared to a very nimble BA. This point is fairly fundamental. Moreover, we are in this for the long game. I would imagine that BA's leadership team have given themselves 6 to 12 months of rockiness in implementation and will hold the line until that time. It's up to FTers to decide how to handle this, and a purely transactional switch to other airlines is a very reasonable outcome. But in a supply/demand framework your decision model, and indeed opportunity cost, is merely someone else's opportunity. In summary, both BA and its customers will have to adapt to this new reality. Denial isn't going to work. Mostly there are alternatives, and in considering how to adapt it is probably best to think "is my first reaction my best reaction?". That also applies to BA. |
Originally Posted by thegoderic
(Post 27287432)
I have a longhaul flight in F with a domestic connection booked for next year.
As BA will now not fulfil the terms of the original contract, can I cancel without penalties? |
Originally Posted by User Name
(Post 27287561)
But it's still fun to have a bloody good rant, isn't it? :)
At another level... no, so :( At a practical level, there WILL be a change of behaviours. So for example, this year I will renew Gold by doing as little BA as possible and as much as OW as possible. And I will (shock horror) for my SH flights start exploring the LCC's... something I have not done for years! :( |
All other things being equal, how much more would most be willing to pay for a fare that included a free drink and a sandwich, over another carrier that did not?
£5, £10, £15? |
Originally Posted by Cap'n Benj
(Post 27287614)
All other things being equal, how much more would most be willing to pay for a fare that included a free drink and a sandwich, over another carrier that did not?
£5, £10, £15? |
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 27287464)
I've read all the comments here with interest and now we've got to Saturday I thought I'd have a go at putting down my views. I think it's well known I fly a lot of both ET and CE.
The one thing that has struck me, reading many (most?) of the posts is the oh-so-English nitpicking at the precise language deployed by BA to justify this change. It's a complete waste of time: BA had to put over some script on why it is changing, and this "shooting fish in a barrel" response from some FTers gets nowhere. Another script, another barrel shoot, it doesn't change the outcome. It's just taking the debate on BA's terms, no matter how much one is riled or twittered by the particular choice of words. I doubt that *I'm boycotting BA now" will work in isolation, certainly for LGW services but also for LHR, for different reasons. Contrary to some of the commentary here, BA LGW and U2's prices are broadly similar on a route for route comparison and so with the most modest of fare adjustments BA can get the passengers it needs. On longer trips to Spain and Greece the income stream from buy on board will probably be very useful. I'm not (yet) as persuaded about shorter hops. Comparing STN and LTN to LHR fares is a non-starter. The domestic argument is also unpersuasive. Why? Because out of LHR BA has a monopoly, ditto for some LCY routes. Plus with the notable exception of LCY itself, all domestic routes have lounges at both ends. What will make a difference? Only one thing, as far as I can see. There are a number of Europe LHR routes where BA does very well - GVA, AMS, NCE, DUS, FRA, TXL, ARN. High priced ET, decent CE sales, quite a fair bit of longhaul connections, largely corporate. If BA starts to lose ET and connecting customers on these key routes, and/or corporate accounts - and on most of them there have legacy alternatives, albeit not at the same service frequency - then BA will need to think again. However note just how antediluvian Deutsche Lufthansa AG and AF-KLM are for both fare structures and corporate deals compared to a very nimble BA. This point is fairly fundamental. Moreover, we are in this for the long game. I would imagine that BA's leadership team have given themselves 6 to 12 months of rockiness in implementation and will hold the line until that time. It's up to FTers to decide how to handle this, and a purely transactional switch to other airlines is a very reasonable outcome. But in a supply/demand framework your decision model, and indeed opportunity cost, is merely someone else's opportunity. In summary, both BA and its customers will have to adapt to this new reality. Denial isn't going to work. Mostly there are alternatives, and in considering how to adapt it is probably best to think "is my first reaction my best reaction?". That also applies to BA. |
Originally Posted by secretplantofightinflation
(Post 27287629)
A very polite and considered way of saying "like it or lump it" :)
I wonder if they are prepared to and more importantly have calculated they can lose the FT /Ba exec club loyal customer base the bigger picture is a very low cost competitive model ; the frils just dent profits |
Originally Posted by thegoderic
(Post 27287432)
I have a longhaul flight in F with a domestic connection booked for next year.
As BA will now not fulfil the terms of the original contract, can I cancel without penalties?
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 27287594)
No, you can't. Not all breaches of contract would allow you to rescind it. Only those which are sufficiently serious do. This would be too minor.
|
Like many others, most of my travel is paid for J - will certainly be doing the costs myself for future travel to see whether it makes sense to stick with Bloody Awful or whether using a LCC makes more sense all things considered.
|
I used to be a partner of a large organisation that seemed to have no regard for its customer base.
When it wanted to introduce a change that it knew would be unpopular, it would weigh in with the more extreme version initially. There would be the most enormous hue and cry among customers, much of which could be conveniently dimissed by accusations of nitpicking over minor details, or simply because 'customers always do this - it'll settle down'. Some customers would leave but overall the trends never remotely matched the threats of leaving. Some months later, with great fanfare, the thing that had changed would be improved slightly - nowhere near back to its former state but it seemed to make those angry customers very happy. IMHO much happier than they would have been if the milder version had been implemented initially. I saw this happen over and over again. I don't care for this sort of manipulation so I moved on. I'm wondering if we will see complementary tea and coffee introduced in say 6 months... |
Originally Posted by windowontheAside
(Post 27287663)
I used to be a partner of a large organisation that seemed to have no regard for its customer base.
When it wanted to introduce a change that it knew would be unpopular, it would weigh in with the more extreme version initially. There would be the most enormous hue and cry among customers, much of which could be conveniently dimissed by accusations of nitpicking over minor details, or simply because 'customers always do this - it'll settle down'. Some customers would leave but overall the trends never remotely matched the threats of leaving. Some months later, with great fanfare, the thing that had changed would be improved slightly - nowhere near back to its former state but it seemed to make those angry customers very happy. IMHO much happier than they would have been if the milder version had been implemented initially. I saw this happen over and over again. I don't care for this sort of manipulation so I moved on. I'm wondering if we will see complementary tea and coffee introduced in say 6 months... |
Originally Posted by orbitmic
(Post 27287626)
Isn't that a very abstract/not very realistic question? The whole point is that not everything else is equal so in practice the decision that people have to make is far more complex than that and f&b, which in isolation might not have been as big a deal is just part of a litany of coherent negative evolutions that have led to an overall seriously downgraded BA value proposition.
Surely that's what it comes down to. You can still get a Drink and indeed better food, if you're willing to pay that 'premium' In reality people can ..... and moan about the continuous 'negative evolutions' all they like but in reality, it seems to be having a small impact on BA's bottom line and indeed the flying patterns of many even on here, yet alon the real world. This could well be the straw that breaks the camels back for some, if people are still flying BA despite the litany of downgrades, will this one really be pushing them over to another carrier, when that carrier is likely to have a similar policy? I don't think so. Sadly this was inevitable, the majority will suck it up like all the other changes. Personally I like the food aspect, hate the drink aspect. To answer my own question though- the previous offering was probably worth about a fiver to me. Will it stop me flying BA? no. Will I pay a fiver for a drink and bag of crisps on board? On occasion but not everytime |
Originally Posted by flashware
(Post 27287660)
Like many others, most of my travel is paid for J - will certainly be doing the costs myself for future travel to see whether it makes sense to stick with Bloody Awful or whether using a LCC makes more sense all things considered.
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Benj
(Post 27287706)
Was a free G&T and bag of crisps really enough to make you choose BA over a LCC?
It's great for those to mention PP that comes with AMEX Plat for example, but that has a cost attached also - nothing is free. |
It will be interesting to see if BA will go through the same flow as SK. Initially everything is for purchase, as the time passes it gets more and more common to get free coffee and tea as an elite, then eventually coffee and tea is reintroduced as free, and finally two highest levels of elites (Pandion and Diamond on SK) gets some freebies officially. Should take about two to three years to run that cycle :D
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:41 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.