Leeski

But then again Waitrose is a decent company that care about their brand, just look at their Twitter. I got a refund for some dodgy beans last night, but they also ended up with another £13 of mine in their till as a result. They win in this situation. I can't say I feel the same way about BA short-haul at the moment!

CD747

I wondered that in all seriousness.

The answer, by the way, seems to be a cheerful "yes", on a sample size of 5 flights so far.

Quarky Quark

Not suggesting it's highly likely, but could you imagine the spin that would need to come out of Waterside if M&S pulled the plug on this after six months?
However unlikely that may be, I think it's more probable than BA under Cruz admitting they've cocked it up.
'Due to extensive customer feedback we've determined passengers want to purchase Morrisons branded food when they fly with us'

nallison

It's incredibly sad that the part of your post I've bolded is more than likely true, even publically BA seem unable to be able to say a nice word about what is their greatest asset.

Of course, while they like to imagine crew to all be entirely replaceable, management, like at all top companies, maintain that they fully earn their massive salaries and that such huge salaries are necessary to recruit and retain top talent. Really? Who is responsible for this mess? It's management, and will anyone accept any responsibility? No, of course not, they're happy to hide in their office, well away from the coalface and the ire of their customers. Are you really telling me no-one else could do Alex Cruz' job better? How many cabin crew could be employed for his salary? I have no doubt which would have a more positive impact on BA's performance. And they talk about crew being overpaid. Cowards, frauds and sociopaths run this airline, as studies have shown CEOs disproportionately are.

Given the shambles of its introduction I can't actually see how this will ever make money for BA. As someone pointed out, it only needs 1 ticket holder per flight to walk away, probably less on longer flights with hiigher priced average tickets, and all the revenue is wiped out. I can quite believe that 1 passenger per flight, less than 1%, will be lost because of this. And then there is the revenue impact to long haul where those are connecting passengers.

Of course, lost revenue is invisible. And that is why this is happeneing, management can point to the cost savings and as far as they're concerned their job is done and the shareholders are happy, even if the net affect isn't actually positive. No-one can ever show how much revenue was lost, as with all the enhancements. I hope the shareholders aren't that stupid, the BA brand over the last year has been in the press for the wrong reasons again and again. This is about management achieving short term cost savings to justify their own salaries, inflate shares, pilllage what they can, and they will be gone before the damage is fully realised. We see it again and again.

I didn't actually think BOB would be that bad, but the way it has been implemented, the hype around it, and the way BA have been treating their crews, make me think again. If pax, who may be connecting, can't even be guaranteed a glass of water will be served, there will definitely be a lot of lost business.

GentleGiant

So you visit Burger King at a service station and get a bad meal or bad service.

Who would you complain to?

Burger King or the service station?

The majority of the outlets in the service station are run by the service station and just use the Burger King or Costa name. They are not outlets run by the companies Yet it would be that company you would complain to. And that name that is tarnished.

No difference with BA / M&S as far as I can see.

Dambus

Struggling to reconcile "a 6 month trial" with the scale and fanfare of the launch? Surely there is some sort of solid commitment behind this (i.e. pulling the service or switching partners after 6 months is really not an option barring force majeure).

NickB

Well, this could be a "6 months trial" with the expectation that it will be continued (a bit like a new staff probation period, if you like).
In other words, the expectation is that it will go on beyond six months but there is a "get out" clause in there at the 6-month point if it turns out to be a disaster or not operating to satisfaction.

lloydah

17.45 LHR-GLA Took orders for hot rolls after apologising to pax that they now had to charge for food.
Well after take off the CSM cleared his throat and apologised that the service was off as neither computer could load the application to take the money!
So they were unable to serve food or drink.

He came round to take comments and admitted that he was now going to throw away my bacon roll rather than give it to me!
About half the food was on its shelf life so that would be binned too.

Pax to my right said "I wonder if that's what the crew wanted? They obviously did NOT like the new system!

Gets better and better.

IAMORGAN

Ultimately I'd complain to whoever I thought would be more likely to listen. Given BA don't listen I may well let M&S know what I think in the hope M&S take up issues with BA. Would make my day if M&S pulled out, would love to make Cruz less smug.

subject2load

@GentleGiant - you're clouding the issue with scenarios involving (potential) franchise operations etc.

However..... it's all pretty straightforward IMO.

Complaints go to whoever you pay your money to.

You don't have a contractual/customer relationship with anybody else.

Edit : have just read IAMORGAN's post ; and whilst I still don't see that as the default legal approach, I fully understand his/her thinking.

orbitmic

Indeed. In fact, the 6 months clause might even more likely be used to renegotiate some specifics (without necessarily 'getting out' altogether) based on the feedback from the initial period (e.g. different volumes, profit sharing/risk sharing model, etc).

GentleGiant

So you would not complain to Burger King.

Oh well.

No clouding of any issues. If M&S opt to use their name for a service they must be prepared to get both the glory and the criticism.

They need to know that things are not right.

If it was wonderful they would take all the glory.

Can't be both ways.

MrSimonR

This CSD and the entire 767 crew are true ambassadors for the company and do an outstanding job, as they care for their customers.

Just to be clear, no outside supplies (biscuits, sweets) were offered around, as they were at least able to keep relative calm on the return and sell drinks. It was on the outward that the ET cabin was full of crying children, hungry older people and very shouty and rude middle aged people, who were abusive with the entire crew, leaving them upset and shaken.

The outside supplies were never used. I merely wanted to point out the lengths some staff will go to, to look after the wellbeing their passengers. It's like offering their personal bought copy of a newspaper to a shouty passenger who is upset there's no newspapers any more; or giving up their crew meal to someone who doesn't like the club meal; or offering their crew water when the passengers' water has run out, or helping the elderly lady the entire way through the airport when her wheelchair never shows up.

These are things that the legacy crews (especially the 767 eurofleet crews) have been doing for years, all part of what we customers love about BA, and what is taken for granted by the bean counters.

lloydah

No we are not! I was thinking of selling mine as a protest, then thought again as it would make bu**er all difference to BA. But as a share holder I will continue to write and voice my opinion in any way possible. I think A Cruze will find that shareholders en masse will not be happy if this situation carries on and drags down staff morale and the public face of the company more than it and he already has.

Will anyone who matters listen? Sadly I have my doubts until, as has already been said, their collective pockets are hit.

Calchas

Why not complain to both?