Really? I am really confused cause all I see on social media, skytrax and hear from colleagues and friends is how bad and "cheap" BA's service has become.

What I find surprising is that BA have let it get even this far. For 3 months now they have been suggesting that BoB is getting more popular, whereas the evidence (on FT, Skytrax, Twitter, and even first hand experience) is proving that the opposite is the case.

They announced the change in September last year so you can quite safely say that the majority of passengers on future bookings have not yet experienced the 'new' (as Mr Cruz puts it) BA. You think they'd nip it in the bud before they do irreparable damage. Once passengers have flown and seen what a miserable product Euro Traveller has become, they'll think twice about flying with BA again if they can get the same non-service with cheaper airlines.

In January I said it would last 6 months and now I'm even more convinced that this will be the case.

Yes, when there is no food left to buy (and, in many ongoing reported cases, no food being loaded at all), I think that definitely qualifies as a disappointment to passengers expecting to be offered the advertised service.

Sr. Cruz told us that we had told him that we were not happy with the previous free offering in ET (hardly surprising, once it had been enhanced to virtually nothing) ; and that we then said we would prefer to pay for food & drink instead, with a wider choice. But I think even the master of spin might be hard pushed to convince anyone with a brain cell that what we actually wanted was no food options of any description - as in the sectors when nothing is actually loaded.

It really is disappointing that a carrier with the history & resources of BA has found it so incredibly complex to implement an efficient BoB system, in the way that so many other, less experienced airlines, manage to do and with seemingly far fewer complaints or inefficiencies.

So, basically all of the BOB service then! The only other pieces required for a successful BOB service are the customers (present by virtue of the fact that they want to travel somewhere) and the crew (guaranteed as legally they have to be present).

This is really unacceptable at this stage in the game and I'm surprised that some are still willing to give BA the benefit of the doubt here. This situation is entirely within BA's control to fix (either directly or through the application of pressure on their subcontractors - Tourvest) but they're choosing not to.

Prior to going to University I worked for a well known UK retailer whilst I was doing my A-Levels and was lucky enough to be involved in a number of new store openings. When we opened new stores we would routinely overstock them so we could 1) avoid disappointing new customers 2) see actual demand to help us determine required stock levels going forward. This meant we saw higher than normal wastage in the first few weeks of a new store opening, but allowed us to gather the sales data required to very quickly adjust levels to more accurately meet demand and thus give the store the best possibility of being a profitable success.

BA could easily have taken this approach if they had truly wanted to enhance the service to customers but instead they've opted to understock (or not stock) many flights. I can't see how this approach would ever be successful? Of course, the retailer I worked for wanted their stores to be a profitable success...I'm not sure that BA are viewing BOB in the same way.

The trick was to bash them both politely but it worked with a M&S gift card and an apology email from BA - luckily for me my next short haul flight is on Club Europe (because I want to experience the BA toastie) in November

The "on that measure" clause relates to the fact that BOB sales are significantly higher than expected, and this manifests itself on flights returning to London, since they are only loaded on departure from LHR/LGW. If a lot is sold on the outbound then the return BOB stock is insufficient. Depending who you talk to, BOB sales are 20% or 30% more than expected.

Where BA or TourVest went wrong - in my view - is that they are paranoid about wastage. The sandwiches have to be sold that day, pretty much, and so they stocked very conservatively to minimise wasted food. Now I'm one of those who hates food waste, but in the early few months BA should have significantly overcatered, until they could work out the demand patterns.

To address your wider point: the anecdote of Twitter comments has to be set against the million of so passengers who fly BA every 5 days. I was on a 767 from EDI-LHR earlier this week, with 237 passengers on board, so nearly full. No Twitter comments that I could see, BOB finished in good time, no stock issues. Being a domestic there are alternative airlines and trains, 90% plus of passengers would have booked after BoB was introduced let alone announced. My guess is that some of those passengers miss the previous catering, some went CE, some are happy with BOB, but I speculate most couldn't care less one way or the other. BA's flights appear to be as full as ever.

I hope you are right, but realistically I would wager you a jumbo pack of Percy Pigs that BOB is here to stay. I don't see any evidence of them making any significant change in the next few (2!) months.

I think you are being extremely naive (perhaps deliberately) about how the entire BoB programme has been implemented

- BA have sold a concession to Tourvest to operate BoB using the M&S brand and products
- All the stock and POS machines are owned by Tourvest and controlled by them, which is one of the main reasons why BA don't accept cash - Tourvest didn't want BA crew handling it
- BA have absolutely no control over the volume of stock placed on the aircraft, that is down to Tourvest
- Tourvest have no incentive to increase stock levels of perishable items - if 100% of everything is sold on every rotation they are happy, they don't have to deal with any of the customer service issues (BA problem)
- I am willing to bet £££ that there is nothing in the contract that allows BA to compel Tourvest to load (and therefore waste) more stock, as that would have made the commercial terms to Tourvest less attractive (and no doubt BA were fixated on achieving the highest possible margin/savings)

Ultimately this comes down to piss poor outsourcing - I am sure Alex demanded that the shorthaul catering budget was reduced and this was the solution, and the original objective has been met.

Then the same outsourcing team moved onto IT...

I don't greatly disagree with you, and in particular I would highlight the quote above, which indeed explains a lot: Tourvest will have some incentive to increase sales if it doesn't increase waste, but your core point is undoubtedly correct. Tourvest don't get direct flack if they under-cater, it's job done, tick in the box, as far as they are concerned.

NTE-LHR last night, about 100 pax on the 320, yet only a couple of orders.
Needless to say, the two cups of water we requested never materialised, and my pregnant wife was not a happy lass :-)

In that case you should revise your previous post as this statement suggests that it's all just been a little BA implementation mistake, rather than (due to the commercial arrangements BA themselves have drawn up and agreed) there is no way on earth that BA can "overcater".

The fact that BA don't control stock levels (and have no way of doing so) will be an ongoing fundamental issue with the delivery of the BoB product, but it is all because of the type of deal BA wanted and signed.

On BA HEL to LHR on Easter Sunday: Nearly 3 Hr flight. CSD: Sorry everyone, because its Easter Sunday we have very little stock for BOB on this flight......Actually only about three orders were made.

My bolding

:confused::confused::confused:

Most network airlines accept cash :p

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...sing-cash.html

This week I used LOT Polish airlines from Warsaw to London with an offering of Business, Premium Economy and Economy on a Boeing 737. I remember LOT moving to BoB a few years back but they now offer 3-4 rows of premium economy on short haul for passengers paying more. It includes drinks and upgraded meals, priority boarding, etc, and seems to work well, particularly for frequent flyers.
BA could learn from this to enhance their model and customer satisfaction. And the evening meal tray in Premium Economy was good and very welcome.

Just to put a different spin on things if I may; my views would be slightly different on the above points, which of course may not be correct. I see it like this:

- On a flight by flight basis, BA would not have direct control of what is and isn't loaded, but from many departure stations did they ever? Although the previous system was far easier to predict uptake volumes, at many stations it was the handling agent compiling the meal figures to be loaded, not BA.
- Third party catering like this would usually work on a management fee basis with client satisfaction determining fees on a sliding scale. A third party management company would often own the stock, but always recharge back to said client anyway. Whilst it would be no good to mass over catering from a wastage point of view, simply selling 100% of loaded stock on every rotation serves no purpose when the backlash comes to a client about shortfalls; not a good way for TourVest to operate if they aspire to accomplish any sort of contract retention at all. Surely just a being associated with the two brand names would be a silver lining to them in itself.
- I would bet my Monopoly money that BA could compel Tourvest to load more stock, especially if they are not complying to elements of some sort of service level agreement which I will be gobsmacked if BA haven't imposed on them contractually.

Anyhow, a viewpoint from a slightly different angle never goes amiss. Who knows. :)