nallison

The trend is that there are clearly more negative reports than there used to be and a narrative is building. The Daily Mail/Sun for example used to be extremely supportive of BA during strikes as it fits with their political agenda to crush the unions etc. and you'd regularly see stories clearly planted by the airline. Not even they are supportive any more.

You can dismiss online reviews, but as we don't have access to BAs internal figures this is all we have, and while you are correct that online reviews need to be treated with caution, and tend to be skewed towards the perpetual complainers, the same applies to all BAs main competitors in Europe. The fact is the other legacies have better average scores on all sites I've seen. Which is unlikely to be pure chance. And BAs ratings have been falling across the board. If what you say is true ratings would always been as bad as they are now. Yes there is a trend, and it is downward.

Now, maybe if you ran a business you wouldn't be remotely concerned about increasing bad press and a trending negative public perception. Fair enough. I would be however, I think it's just burying your head in the sand to ignore it until it's to late.

As for BA being more expensive than budget carriers, yes it is, that's a fact, it's average fares are higher, do you deny that? They clearly have to be as it flies from LHR and has a higher cost base. That's not someones 'individual experience', BA is a more expensive airline on average.

Andriyko

One only sees a trend where one wants to see it. I think these articles, tweets or reviews have next to zero effect on the purchasing decisions. They please the 'I-told-you-so' crowd who find support of their believes in them, but nothing more.

I don't dismiss online reviews. I take them for what they are - individual experiences. I don't extrapolate these reviews onto the general public, because there are nowhere near representative. So, if I see that 250 people left an angry review about an airline in a year I'd think that that's how many were angry enough to be bothered to write. I don't read these reviews, at least any more, as I have flown more than enough with many airlines to have my own opinion...and to realize that those who were let down by an airlines are much much much more likely to write a review than those who enjoyed the flight.

If I ran a business I would be concerned with whether or not I have customers, including forward looking figures. I would not bother with articles or reviews based on a great random sample of 400. I would rely on internal surveys (something people here dismiss or don't believe because they usually say something that many here do not want to hear).

As I said, I don't judge about prices in abstract. BA is cheap for me. Cheaper than competitors often. Or if it is a little more expensive it is worth it due to me being a GCH (but that's not a situation many of the general public will share). Judging whether BA is more expensive based on airport taxes is a futile expertise. People make purchasing decisions in real time based on real needs of getting from A to B. So, if I look at prices from KBP to LON on day X and BA comes up at GBP150, PS - GBP 200, and Wizzair GBP 120, it won't make any difference what portion of the total price the expensive Heathrow airport tax constitutes, I will make my decision based on the final numbers and needs (so I may go with the more expensive PS that flies into the cheaper LGW but for some reasons offers a more expensive fare, while, according to your logic, the fare should be lower because the tax is lower). It is not as if airlines had the same base fares and only taxes differed, most airlines lower their base fares so that they come up cheaper than competition overall. But that's a discussion for a different topic. As I said, I don't judge prices in the abstract. It is always a real time decision.

Wanted to add regarding the coverage: Most of these articles are not telling people anything new. BA is now a no frills airline - big deal, as if all European airlines had not stopped being no or almost no frills years ago. People who want to read this sensational reporting usually have short attention span and will be after a new sensation tomorrow. And when they sit down to shop for airline tickets they will not think 'Oh, Daily Mail told me that BA was expensive', they will look at prices and decide based on their needs, and if BA meets their needs they will make the purchase. Very few people swear off flying a particular airline completely. The type of coverage I would want to avoid is the one BA got after the power outage, but then you need to avoid the situation in the first place, and no airline is immune to large scale disruptions. Of course everyone will be upset and angry seeing pictures of people stranded at airports. However, journalism can also be measured. The Economist ran a very good and measured article examining what happened and what should be done to prevent it. In that article the newspaper listed system failures experienced by other airlines (something that was not talked about here because otherwise it would not have been only BA's problem, right?). And, yes, confirmed that airlines (as in 'all airlines') underinvest in IT and cut costs where they can. Finishing with 'Airlines will never be able to make sure there is no repeat of last weekend’s chaos.' Something that many here refuse to accept but what most of the general public will understand. It is impossible to escape bad coverage, it is what you make of it that matters. Sometimes you just shrug it off and carry on with what you set off to do, and sometimes you take a pause and think whether your reputation may be on the line. The fact that BA no longer gives out free food and drinks is a known fact so when people buy tickets to fly BA they know what they're doing, but the fact the BA may not have adequate resources to cope with a possible computer system failure may be alarming.

nallison

Well we'll have to wait and see if it affects purchase decisions won't we, as I'm sure you're bright enough to understand that takes time. how long did it take for Tesco's eventual fall. I'm sure they had people like you insisting there was no problem for a very long time. Some signals it may be beginning to but we'll have to wait and see.


And indeed it is your individual choice to do that. But you should remember that for the average non-frequent flyer who doesn't get the chance to randomly sample all the different airlines themselves in a short space of time, online reviews are a very useful information source. I barely know anyone who doesn't look at tripadvisor before picking a hotel, and I assume many do the same with airlines. Just because you don't do it, doesn't mean you should assume your behaviour reflects others.

Again, yes those let down are more likely to write that those who have a good experience. In which case BA seems to be letting down more people than its competitors no as it has poorer ratings? Would that not bother you if you ran the business? You'd be absolutely certain such reputational damage will never affect business? Brave I must say. Or perhaps lacking in foresight.


I haven't seen anyone dismiss an internal survey, I'm not aware they've ever been shared here. If though you have BAs figures for customer satisfaction and they don't agree with public sources, please do share.


I'm not sure what this all is about. I just said BA are more expensive than Low cost carriers usually. Which is all that matters to most people once they realise they get nothing extra for flying BA. And actually less legroom than Ryanair, a poorer choice of food, and less chance of being able to pick their choice. And a higher chance of a stirke or IT faiure.

Andriyko

Yes, we'll have to see. The thing is I've been waiting long enough (ever since I became a member), and nothing happens. I hear 'give it another month, another quarter, another year, three, five' because it takes time... quite how much time nobody seems to know. Every decision BA takes that people here do not like is met with 'that's it for BA and that passengers will not fly BA,' Of course nobody comes back to say they were wrong or to have a new discussion about why passengers are not behaving how they thought they would or things did not turn out the way the thought they would.

But I don't understand this 'usually'? Usually for whom? You? Anyone else? Passengers who flew BA last year who shopped on price and bought because BA was the cheapest? I don't understand this very popular statement here that 'BA is more expensive'. This more/less expensive discussion is very abstract. Plus, BoB was announced a year ago, so everybody who bought the tickets knew what they were buying. So why would they suddenly realize that they could have more? And more of what?

Worcester

I wonder if they will be at all comfy?

streetmagix

https://www.theguardian.com/business...s-flight-delay

I don't think anyone comes out of this situation looking very good.

V10

I don't blame the passengers to be quite honest.

They've been treated appallingly by BA and have every right to be very upset.

Bullying them with armed police isn't helpful.

streetmagix

Agreed, I don't blame the passengers at all. I more meant the operational side: BA (possibly the pilots directly if they decided to call the police), Heathrow and the Met.

Did they not see what happened at United when the police were called?

Looks like AA swooped in and helped some of the passengers, I guess they got rebooked on a non-direct route but that probably should have happened much earlier.

South London Bon Viveur

It's not clear why they were taken off, but as I read it ALL passengers were ordered off, and the police were called in case of any disturbance, as opposed to being called to deal with an actual disturbance and removing that group of passengers that were causing the problem.

And because it's Heathrow, the police will be armed, which is not the norm in England. The story seems a bit sensationalist in terms of the police being involved, but it is clear that this was unpleasant for the passengers and another BA sh*t show. BA deserve the press hammering and only have themselves to blame.

Worcester

Headline in the Telegraph


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ne...-haul-flights/

Not pulling their punches are they?

Tobias-UK

It is to with the no frills fare: "The Irish carrier will introduce a new no-frills “Saver” fare on its transatlantic routes next month, which the airline claims will be €40 (£36.80) cheaper than the standard fare."

mike&co

Must have been an interesting flight

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rate-them.html

As per CWS request, the summary is as follows ;

A married couple's furious row abroad a British Airways flight forced cabin crew to separate the pair and call armed police to meet them at Heathrow.
The British husband and wife, who are in their early 30s, had a screaming match at 30,000ft during the flight from Los Angeles to Heathrow Airport yesterday morning.
Cabin crew separated the warring couple, who were returning from a holiday in the States, in different parts of the lower deck of the Airbus A380.
Eyewitnesses claim the woman had bruising around her face and neck and both were kept separate until armed police met them as they touched down.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4saOk3eNF
Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

clarkeysntfc

Classy couple.

corporate-wage-slave

In line with FT policy, can you kindly provide a summary please?

mike&co

Happy to oblige CWS - original post amended accordingly