Alex, we have a problem (Glass Door rankings)
Mar 20, 2017, 12:23 pm
#46
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,236
One interesting thing to see, for those who are members of Glassdoor, is the historic trend of the company's rating.
The CEO's rating is too recent to draw any meaningful conclusion, but the company one dropped quite a lot since mid-to-late 2015, reaching a nadir in October 2016. I suppose things are picking up, now, because most of the culling in IT is done.
It'll drop again as soon as the next large department is hit.
The CEO's rating is too recent to draw any meaningful conclusion, but the company one dropped quite a lot since mid-to-late 2015, reaching a nadir in October 2016. I suppose things are picking up, now, because most of the culling in IT is done.
It'll drop again as soon as the next large department is hit.
Mar 20, 2017, 12:24 pm
#47
Join Date: Jan 2007
Programs: No single airline or hotel chain is of much use to me anymore.
Posts: 3,279
I made very specific and detailed complaints about some asinine HR policies that made staffing projects absolutely miserable for managers and infuriating for candidates and vendors. These detailed complains were distilled down to several sentences saying that I had unspecified philosophical differences with strategic management decisions.
One of my colleagues who took the same package as I did had her exit interview similarly sanitized when she described several of the support services leads as insubordinate, incompetent and indifferent.
Looking at Glass Door for my current and previous employers I don't see very many entries that seem unreasonable or sour grapes. The reviews for my former employer are overwhelmingly negative and they should be. The specific policy at my current employer that is widely criticized should be as well.
Mar 20, 2017, 12:50 pm
#48
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
One interesting thing to see, for those who are members of Glassdoor, is the historic trend of the company's rating.
The CEO's rating is too recent to draw any meaningful conclusion, but the company one dropped quite a lot since mid-to-late 2015, reaching a nadir in October 2016. I suppose things are picking up, now, because most of the culling in IT is done.
It'll drop again as soon as the next large department is hit.
The CEO's rating is too recent to draw any meaningful conclusion, but the company one dropped quite a lot since mid-to-late 2015, reaching a nadir in October 2016. I suppose things are picking up, now, because most of the culling in IT is done.
It'll drop again as soon as the next large department is hit.
There is also a question about "positive business outlook" on a second level screen I hadn't seen before:
BA is 27%
LH is 30%
DL is 80%
AA is 60%
UA is 70%
VS is 36%
KL is 57%
AF is 16%
U2 is 78%
AZ is 10%
EK is 59%
QF is 66%
LX is 45%
Mar 20, 2017, 1:36 pm
#49
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eurozone
Programs: LH SEN, HH Gold
Posts: 3,002
But really, how is this not the business model of a prostitute, an actor, a politician, or just about anything or anyone getting a paycheck anywhere in the entire world, I dare say...
Mar 20, 2017, 1:48 pm
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 23,433
Reading Glassdoor for my organisation presents a slightly distorted view in a Trip Advisor way...BUT...the basic thrust of the comments and ratings are pretty much spot on. BA and IAG should be worried.
Mar 20, 2017, 2:01 pm
#51
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: JAX
Programs: Ex-BA/AA/CP/LY staff, BA Executive Club Blue, IHG Diamond, Marriott Silver, Chick-fil-A Red
Posts: 3,583
It would be interesting to see how the reviews were say 3 years ago under Keith Williams -- I tried to go back and find some saved pages but couldn't find any.
We can clearly see BA/AC performs poorly compared to other airlines - it would be interesting to see how the ratings for KW were, etc.
Maybe somebody here knows a way?
We can clearly see BA/AC performs poorly compared to other airlines - it would be interesting to see how the ratings for KW were, etc.
Maybe somebody here knows a way?
Keith Williams: decent man, meant well. Worked in Willie's shadow. There was a glimmer of hope with the relaunch of 'To Fly. To Serve.' the London 2012 games and with Frank VdP but it all came to naught. Probably cost too much.
Willie Walsh: clever man. Did what was necessary for BA during the financial crisis in the late naughties and did it well, but hopeless at employee relations; sees staff as horribly expensive necessary evils and therefore something to attack and devalue, not to invest in.
Sir Rod Eddington: reasonable man. Kept a steady ship after 9/11 and got BA into a good financial position.
Bob Ayling: weird man. Cut a lot of costs and sold a lot of ancillary companies (and therefore laid off a lot of people) but also invested a lot in product. Responsible for World Tails, and flat beds in J.
Lord Marshall: an honourable man. Ran programmes such as 'Putting People First'. Truly missed.
Mar 20, 2017, 2:11 pm
#52
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
I can summarise, having experienced several BA CEOs:
Keith Williams: decent man, meant well. Worked in Willie's shadow. There was a glimmer of hope with the relaunch of 'To Fly. To Serve.' the London 2012 games and with Frank VdP but it all came to naught. Probably cost too much.
Willie Walsh: clever man. Did what was necessary for BA during the financial crisis in the late naughties and did it well, but hopeless at employee relations; sees staff as horribly expensive necessary evils and therefore something to attack and devalue, not to invest in.
Sir Rod Eddington: reasonable man. Kept a steady ship after 9/11 and got BA into a good financial position.
Bob Ayling: weird man. Cut a lot of costs and sold a lot of ancillary companies (and therefore laid off a lot of people) but also invested a lot in product. Responsible for World Tails, and flat beds in J.
Lord Marshall: an honourable man. Ran programmes such as 'Putting People First'. Truly missed.
IAG/BA are an example of when things swing too far in one direction - you might say EY is a good example of when they go the other way. Interestingly, neither CEO is very highly rated.
Mar 20, 2017, 5:40 pm
#54
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,208
I think if BA had a chairman/CEO like Lord Marshall and a COO like Willie Walsh, they would have the right balance of vision, staff relations/retention, smart investment vs. dumb cost-cutting and could be in a lot better position (they are obviously very profitable - but beyond that, meh...).
IAG/BA are an example of when things swing too far in one direction - you might say EY is a good example of when they go the other way. Interestingly, neither CEO is very highly rated.
IAG/BA are an example of when things swing too far in one direction - you might say EY is a good example of when they go the other way. Interestingly, neither CEO is very highly rated.
Margaret Thatcher was hated by the majority but by God she didn't half do a great job for Britain. ^
Mar 20, 2017, 5:44 pm
#55
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL G4L), AA (Gold), HH (Diamond); Marriott (Gold)
Posts: 3,011
I think most people don't realize that the customer of Glassdoor is not the people leaving reviews, but organizations looking to improve their image and recruit, so they're effectively trying to create a market for their services. As they say, if you're not paying for the service, you're the product, not the customer.
Mar 21, 2017, 12:51 am
#56
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,745
At first when I read AC I thought it meant Air Canada, not Alex Cruz!
I wouldn't take the reviews as gospel, but much like Trip Advisor when there are enough of them they give an accurate gist of the situation. Ignore the top and bottom 10% and you have a reasonably accurate portrayal.
I wouldn't take the reviews as gospel, but much like Trip Advisor when there are enough of them they give an accurate gist of the situation. Ignore the top and bottom 10% and you have a reasonably accurate portrayal.
Mar 21, 2017, 1:04 am
#57
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
I can summarise, having experienced several BA CEOs:
Keith Williams: decent man, meant well. Worked in Willie's shadow. There was a glimmer of hope with the relaunch of 'To Fly. To Serve.' the London 2012 games and with Frank VdP but it all came to naught. Probably cost too much.
Willie Walsh: clever man. Did what was necessary for BA during the financial crisis in the late naughties and did it well, but hopeless at employee relations; sees staff as horribly expensive necessary evils and therefore something to attack and devalue, not to invest in.
Sir Rod Eddington: reasonable man. Kept a steady ship after 9/11 and got BA into a good financial position.
Bob Ayling: weird man. Cut a lot of costs and sold a lot of ancillary companies (and therefore laid off a lot of people) but also invested a lot in product. Responsible for World Tails, and flat beds in J.
Lord Marshall: an honourable man. Ran programmes such as 'Putting People First'. Truly missed.
Mar 21, 2017, 3:06 am
#58
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
Although what Thatcher did seemed good for the UK in the short term, its now debatable whether some of her policues have had a long term detrimental effect on the country.
And, that's where the parallels with Cruz might be.
Mar 21, 2017, 3:27 am
#60
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: JAX
Programs: Ex-BA/AA/CP/LY staff, BA Executive Club Blue, IHG Diamond, Marriott Silver, Chick-fil-A Red
Posts: 3,583
Good to hear. I'm too young to know him well enough to be able to comment, although I was aware of the phrase describing BA's first three CEOs;
I don't know if that could now be expanded, skipping Keith with a little poetic licence:
Dirty tricks? Ha. Branson is just a snivelling upstart compared to Lords King & Marshall.
Sigh.
First we had a King, then a Marshall, then we were just Ayling...
A Rod, then a Willie, and now we're being Cruz-ified...
Sigh.