Me too, I've shifted my business J longhaul to EK/EY/QR and they are brilliant. I've also been really impressed with Thai in Y and AA are improving in leaps and bounds.

It's the little voices in his brain.

Yup. Tesco tried to compete with both Waitrose and Aldi. The result was they weren't good enough for Waitrose customers and they weren't cheap enough for Aldi customers. Everyone's a loser.

Cruz seems to think that people will happily continue paying BA prices for Norwegian service. Maybe he's right. But I'm not convinced.

Air Canada has the spin off Air Canada Rouge their low cost transatlantic service which competes pricewise with Air Transat, Westjet, Norwegian and Icelandair, Aer Lingus also seems to have a similar option, if BA wants to compete on that scale then perhaps taking Air Canada's model would be better. Taking my will then 11 month old to Canada in July and for premium economy BA came out cheapest otherwise I wouldn't have bothered booking them

Apologies if my question was unclear: by asking if it was being discussed, I did not mean just some solitary voices randomly mentioning it but something more organised like a work group or task force that would be exploring the possibility of long haul BoB. From your answer above I'm gathering that this is probably not the case.

I'm sure it'll be up for consideration amongst the BA bigwigs, but I just can't see how this could be workable on all BA longhaul Y flights, without serious issues arising. Fine, at least in principle, on the transatlantic trips (as per Norwegian) but how are you supposed to handle this as a passenger on a 14 hour redeye back from Singapore, or other Asian flights? Surely BA can't expect you to stock up on crisps, biscuits, or a cold salad for breakfast 12 hours into the journey.

The first time i flew to Los Angeles with my daughter she was 15 months and on cows milk as a drink, by the time we landed at LAX the 4 pints we'd bought at LHR had gone off, i'd hate to be in that position on a longer flight!

Does anyone actually think, that a company the size of BA, will not have rigorously spent huge amount of time using business analytics and sophisticated modelling to determine the likely impact of any business change they introduce. It is standard for any company to do this.

Obviously many will not like the change, and yes the change may be introduced for short term business reasons, but it is completely naive to suggest BA has not fully considered the impact of any change they introduce.

LH already operate on a lower cost base for drinks. There's no spirits in the back and (on SH) its easy to drink the tiny plastic box they put the spirits in the front! Only difference is the Sekt.

Potentially. Or potentially it's a strategic leak by BA to test the reactions of the market without going right out there.
I call shenanigans. Chicken or beef was never an option on short haul, certainly not as long as I've been flying. More like "a mayonnaise sandwich with squash or a mayonnaise wrap with a little chicken".

BA do believe their position / reputation provides them some form of protection from any changes they make that do not go down well.
As with other changes in recent weeks, they know fine it I'll upset the apple cart for some, but expect customers to keep coming back to them.

It could be complacency or it could be ultimately a good business decision.....Only time will tell here.

BA - and all other major airlines for that matter - will have used everything they can, and it does not mean that they will make the right decision. If you genuinely believe that analytics, in all their force, lead to right decision, you are showing a belief in them that no major company executive (airline or otherwise) ever would. They know perfectly well the limits of modelling assumptions and how little can lead to (wonderfully or tragically) different outcomes from those modelled.

There is good reason why BA, LH, AF, etc have all taken starkly different measures when it comes to repackaging their various (notably short haul Y and long haul Y) offers despite dealing with largely comparable markets and competitions. None of them would be blind/arrogant enough to bet that they have made the right choice before several years elapse.

I think the sad truth is that the economy cabin under current market conditions must compete on price. No carrier has successfully put a "halo" over their economy service to justify higher prices. Cathay is getting battered in record fashion on this exact issue. I think it's hard in that "we like what we know", and we "know" free stuff, but it's not sustainable. If given the choice between a barely edible pasta coated in something affectionately called cream sauce or a legitimately great flight deal, I'm taking the deal.

I specifically heard AC mention that US carriers who didn't supply meals on long haul flights were ridiculous, so this is a surprise to then mention it days later, but I think this is all going to happen with every airline in the near future. Now how to spin economy cuts into more first class thrills to the press...

I fly a range of cabins, mostly Club or WT+ for leisure and WT+ or WT for business.
Looking at my last 5 US trips in WT, 4 cost more than £1000.

I would by pretty annoyed to be paying >£1000 for a WT ticket and not be feed.

Absolutely, but then an equal truth is that for a whole range of reasons, legacy airlines cannot match the costs of long haul low cost airlines, and therefore cannot match their prices whilst making a profit. Their salary base is higher (not least pilots), they have to bear the costs of connections, lounges, over-staffing due to multiple cabins, expensive airports, older fleets, etc.

The question therefore becomes: if BA cannot match the prices of, say, DY, then how do they ensure that at least some people continue to fly the former rather than the latter? That is a truly complex equation: fail to save and you cannot compete on price, save on the wrong stuff and... people will choose solely on price and therefore not you!

There are so many options available: densification (10 across 777, etc), flexible long haul cabin sizes (the AF way), meals, luggage, drinks, ancillary payments (from a la carte meals to family couches a la NZ, internet, duty free, special occasion options a la CX, etc), pillows, blankets, amenity kits, or even change of airports served.

Pick the wrong thing and you lose crucial reputational capital and therefore customers to competition (other European airlines competing for the same overall markets, ME3, etc). Fail to pick enough and your costs are too high. To make things even more complicated, customers do not always neatly fit into 'leisure' and 'business' types. Attack your leisure market by downgrading Y too much, and you may well lose top premium traffic as most business pax in large companies or high up roles effectively have a choice of airlines on business trips, and will often rationalise that choice according to what they want to use when they go on holiday with the kids. Save the wrong £100 on that 4 passenger holiday trip, and you might lose £100,000 of that executive business travel, or even £5 million of their company travel.

So that's the more complex picture. European airlines such as BA need to compete on price but also, at the exact same time, give people reason to justifying paying more on them than on the DYs of this world. They are uncomfortably stuck between airlines which costs they can never match whatever they decide to cut, and others which service they can never equal regardless of how much effort they make. Those centrifugal forces probably largely explain why BA and the rest often seem so unclear regarding service evolution.

You should have a look at the Rouge thread on the AC forum. Or the Skytraxx ratings that AC loves to trumpet. I'd certainly never step foot on a Rouge plane.

Rouge is not TATL (yet) mainly transborder and Caribbean routes.

Now that BA's new COO is coming from AC you might be subject to the awful experience that is Rouge, such as 29" pitch.

(AC= Air Canada in this post)