contrails7

Hi everyone - after years of lurking (and much entertainment / insight - for which I thank you) this topic has brought me to the surface...

I am one of the "dinosaurs" who still loves their (old school paper) newspapers. A few points:

1. I agree with what has been said that (for me at least) newspapers on arrival were a quid pro quo for the elimination of newspapers at outstations - whether I read them on the plane or the tube is immaterial
2. I will / (would!?) often pick up a paper in the evening when they would be heading straight for the bin anyway i.e. in a win-win I was actually helping BA with their cleaning costs NB: a partial fix here could of course be to keep the bins in jetways for arrivals but open them, say, for arrivals after 6pm when you know that you will no longer shift the remaining stock
3. BA gets newspapers (with perhaps the exception of the FT) for pennies i.e. this is not an expensive way to foster goodwill, provided of course you don't have to fly them out to outstations as before

What saddens me is that this change, whilst small, is so symptomatic of the current BA modus operandi. I'm sure the thinking goes that arriving passengers were "thieving" newspapers meant for outbound. Gut reaction: eliminate, I mean "enhance." Problem solved. Well done to the jobsworth who identified the problem. But no one thinks about the newspapers eliminated in outstations and how this may have impacted on the value proposition (I mean why not at least have them in Club Europe on inbound?), the fact that newspapers actually cost pennies, etc, etc. No one looks at the big picture. Death by a thousand cuts.

I grant you that on this issue it's a storm in a teacup, particularly for those who have gone 100% virtual. But surely it's another differentiator to the LCC's lost... for minimal incremental gain...

corporate-wage-slave

Thank you for posting this contrails7, and welcome to the BA forum, it's good to see you here, and I hope we will see more of you too. This forum only works due to its contributors.

I'm been told that the reason for the move was for safety reasons and to allow a faster refilling process in the morning. BA gets these newspapers for free (including the FT) so I don't think there is a cost control element specifically in terms of arriving passengers.

rossmacd

But there is a cost control element. Faster refilling process = less resource to be deployed in order to fill the bins, or resources saved can be deployed elsewhere reducing something else.

Remember, Cruz's mantra is to find a saving every day

contrails7

Thank you corporate-wage-slave! And thanks for re-confirming the explanation. My bad in this case. The problem is that when cost-cutting is so prevalent you begin to see its malign tentacles behind every change

Jordan D

With respect, what safety reason? They'd been there for quite some time with no apparent issue ... if there is a reason, by all means BA should be transparent and then maybe - maybe - I would be able to understand.

As it is - it does feel like cost saving. Or worse cost saving whilst hiding behind H&S.

corporate-wage-slave

It's difficult to see this a cost saving for arriving passengers, BA doesn't pay for those newspapers anyway, so if they go to arriving passengers, departing passengers, a mix, or no passenger at all it is cost neutral in all scenarios. Well, no passengers = disposal cost, so ideally BA wants to clear the newspapers out by the end of the day.

I don't know what the safety reason could be, or the precise way the bins are loaded (I've never seen it happen at LHR, which is odd in itself, I have seen it at LGW and LCY). I must admit to being sceptical, but it would be safer having the newspapers stored where they can be seen.

Prospero

The safety aspect might be to remove combustible material from the jetways, but I am guessing here.

Tobias-UK

I don't believe you are entitled to such an explanation, if a company makes decisions such as this on H&S grounds (or even on commercial grounds) it is under no obligation to explain why.

At the end of the day newspapers are offered and made available to departing passengers. I don't think we are entitled to be given a reason why BA (or perhaps Heathrow Airport) have decided to move the location.

Tobias-UK

Or perhaps it's to do with the weight of the papers and the need for them to be transported down the jetways on trolleys.

Leaping_Deere

I think what could be as interesting is what the newspapers think of it. Seeing that BA are given them for free, the newspaper are doing it for the pr/marketing. if they aren't been seen (I must admit I didn't see them last week but then I usually get one from the lounge) and loads aren't getting picked up then what good is it for them to ship a load of newspapers to T5 FOC for all of them to be left dormant.

I accept safety comes first, but I assume something must of happened for them to make this decision, safety changes are usually always reactionary.

Prospero

Yes, that is possible. My educated guess it is as a result of a discussion HAL may be having with its insurers. The stored newspapers are now located in a sprinkler protected part of the building.

Jordan D

What you believe is one thing. If we do not challenge decisions made then do we just let companies walk over us. Worse, if companies hide behind H&S grounds, a bit like the USA (TSA/CBP) hides behind "security" as a catch all reasoning, then what?

BA made a bad decision to scrap papers from Euro outstations. It was cost saving, pure and simple. They've now moved them in London. Enquiring minds ask why.

Jordan D

Considerably less weight that people walking down the jetways.

Tobias-UK

No one is hiding behind anything; BA have made no official comment why the newspapers have been moved. It might not be BA who moved them but a requirement from Heathrow.

At the end of the day, newspapers are still offered to departing passengers, for whom they are put out in the first place. This is just a storm noise in a teacup. I see no ulterior motive as papers are available free of charge for those who are intended to have them.