ABBA - anyone but BA
Jul 26, 2017, 7:23 pm
#288
Join Date: Jan 2005
Programs: BA Gold, AA Lifetime Gold 1.8mm, IC Spire Ambassador, Hilton Diamond, SPG Gold et al
Posts: 4,350
Jul 26, 2017, 9:52 pm
#290
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Tokyo
Programs: SPG LT Plat ANA Plat
Posts: 596
Not sure how the public will perceive Mr Cruz's plan... BA will become both budget and quality at the same time and I believe this might just confuse everyone... no one will be able to categorise BA... especially if you fly economy one week and business the next. The experience will be confusing.
I am no businessman but I would prefer the brand to have brand values and stick to them across the board. If they want a budget airline the start a new airline and call it something else.
But then again... what do I know
I am no businessman but I would prefer the brand to have brand values and stick to them across the board. If they want a budget airline the start a new airline and call it something else.
But then again... what do I know
Jul 26, 2017, 9:59 pm
#291
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Tokyo
Programs: SPG LT Plat ANA Plat
Posts: 596
I'm not sure the I have a problem with the "mixed operation" concept. Indeed, that idea entered my head many months ago, when all the hoo-hah started.
Why can't the Economy Cabin be made cheap and austere [more than it is already] to complete with the LoCos on price and take fullest advantage of BA's route network? Isn't that why it's called Economy? In front of the figurative curtain, BA can continue to operate Premium services [improved on what they are now] for those willing to pay for the experience.
Don't we already see the basic elements of Budget and Premium differentiation already, when comparing World Traveller and Club World? I agree that it would be harder to apply on shorthaul operations, given the efficiency provided by the 'moving curtain', but that's not necessarily 'set in stone' [to mix a metaphor]. Upgrade CE by providing, say 4-5 rows of proper seating with decent pitch, like AA's Domestic First. Economise as much as you dare in ET to compete on price.
One aircraft, one crew, two different loads of pax and two different price structures ... why is that impossible? It already exists!
Why can't the Economy Cabin be made cheap and austere [more than it is already] to complete with the LoCos on price and take fullest advantage of BA's route network? Isn't that why it's called Economy? In front of the figurative curtain, BA can continue to operate Premium services [improved on what they are now] for those willing to pay for the experience.
Don't we already see the basic elements of Budget and Premium differentiation already, when comparing World Traveller and Club World? I agree that it would be harder to apply on shorthaul operations, given the efficiency provided by the 'moving curtain', but that's not necessarily 'set in stone' [to mix a metaphor]. Upgrade CE by providing, say 4-5 rows of proper seating with decent pitch, like AA's Domestic First. Economise as much as you dare in ET to compete on price.
One aircraft, one crew, two different loads of pax and two different price structures ... why is that impossible? It already exists!
Nail, hit on the head !
Jul 27, 2017, 12:40 am
#292
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,538
I find the whole notion of a 'dual operation' with increasingly low cost economy and increasingly premium high contribution classes incredibly naïve.
Every single time a legacy airline has cut cost in Y, it's always made the claim that it would compensate by making premium offerings better. Every time, this proved a red herring aimed at massaging the ego of offended self-perceived important travellers that soon gave way to exactly parallel evolution of offerings across classes.
Individual airlines go through phases. In some phases, they cut costs, in others they try and improve service. The logic is as plain and dumb as you can imagine it. Airline cuts cost till it affects yield and satisfaction scores, which in turn makes shareholders unhappy and lead some genius in management to say "well, they don't pay for us because they think we are worse than x, y, and z. We need to improve the product'. They do, and then one of two things option. Option 1: it doesn't work, figures get worse, another genius comes in to say 'we can't lose that much we need to cut costs'. Option 2: it works, the bottom line improves, and Genius no2 says 'yes of course we are doing ok, but look, our costs on x, y, and z are higher than competitors/than what they could be, we could make even bigger profits if we saved on...' and we are back to square 1.
What is obvious, however, is that historically, whilst the timing is not exactly overlapping, cost cutting or service improvement come in a sequence that affects both Y and J/F. US airlines let their premium product slip into nastiness in the same sequence they transformed Y from generous meals and opulent luggage allowances to barebone offerings. The PHG years at AF led both to the rubbishing of the J and Y offerings, and nowadays, they have significantly improved both, etc.
The whole notion that an airline will take costs away from Y to reinvest them in J is all great for people who think airlines are there to vindicate their own important travel style, but in practice, ignore the basic source of cost/service changes which is that airlines go through phases of belief that one or the other is the temporary key to their improved profitability, as well as the notion that being self-centred creatures, airlines conceive their service offerings based far too much on internal comparison rather than external benchmarking. In short, the rubbishing of the CE short/medium offering into 'sandwich or salad' would not have been possible at the time when ET offered a sandwich or salad, but now that ET is BoB it a panino strikes BA as more than enough to differentiate products. Similarly, AF never had a reason to offer anything else than a sh*tty Premiere product when their J was not even fully flat, but in practice, the move to the Cirrus seat in J forced them to invent a true form of differentiation to P which has led to an exceptional product.
The cost cutting trend at BA will last what it will last before it is overturned, but in my humble view, the hope that the airline will invest in a great premium offering beyond symbolic (if sometimes important, like the new CW bedding) efforts in 'return' for letting Y become an increasingly nasty experience is futile and misplaced.
Every single time a legacy airline has cut cost in Y, it's always made the claim that it would compensate by making premium offerings better. Every time, this proved a red herring aimed at massaging the ego of offended self-perceived important travellers that soon gave way to exactly parallel evolution of offerings across classes.
Individual airlines go through phases. In some phases, they cut costs, in others they try and improve service. The logic is as plain and dumb as you can imagine it. Airline cuts cost till it affects yield and satisfaction scores, which in turn makes shareholders unhappy and lead some genius in management to say "well, they don't pay for us because they think we are worse than x, y, and z. We need to improve the product'. They do, and then one of two things option. Option 1: it doesn't work, figures get worse, another genius comes in to say 'we can't lose that much we need to cut costs'. Option 2: it works, the bottom line improves, and Genius no2 says 'yes of course we are doing ok, but look, our costs on x, y, and z are higher than competitors/than what they could be, we could make even bigger profits if we saved on...' and we are back to square 1.
What is obvious, however, is that historically, whilst the timing is not exactly overlapping, cost cutting or service improvement come in a sequence that affects both Y and J/F. US airlines let their premium product slip into nastiness in the same sequence they transformed Y from generous meals and opulent luggage allowances to barebone offerings. The PHG years at AF led both to the rubbishing of the J and Y offerings, and nowadays, they have significantly improved both, etc.
The whole notion that an airline will take costs away from Y to reinvest them in J is all great for people who think airlines are there to vindicate their own important travel style, but in practice, ignore the basic source of cost/service changes which is that airlines go through phases of belief that one or the other is the temporary key to their improved profitability, as well as the notion that being self-centred creatures, airlines conceive their service offerings based far too much on internal comparison rather than external benchmarking. In short, the rubbishing of the CE short/medium offering into 'sandwich or salad' would not have been possible at the time when ET offered a sandwich or salad, but now that ET is BoB it a panino strikes BA as more than enough to differentiate products. Similarly, AF never had a reason to offer anything else than a sh*tty Premiere product when their J was not even fully flat, but in practice, the move to the Cirrus seat in J forced them to invent a true form of differentiation to P which has led to an exceptional product.
The cost cutting trend at BA will last what it will last before it is overturned, but in my humble view, the hope that the airline will invest in a great premium offering beyond symbolic (if sometimes important, like the new CW bedding) efforts in 'return' for letting Y become an increasingly nasty experience is futile and misplaced.
Jul 27, 2017, 4:08 am
#294
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,538
Why? The passenger couldn't care less if BA's profit goes up 500% or down 98%We also know that those figures are largely unrelated to service decisions as very healthy profits did not in any way prevent or discourage BA from wanting to cut service costs.
Jul 27, 2017, 4:09 am
#295
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Glasgow, UK
Programs: Seigneur des Tarifs Utils First Class Mucci with Honours :) - BA GGL / CCR
Posts: 1,551
I dont know much about the topic but I thought advertisers in the EU/UK couldn't directly say We are better than X it had to be "Better than our competitors" Or did I make that up lol?
Jul 27, 2017, 4:12 am
#296
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
I was just about to post this too. Looks like BA are in for a bit of grief from the competitors,
I dont know much about the topic but I thought advertisers in the EU/UK couldn't directly say We are better than X it had to be "Better than our competitors" Or did I make that up lol?
I dont know much about the topic but I thought advertisers in the EU/UK couldn't directly say We are better than X it had to be "Better than our competitors" Or did I make that up lol?
Usually the point of advertising a well known brand is to ensure consumers always have your brand at the top of their minds. Naming other brands can undermine that.
Jul 27, 2017, 4:15 am
#297
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
...and I'd add that I'm not sure that mocking a competitor comes across that well either.
Jul 27, 2017, 4:18 am
#298
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,538