Without rehearsing the numerous and hotly contested arguments around the quality of the BA product, and all the collateral discussions (economics, shareholder return, trends in aviation generally) that arise, my take on the article's punchline is basically that BA is mediocre, whereas it used to be a leader in its field. I agree entirely. The customer experience has deteriorated noticeably in my opinion under Cruz's leadership.

Cruz et al are not stupid, so one must assume that what they have done is all very calculated. Indeed, I (and most on here) continue to fly with BA regularly, although I have reduced the proportion of BA flights as a percentage of my overall flying. I firmly believe that the brand is very severely damaged. I base this on the fact that a very large proportion of people I speak to (most of whom are not regular flyers and arguably don't have huge insight into the nuances of air travel as the FT community) express negativity towards BA. It's not particularly vitriolic, but just tends to be an expression of surprise and/or disappointment around the BA offering, particularly BoB, paying for checked bags etc. I suspect it's very difficult to measure brand damage, but my own view is that the damage to the BA brand is pretty apparent, and I think the damage done by Cruz and co will be felt for years to come.

Lufty had the cramped short haul planes well before BA, with mega thin Recaro seating, and dumped a lot of routes on Eurowings.