KARFA

T8191

Keep digging, Mr. Ott. Diplomacy clearly isn’t your forte.

With regards from an Anonymous (censored).

deadinabsentia

-delete-

itsmeitisss

Amusing that he liked your post. I don't think he understands your Scottish accent. I wonder if, when he realises you weren't being complimentary he is petty enough to remove the like.

deadinabsentia

Both were served on the 10th Jan LHR YYZ in CW.. I'd infact say with the snacks, lauder, etc, there was rather too much food.

LTN Phobia

Maybe it's time to close this thread for moderator review...

LTN Phobia
Moderator: BA forum

FlyerTalker6823123456

I’ve socially had a lot of conversations over the past week with various BA staff members and made a point of asking to those operating on or otherwise involved with the A350 about the stowage issues reported by godsavethepoints.

Independently 4 people have said there is a shortage of chilled stowage, being that it is only available at the front and back galley - with the middle galley only being ambient stowage. Chilled stowage is required for cold/hot meal storage, rather than ambient storage for snacks and plates.

Also the decision to use the space taken for the two additional seats 59BC instead of provision for additional storage also reduces the stowage space available.

This results in a very challenging situation to cater aircraft for longer routes without cutting corners and sacrificing elements like the ice cream mid-flight snack.

Forgive any minor errors in my transposing information but this from my point of view fully corroborates the article on godsavethepoints Whilst healthy debate is a good thing the criticism levelled against him seemed rather harsh and unbefitting of this forum.

Rather than crusading to prove someone wrong the information that the service may be slightly impaired or inferior on BA’s A350 surely is valuable information we should encourage.

Prospero

I have reopened this thread and folded drakepassage’s update into it.

This topic is worthy of comment but I must insist that discussion is undertaken in accordance of FlyerTalk rules.

Prospero
Moderator: BA forum

flylikelinz

I know personally someone that travelled on the BLR who is crew travelling but as a passenger where they were told in order to accommodate the 2nd hot meal service Ice cream had to be removed from the flight.

this came before it exploded in the media and was in the first week of the BLR service.

I have no reason not to believe this person, I know them personally and they as senior crew were dissapointed that in order to deliver a service, little things had to be removed to accommodate it.

Its a bit of a disappointment when you don't get nuts because someone has a nut allergy, I'm more annoyed if I dont get ice cream or the chocolate box has been raided from the club kitchen by the time I get there. #sweettooth

FlyerTalker39574

Is an ambient mid flight snack ok instead of ice cream?

Dan72

I really don’t see how it does. The headline claim was that BA only offered one hot meal on 350 services. But having read the thread, this appears to have been disproved and nothing in your update addresses this. Or are you saying your detail proves this point?

The additional detail, while helpful, is more galley minutiae that doesn’t speak to the original claim. I can see how some folk will feel misled.

JFX1764

BLR will get ice cream back next week (not sure why it got removed). There is space for it, and a second meal service.

Prospero

My understanding is the Magnum run is only offered on daytime flights, departing from London, so it is possible there may be false expectations concerning the BLR service.

edited to add, thanks JFX1764 for clarifying above

corporate-wage-slave

I fully agree that the pitchfork pile-on isn't helpful, and have said some nice-ish things about GStP, but the original articles have been edited back. I think I struggle a bit with the "fully corroborates" message. Two meals are served on A350 in all cabins on the relevant routes, and have since the service started, ice creams are available to YYZ and it would seem BLR too (accepting something odd happened there along the way). The core initial message was the A350 wasn't fit for purpose in terms of BA's service, specifically catering, due to cramming in too many seats, yet those of us who have been on it as passengers - or have worked on it as crew - haven't noticed this impact yet. That's not to say it's not tight, it truly wouldn't be BA unless all and any slack had been removed, but that wasn't the tenor of the original article.

Gildas

Agree with this.

I flew the BLR outbound (BA119) a few days ago in CW, so I can add a couple of observations.

The plane is fantastic from a passenger perspective. I see the point about the narrow aisles being a nuisance to crew, and had the plane been full I could see that might have been a little bit of an inconvenience to passengers as well. We were served full two meals - the second meal was identical to what was served on the 772 last year. Wasn't offered ice cream, but I was asleep for a large part of the flight and as noted I have never been offered ice cream previously on this route. The Club Kitchen remained stocked till the end of the flight.

However, something I would note is that serving the first meal took a long time. This is something I think needs some attention - as noted there were a lot of empty seats. Moreover the 119 is an overnight flight so a long first meal impinges on people's ability to get the sleep they need for a 5am arrival time. I should note I was in the main section of Club having avoided the mini-cabin based on the reports on here of it being served last (which seemed to be borne out).

In BA's defence, it is worth noting that all this is probably why this is the debut of the A350 on a route of this length - to help figure these sorts of logistics out. In GStP's defence, this probably explains some of the rumblings he was hearing from his sources.