British Airways - not impressed

[Hainey]

Ayahuasca said:

Sorry, all you BA peeps, your protestations leave me unmoved.


You will long for BA If you ever have the misfortune to experience American Airlines.

And yet my experience last week was the exact opposite. BA had fail after fail to their name coupled with useless staff that couldn't work their new computer system.

It took them 3 days to get me from Glasgow to LAX. Or should I say to Phoenix, as they couldn't get my party of four on the final leg to LAX.

You know who saved the day? AA. They managed to get me from Phoenix where BA had dumped my family and I and who were to a soul completely uninterested in helping us, and it was AA who corrected the BA computer mistakes and got us all to LAX.

3 days BA. 3 days. That a lot of time and money lost from a holiday including the previous booked and paid for hotels, park tickets and chaffour hire. It's about as unacceptable as it gets by anyone's standards.

It's OK though. The 40k plus I spent through my company last year putting guys on flights will go to another carrier in the coming year. I'm done with them now.

[tim0409]

I've never had a problem with AA, but I think it does matter which equipment they are using - I flew from JFK-MIA a last year on a 757 which had seen better days (it had a centrally mounted CRT monitor), and the "first" seats where anything but. Contrast that to an AA flight from JFK-LAX in business on one of their new transcontinental A321 which was excellent in business (seats as good as BA First), and the service was better than BA.

[Hainey]

tim0409 said:

I've never had a problem with AA, but I think it does matter which equipment they are using - I flew from JFK-MIA a last year on a 757 which had seen better days (it had a centrally mounted CRT monitor), and the "first" seats where anything but. Contrast that to an AA flight from JFK-LAX in business on one of their new transcontinental A321 which was excellent in business (seats as good as BA First), and the service was better than BA.

Agree with that. The 757 we took from Phoenix to LAX was an old girl but in great condition and very clean inside whereas the 747 400 BA took us from Heathrow to Phoenix on was seriously tired around the fixings and hadn't been cleaned properly. I put my had on a grip rail and it came away covered in old chewing gum. Disgusting.

I think the difference is AA advertising isn't trying to push a premium, upper tier product like the BA advertising is trying to portray. Sadly their offering is anything but.

[brickwall]

WD39 said:

brickwall said:

I still fly BA when I can, because there are still decent perks with a Gold Card, and I still manage to spend the Avios.

However the long-haul business seat is really falling behind competitors. The older in-flight-entertainment system is properly terrible, the folding screen especially frustrating (you can't watch during taxi/takeoff/approach/landing) the lack of aisle access is annoyin had severag, and they really lack some of the cooler features of Emirates/Singapore etc. (e.g. personal minibar).

Why would you wish to watch the telly during those phases of a flight?

This is when you should be alert and ready should anything go wrong, not glued to Tom and Jerry.

As a former BA crew member, I remember several, thankfully minor, events during the phases of flight quoted and with the passengers not plugged in made handling the problem much easier.

Also, reading through the posts regarding positive and negative experiences on BA, is interesting but sadly nothing new.

With a huge airline operating hundreds of flights every day you can expect some problems occasionally. In my time we had an instant compensation process on board for passengers with minor in flight problems. A bottle of bubbly, a little something from the duty free etc. Don't know if this is still operating.

I'd have no problem if they turned off the TVs for take-off, finals, and landing. But it's not - they're off for a good hour of the flight duration, including taxi and 30 mins I the approach. They're also one more thing to check for the crew, which seems unnecessary work for them.

As another poster said, flying is boring. I want to spend as much as possible of it as I can sleeping. When that's not possible, watching a film isn't a bad substitute.

[WD39]

DanL said:

WD39 said:

Why would you wish to watch the telly during those phases of a flight?

This is when you should be alert and ready should anything go wrong, not glued to Tom and Jerry.

Because flying is boring, and 99 times out of 100 nothing happens during those phases. For the 100th time the cabin announcements cut across the entertainment anyway. Plus, I imagine anything passengers need to react to would also be pretty evident, and would pull people out of their reverie! Arguably it's better having people plugged into the IFE system than using their own headphones, where you can't cut across what they're listening to...

ETA: I was in business class last week on BA to/from NYC for a holiday. It was fine - nice, even. This was my view:



Bad turbulence?

[WD39]

[quote=DanL]
Because flying is boring, and 99 times out of 100 nothing happens during those phases. For the 100th time the cabin announcements cut across the entertainment anyway. Plus, I imagine anything passengers need to react to would also be pretty evident, and would pull people out of their reverie! Arguably it's better having people plugged into the IFE system than using their own headphones, where you can't cut across what they're listening to...

Sorry, but my long experience tells me that with up to 300 passengers with different states of mind and body, the less distractions the better.

[HarryW]

brickwall said:

WD39 said:

brickwall said:

I still fly BA when I can, because there are still decent perks with a Gold Card, and I still manage to spend the Avios.

However the long-haul business seat is really falling behind competitors. The older in-flight-entertainment system is properly terrible, the folding screen especially frustrating (you can't watch during taxi/takeoff/approach/landing) the lack of aisle access is annoyin had severag, and they really lack some of the cooler features of Emirates/Singapore etc. (e.g. personal minibar).

Why would you wish to watch the telly during those phases of a flight?

This is when you should be alert and ready should anything go wrong, not glued to Tom and Jerry.

As a former BA crew member, I remember several, thankfully minor, events during the phases of flight quoted and with the passengers not plugged in made handling the problem much easier.

Also, reading through the posts regarding positive and negative experiences on BA, is interesting but sadly nothing new.

With a huge airline operating hundreds of flights every day you can expect some problems occasionally. In my time we had an instant compensation process on board for passengers with minor in flight problems. A bottle of bubbly, a little something from the duty free etc. Don't know if this is still operating.

I'd have no problem if they turned off the TVs for take-off, finals, and landing. But it's not - they're off for a good hour of the flight duration, including taxi and 30 mins I the approach. They're also one more thing to check for the crew, which seems unnecessary work for them.

As another poster said, flying is boring. I want to spend as much as possible of it as I can sleeping. When that's not possible, watching a film isn't a bad substitute.

I'm with you on this, nothing bores me more or pisses me off than when they fold your screens 30 minutes plus before landing or waiting to take off. Compared Etihad screens too..

[schmalex]

Emirates have it right in my opinion...

[WD39]

HarryW said:

brickwall said:

WD39 said:

brickwall said:

I still fly BA when I can

Still more turbulence!

[pushthebutton]

schmalex said:

Emirates have it right in my opinion...

I wouldn't say Emirates have it right. It isn't comparing like for like. The operate 'for' a country where the head of the airline is the head of the regulatory authority: he writes his own rules. They take advantage of labour rates and working/living conditions at the lower end of the pay scale that would have Abraham Lincoln breaking out of his coffin and remonstrating from the roof of the Burj Khalifa. They don't have to include APD for every departure from their home base; for the first time ever they've just introduced a $9.50 tax per passenger to pay for airport development.

They aren't hindered by employer annoyances such as pension contributions, labour laws, industrial agreements and operating costs associated with government regulation. Free from all of these irritating extra costs, and more, I'm sure any Western airline could provide a service similar to Emirates in brand new aircraft. I wonder how many times an aircraft would have to operate into Heathrow fee-free in order to upgrade the passenger entertainment screen and the food offerings.

Western airlines aren't in competition with the ME3 as it isn't competition by our definitions. The CEO of IAG/BA has said many times that we can't compete with the likes of Emirates so we have to offer a different product. Western airlines can't compete because they aren't subsidised in the same way. That's a pretty big elephant in the room to miss when comparing the products.

Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 26th July 09:02

[shopper150]

pushthebutton said:

schmalex said:

Emirates have it right in my opinion...

I wouldn't say Emirates have it right. It isn't comparing like for like. The operate 'for' a country where the head of the airline is the head of the regulatory authority: he writes his own rules. They take advantage of labour rates and working/living conditions at the lower end of the pay scale that would have Abraham Lincoln breaking out of his coffin and remonstrating from the roof of the Burj Khalifa. They don't have to include APD for every departure from their home base; for the first time ever they've just introduced a $9.50 tax per passenger to pay for airport development.

They aren't hindered by employer annoyances such as pension contributions, labour laws, industrial agreements and operating costs associated with government regulation. Free from all of these irritating extra costs, and more, I'm sure any Western airline could provide a service similar to Emirates in brand new aircraft. I wonder how many times an aircraft would have to operate into Heathrow fee-free in order to upgrade the passenger entertainment screen and the food offerings.

Western airlines aren't in competition with the ME3 as it isn't competition by our definitions. The CEO of IAG/BA has said many times that we can't compete with the likes of Emirates so we have to offer a different product. Western airlines can't compete because they aren't subsidised in the same way. That's a pretty big elephant in the room to miss when comparing
the products.

Whilst I agree with your points, I'm pretty sure BA have had their subsidies from Goverment all those years ago. Didn't they buy Corcordes for £1? In any case, dirty, unhygienic planes are unacceptable for a first word carrier. I've had food trays with old food stuck to them. The white head rest covers are a grotty yellow/brown shade, the lighting is depressing. But they choose not to sort these things out to line executive's pockets.

Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 26th July 09:02

[pushthebutton]

shopper150 said:

Whilst I agree with your points, I'm pretty sure BA have had their subsidies from Goverment all those years ago. Didn't they buy Corcordes for £1? In any case, dirty, unhygienic planes are unacceptable for a first word carrier. I've had food trays with old food stuck to them. The white head rest covers are a grotty yellow/brown shade, the lighting is depressing. But they choose not to sort these things out to line executive's pockets.

Yup they did.

I believe it took a while for them to turn a profit on the Concorde routes even though they 'purchased' them for that price. I don't remember enough about the deal to speak intelligently on it so I'll bow out on that one, but I do wonder whether they'd have been a poisoned chalice for any other operator? Historically, you could say that comparing Emirates etc to BA now is the same as comparing BA to any other carrier back when they were nationalised, but one difference could be that many carriers were subsidised by their governments back then.

I suppose I could scour Google and find equivalent reports of dirty aircraft from the ME3 as well but, you're right, it isn't acceptable and I hope that you fed it back? The last time I looked at comparative salaries for FTSE 100 companies the IAG/BA CEOs were right near the bottom. I have my own views about the multiples of CEO salaries to the average, but compared to the market they're at the lower end. At the moment, the profits aren't really going toward pocket-lining IMO: they're going toward fleet replacement, pensions deficits and share dividends which haven't been paid for at least 10 years. BA as a company are still paying off the contracts of previous generations negotiated in better times. Like the country as a whole and many industries we can no longer afford the same Ts&Cs as our predecessors.

Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 26th July 15:21

[kentlad]

I'm flying BA direct to cancun in a week or two. Should i be worried? We're flying cattle unfortunately.

[WD39]

kentlad said:

I'm flying BA direct to cancun in a week or two. Should i be worried? We're flying cattle unfortunately.

No worries mate! You are flying with the 'World's Favourite Airline'

No such class as 'cattle' as I recall.

[djc206]

kentlad said:

I'm flying BA direct to cancun in a week or two. Should i be worried? We're flying cattle unfortunately.

Take some snacks, the food in economy on BA is dire. But worried, no.

[schmalex]

pushthebutton said:

schmalex said:

Emirates have it right in my opinion...

IWestern airlines aren't in competition with the ME3 as it isn't competition by our definitions. The CEO of IAG/BA has said many times that we can't compete with the likes of Emirates so we have to offer a different product. Western airlines can't compete because they aren't subsidised in the same way. That's a pretty big elephant in the room to miss when comparing the products.

Edited by pushthebutton on Tuesday 26th July 09:02

But from a price perspective, the Western airlines are competing directly with the ME3.

For example, I'm travelling to Singapore on 14th Aug and am yet to book my ticket. It'll either be a J or F seat. Currently:

Emirates is £1,950 for J / £4,737 for F
BA is £5,305 for J (WTF!!!) / £7,244 for F

Looking at the same route, say, 3 months out to remove last minute price discrepancies gives:

Emirates is £2,049 for J / £4,455 for F
BA is £4,878 for J (WTF!!!) / £4,878 for F

All prices taken as the cheapest ticket offered on Skyscanner tonight for the same route in the same class

Either way you look at it, BA offers an inferior product to that offered by the ME3 at a price that is, at best, equivalent and at worst significantly more expensive. I understand the arguments regarding a reduced operating cost burden enjoyed by the ME3, but at the end of the day, they are in competition for customers so either need to offer a product that is higher quality, better value or lower price. Sadly, BA appear to struggle to compete on any of these terms...

I travel a lot and, so far this year, have traveled 42 sectors over 6 hours in either J or F seats, meaning we've spent a lot on flights. I'd love to travel BA and support my "national" airline but simply can't justify either the price or the value offered for the price paid.

[djc206]

schmalex said:

But from a price perspective, the Western airlines are competing directly with the ME3.

For example, I'm travelling to Singapore on 14th Aug and am yet to book my ticket. It'll either be a J or F seat. Currently:

Emirates is £1,950 for J / £4,737 for F
BA is £5,305 for J (WTF!!!) / £7,244 for F

Looking at the same route, say, 3 months out to remove last minute price discrepancies gives:

Emirates is £2,049 for J / £4,455 for F
BA is £4,878 for J (WTF!!!) / £4,878 for F

All prices taken as the cheapest ticket offered on Skyscanner tonight for the same route in the same class

Either way you look at it, BA offers an inferior product to that offered by the ME3 at a price that is, at best, equivalent and at worst significantly more expensive. I understand the arguments regarding a reduced operating cost burden enjoyed by the ME3, but at the end of the day, they are in competition for customers so either need to offer a product that is higher quality, better value or lower price. Sadly, BA appear to struggle to compete on any of these terms...

I travel a lot and, so far this year, have traveled 42 sectors over 6 hours in either J or F seats, meaning we've spent a lot on flights. I'd love to travel BA and support my "national" airline but simply can't justify either the price or the value offered for the price paid.

That BA J fare sounded a bit high so I had a quick look on skyscanner for random dates in October. Came up as £2060 with BA, £3241 Singapore, £1900 Emirates. Might have been unlucky with those dates? I understand that booking last minute with no flexibility there can be a much greater discrepancy, such is the nature of business travel I guess.

Also a slight case of apples and oranges. None of the ME3 flights are direct. Your BA flight gets you to Changi in 13 hours, your Emirates flights get you there in 16hrs with a hefty trek through terminal 3 at DXB, a disturbed sleep and the risk of a connection. At a similar price point BA are competitive for the reason of convenience alone.

[Sam All]

djc206 said:

Also a slight case of apples and oranges. None of the ME3 flights are direct. Your BA flight gets you to Changi in 13 hours, your Emirates flights get you there in 16hrs with a hefty trek through terminal 3 at DXB, a disturbed sleep and the risk of a connection. At a similar price point BA are competitive for the reason of convenience alone.

This ^

[schmalex]

djc206 said:

schmalex said:

But from a price perspective, the Western airlines are competing directly with the ME3.

For example, I'm travelling to Singapore on 14th Aug and am yet to book my ticket. It'll either be a J or F seat. Currently:

Emirates is £1,950 for J / £4,737 for F
BA is £5,305 for J (WTF!!!) / £7,244 for F

Looking at the same route, say, 3 months out to remove last minute price discrepancies gives:

Emirates is £2,049 for J / £4,455 for F
BA is £4,878 for J (WTF!!!) / £4,878 for F

All prices taken as the cheapest ticket offered on Skyscanner tonight for the same route in the same class

Either way you look at it, BA offers an inferior product to that offered by the ME3 at a price that is, at best, equivalent and at worst significantly more expensive. I understand the arguments regarding a reduced operating cost burden enjoyed by the ME3, but at the end of the day, they are in competition for customers so either need to offer a product that is higher quality, better value or lower price. Sadly, BA appear to struggle to compete on any of these terms...

I travel a lot and, so far this year, have traveled 42 sectors over 6 hours in either J or F seats, meaning we've spent a lot on flights. I'd love to travel BA and support my "national" airline but simply can't justify either the price or the value offered for the price paid.

That BA J fare sounded a bit high so I had a quick look on skyscanner for random dates in October. Came up as £2060 with BA, £3241 Singapore, £1900 Emirates. Might have been unlucky with those dates? I understand that booking last minute with no flexibility there can be a much greater discrepancy, such is the nature of business travel I guess.

Also a slight case of apples and oranges. None of the ME3 flights are direct. Your BA flight gets you to Changi in 13 hours, your Emirates flights get you there in 16hrs with a hefty trek through terminal 3 at DXB, a disturbed sleep and the risk of a connection. At a similar price point BA are competitive for the reason of convenience alone.

I take on board the double-legged nature of the EK flight. Personally, I don't mind it on that route, as I tend to take a lunchtime flight and relax in the bar for the first leg and then sleep on the second. Agreed DXB is a yuk terminal to transfer through, but I tend to use the time to grab a shower at the lounge.

The challenge is I'm fixed on my dates. It has to be leaving on 14th Aug and returning on 19th. For this trip, BA can't compete

[DanL]

schmalex said:

I take on board the double-legged nature of the EK flight. Personally, I don't mind it on that route, as I tend to take a lunchtime flight and relax in the bar for the first leg and then sleep on the second. Agreed DXB is a yuk terminal to transfer through, but I tend to use the time to grab a shower at the lounge.

The challenge is I'm fixed on my dates. It has to be leaving on 14th Aug and returning on 19th. For this trip, BA can't compete

Singapore airlines have a much nicer cabin than BA, and are direct. How do they compare, price wise?