Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6 Posted (15 years 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2038 times:
As a British Airways Executive Club member - I am afraid to finally confess that I am dismayed by British Airways and its Alliance.
In conversation with some friends when we all met up in London recently, we ALL noticed how poor BA's service has become over the last 18 months. Service is always something that can be rectified but the whole morale of the airline is beyond belief - culminating in Bob Ayling's own departure...unfortunately as a share-holder - the returns this year are going to be slim if any.
I read with horror that BA and Qantas - who have not only put the Kangaroo route on a diet - also plan to use each other as their own.
Well, BA and Qantas have decided that since their profits are now starting to dip - they would pull their resources together and use each other's facilities as their own. So, if you book on BA to go LHR-LAX-LHR for example, you may well be booked on say flight number BA286/287 - but the aircraft, crew and staff could all be Qantas. Similarly, book QF to fly SYD-PER-SYD and you could be on-board a BA 747 with BA crew serving you. As the services will NOT be operated as code-shares - in my book, this becomes a sham (as the passenger will not be made aware that the service will not be that of the airline booked under) and should be disallowed.
The whole point of Global alliances and why they were endorsed by governments and aviation bodies was to benefit the consumer. True, airlines have also gained some benefit by gaining customer loyalty - but this new money-saving tactic is misusing the concept of Alliances and to me - 'taking the consumer for a ride'.
If I booked to fly BA from LHR to New York for a break - I expect to fly BA - not Finnair (as it would have been too costly for BA to use one of its own aircraft - but since Finnair's plane would otherwise be staying overnight in London - let's use it instead!).
Perhaps its time to swap over to Wings once and for all and not book that break with BA.
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4223 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (15 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1738 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Neither do I. I'm also an AAdvantage member so I would fly only on Airlines belonging to One World. I don't think BA is bad at all, I flew with them last December from London to Brussels and the service was good for such a short flight, I got a sandwith and tea. Imagine what you would get on a long haul flight! American, BA and Cathay are very good airlines, so is Qantas. The only thing I have heard is Canadian leaving One World because they have been bought by Air Canada, if I'm not mistaken. Never mind, One World will still be a great alliance with the airlines I mentioned above plus Iberia, Finnair, Aer Lingus and Lan Chile. I've never been on any of these carriers besides AA and BA, but I'm telling you that AA and BA are great airlines. I know very well that Cathay is a very good airline.
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (15 years 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1725 times:
There is nothing wrong with each airline individually (except as i mentioned - BA service seems to be on a downward spiral) - would you be happy booking your LAX-LGA flight with AA and find that you're sitting on a Mexicana flight (although Mexicana doesn't fly the route - they were just operating it for AA as they had a spare aircraft at LAX).
Again - there's nothing wrong with MX - flew with them several times in the late 90s. That is what BA and QF are trying to get permission to do - and I feel its not in our (the passengers') best interest. If I booked BA - I expect to fly BA or (fair enough) with a One World partner - but I would appreciate knowing before hand who was going to fly the plane.
Blink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5492 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (15 years 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1695 times:
i am also an AAdvantage member and i dont find anything wrong with oneworld but like Mas777 said, i agree because i would not want to book an AA flight from LAX-LHR and find out it is being served by BA, it would confuse me if i werent an aviation buff
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (15 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
I've had good experiences with all airlines in the oneworld prgram except for British Airways. I had some racist flight attendents get nasty with me during my recent flight with them back in January LHR-JFK. I had one of their supervisors at JFK yell a question to my dad so loud enough where the people standing behind me in line heard his shouting. In LHR the ticket agent threw the boarding passes at my mom because she asked the agent to repeat the question and was acting pissy toward the other passengers. The plane I was flying on IGA-LHR was a 747-100 which was an extremly old plane. The interior was faded, reading lights in half the seats didn't work, The interor panels were eter loose or missing. We had to make an emergency landing due to problems with the oil pressure and oil. The announcements were not too understandable so a third of the passengers didn't know what was going on. Another flight JFK-LHR I was going to go and ask a question when I heard the flight attendent mutter "Damn New Yorkers when will they stop bothering us with stupid questions?" or my favorite "Who the hell do these bloody Hindus think we are? Their damn servants!?!" Excuse me but I thought that your job was to help people not to make insults about where I'm from or what my religious backround is. Since the I switched to Virgin for going to/from LHR. The best decision I've ever made. I can honestly see why BA is loosing money to Virgin. Atleast I'm trated like a valued customer not a second class citizen.
Boeing 777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (15 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1676 times:
No, you're not mistaken! Air Canada did buy Canadian, that's the main reason for it leaving oneworld. And I'm going to miss Canadian when it's finally merged with AC - it's been a great airline, even though its planes are older than AC's!
Amir From Syria, joined Dec 1999, 1254 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (15 years 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
well i have flown Cathay some 10-15 times they were always good, also AA -in terms of an US carrier- was also oK, but BA and QF i only flew twice which is too little to dare to judge.
What i wanted to ask you is this cooperation of BA and QF were you mentioned that partners can/will eventually operate under each others flight numbers e.g. not a code share t,hus not visable to customers. Where can i find more about this interesting thing? according to the EU regulatiuons- as far as i know- such practices are not allowed.
Airbus A3XX From Australia, joined May 1999, 507 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (15 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1657 times:
I have flown with these One World carriers quiet many times and I found their service to be supreme. I think what you have mentioned is quiet non-sense! How could a MX plane fly that route? And just say if those airlines are using other's aircrafts, then why don't they just use theirs'? It is even more expensive to lease other's plane. And it is quiet non-sense as you said a BA 747 operating a Australian domestic. I just wonder if you are Star Alliance fans and just 'compose' something out to sad One World is bad.
AerLingus A330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1646 times:
Despite my screen name, I have no affiliation with Aer Lingus so I'm not being biased with what I am about to say. Let's just say I chose the screen name because I am very happy with Aer Lingus and that they will make a great addition to the One World alliance.
My wife and I flew Aer Lingus from Boston to Shannon last summer and we absolutely enjoyed it! They have a very friendly staff and made sure every need was taken care of. The A-330 is a marvelous aircraft as well. I'm sorry to hear US Airways is the only US carrier to take delivery of it so far.
My experience with American has been good, I'm sorry to hear there are some out there that have issues with them. Although I have not flown BA, I have some close friends who live here in Boston who are originally from the UK and who go home on a pretty frequent basis. They say they enjoy British, although they also like Virgin who also flies from Boston to Gatwick.
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (15 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1640 times:
What's so great about the Wings alliance?
Northwest and Alitalia aren't exactly the last word in service. Anyway, to MAS777's point, he doesn't like the idea of flying one airline using the aircraft of another.
This is just BA and QF maximising their resources and improving things for their passengers, they way alliances see it, both airlines adhere to the same standards and it shouldn't matter to passengers which airline operates the flight. Back to Wings, I know the chief executive of KLM said "Now we don't care whether our passengers cross the Atlantic in a blue plane or a red plane"
This is just the reality of alliances, equally I expect United don't care if you fly to Germany with them or Lufthansa.
Aa737 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (15 years 6 days ago) and read 1616 times:
I don't think that sharing a/c is something new. I know people who have booked a virgin flight but ended up on a continental plane coming over here to london. Also, I beleive that the star alliance airlines do the same thing, sharing planes.
Of oneworld carriers I have only flown BA and AA, but I have flown many many times on both of them. I personally like the BA service (though their food needs some work) and I find most FAs nice. But with all airlines there are a few FAs that are not so nice to the passengers.
Bizclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (15 years 6 days ago) and read 1615 times:
I agree, OneWorld does suck!! I am at the "sapphire" level in OneWorld due to my President's Gold status with Canadian, well I guess I used to be "sapphire". Anyway, Canadian publishes all this great literature about how great it is to be part of oneworld and how passengers can use AA lounges in the USA and how passengers can use stickers to upgrade on AA flights etc.... Well, what a load of crap!!! Someone should tell the AA people about this little arrangement. I have gone into Miami, Dallas, and LAX AA lounges in the last year and been questioned about my "status". And, forget about upgrading on an AA flight! When you call ahead to the Canadian "GOLD" desk and try to prearrange upgrades (which you can do on Canadian flights) they tell you that they can't help you with the American Airlines portions and that you will have to "check at the airport". Well, as if a Canadian "Gold" passenger is going to get a BC seat over an AAdvantage member, I don't think so!
So, these alliances are a bunch of crap for the passenger. They don't work the way the airlines say they are going to work, there is always a very fine string attached that you must watch for. It sure works well for the airlines though as a cost saving measure. Hmmmmmmmm.
Thanks for listening to the rant. Not very constructive but I feel better!
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (15 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
Reading the replies to my original question - it seems I didn't make myself very clear to begin with.
I am NOT down-sizing or complaining about ANY (although BA is not my flavour of the month) OneWorld carrier. I am complaining about the fact that BA has applied to the various authorities (this was in an article in Flight International last week) to utilise its OneWorld partners' aircraft and staff for its own use.
The flights would NOT be operated as a code-share which is how alliances are based today. I DO know and travel more often than not on code-shared flights (which I 've never agreed about anyway - but heck code-shares now give the customer FAR more choices with scheduling which is not a bad thing).
The whole idea of BA cutting more corners to save on cash through this new scheme, frankly, shocks me.
Dear A3XX :
I'm afraid it is not non-sense (sic.) that BA would be putting their 747s on domestic runs in Oz. The whole saga started because BA noticed that their 747s sit at Kingsford-Smith for most the day and so do QF 747 at Heathrow. BA has decided to make use of this spare 'down-time' and maximise aircraft usage - hence QF would have free access to BA's 747s in Oz and vice-versa with QFs 747s at LHR...oh, and STAR would be the last alliance I would join (merely as virtually none of the STAR network covers my destinations well enough).
A good idea on paper - but the customer stands to lose.
If I was booked on a LHR-JNB flight with BA - I expect to fly BA. If I was booked on a code-share (let's say BA and QF) LHR-JNB then fine - I don't mind flying on a Kangaroo and being served my Castlemaine by QF-crew. BA realises that getting the green-light to code-share on such routes would be difficult (as QF has no rights to fly LHR-JNB) - so forget about code-sharing - just stick the aircraft on the route and we'll all pretend its a BA 747.
What I don't agree to is the fact that this scam BA is planning would allow the 'floating' QF 747 to be deployed as necessary on any route. Us, the passenger would not know if their BA flight is to be operated by another carrier - and as they will NOT be code-share services - BA would NOT need to tell its customers.
Boeing 777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (15 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
I remember that there were some fine print about using the upgrade stickers on restrictions on using them to up grade on AA. I can't find them right now, but I know there are some restrictions, not just on discount fares, but on US nad international oneworld partners.
BTW, has there been any changes to your flight plans to YVR on the 21st of April? I'm now shifted to this as follows:
Apr21 YEG-YVR AC 1879 1:00 1:35
Apr24 YVR-YEG AC 1882 5:30 8:05
Both are on AirBC, of course.
Bizclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (15 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
I think you are right about the fine print which is what I was eluding to with the "attached string" reference. I just hate the fine print!
Anyway, yes, my flights have also been altered, however I chose to stay on Canadian flights. Just after you told me about the changes a month ago or so I called Canadian and changed them. I am now on the following itinerary:
Apr21 YEG-YVR CAI FLT 643 9:20AM 9:49AM 737
Apr23 YVR-YYC CAI FLT 682 18:00 20:19 737
Apr23 YYC-YEG CAI FLT 1468 21:00 21:45 F28
On the outbound they let me change to whatever flight I wanted actually. They were quite accomodating about the change.
On the return I was originally booked on the direct flight at 18:05 but it has been changed as you know, so Canadian took the liberty of booking my wife and I on the 18:00 through Calgary. Again, they offered us a direct flight on Air Canada or we could have flown early on a Canadian direct but we chose the late in the day departure on Canadian. We get an extra segment out of it I guess. Plus, we have the opportunity of upgrading too which we wouldn't have on an Air Canada flight.