anstar
Posts: 2861
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:18 am

http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/story.jsp?story=610118

Seems BA are substituting more flights... only this time the press has got wind of it...

They need to sort these operational issues out as the last 6 months have been bad at BA...
 
Summa767
Posts: 1751
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:30 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:03 am

Clearly BA need to get their act sorted. We can remember the flight cancellations, and reduction in schedules due to aircraft shortages since the autumn.

However, the do-gooding independent is proving to be sensationalist in its own way: Just in the headline it wants to say that a jets are being replaced by a "charter flights" giving the impressions that these are not jets. And as to the statement that the 767 will take the flight time to 10 hours, does give the impression that the difference with the speed of the 777 is significant. Gosh gosh.
 
bapilot2b
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 7:42 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:10 am

And you really start to question the papers judgement when they dont think its such a big deal when bmi or VS or any other charter operator change the schedule to another operator. Im sure I wouldnt be happy if I booked MAN-MCO understanding I was on one of VS's 744's and when I got their its an old 742 leased from another airline  Big grin. British newspapers are just a waste of time to read, the chances of you reading a non biased, non sensationalish topic is 0-1. Maybe somebody should forward the writer of that story onto G-BNWH which operates MAN-JFK and then place that same person on the Euro Atlantic 763 LGW-TPA, im sure he would preffer the latter.......
Jason Nicholls - v1images
 
sevenheavy
Posts: 927
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:30 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:26 am

BAPILOT2B:

There is a big difference between what BA has done (although I agree it has been somewhat sensationalised and distorted by the press) and the VS example you quote. Here's why.

VS schedules and publications show a B742 operating MAN-MCO, they never claim it is a B744 (although it will be from may). Also the B742 in question is a former VS example that still carries its VS registration and actually has slightly better IFE and identical seats, configurations ( except for the B744's that have been "suited") and service in all classes that you would find on any other VS flight and aircraft.

In BA's case they have subchartered an aircraft from another airline that was not published in original schedules and which offers a different standard of product and service. As I said the situation has been twisted a little in the article, and yes a B767 is slightly slower than a B777 but the comparism is not accurate.

Regards,

SevenHeavy
So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
 
skidmarks
Posts: 6614
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:51 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:31 am

Well, while a substitute aircraft is a little disappointing to enthusiasts, I would hazard that the majority of people using the service would be grateful that BA hadn't cancelled completely.

Which would be better? No flight or a different aicraft/provider? I know which I would prefer if I was travelling.

Think about it.

Cheers

Andy
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
 
bapilot2b
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 7:42 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:47 am

SevenHeavy, I do understand the difference, and thanks for going onto why there is a large difference, I should have thought alot more before posting!  Nuts .
Jason Nicholls - v1images
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:52 am

I take it that you have been precribed drugs by now?

 
fbgdavidson
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:25 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:54 am

Well, while a substitute aircraft is a little disappointing to enthusiasts, I would hazard that the majority of people using the service would be grateful that BA hadn't cancelled completely.

Which would be better? No flight or a different aicraft/provider? I know which I would prefer if I was travelling.

Think about it


I'm a loyal BA flyer and would be furious if I'd saved miles or paid £2500+ for a Club World seat (as I often do) and turned up to be given this POS.

BA have made so many faux pas with this:
-they are still allowing people to book tickets in First / Club World without warning that they will be getting a wildly different product
-the compensation offered is appalling
-they refuse to apologise and put it down to some 'planned schedule' bullhonky.
-Not only have they done this with TPA but NBO as well.....in the same week!

It appears if you are flying in the back you aren't getting an entirely different product but imagine those poor folks who have saved up all their benefit money to take the kids to DisneyWorld in J  Big grin Watch them run back to MyTravel Big grin

[Edited 2005-02-12 17:56:22]
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
 
trident3
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:59 am

Rewind to 1975, we are as a family about to go on our first holiday abroad, to Malta. We arrived at LHR to find that our BA Trident3 had been replaced by a British Airtours 707. That was quite a substitution when you consider that the 707 would have had a seat pitch of something like 28-29 inches. Mind you it was a great adventure for a ten year old!
"We are the warrior race-Tough men in the toughest sport." Brian Noble, Head Coach, Great Britain Rugby League.
 
ushermittwoch
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:18 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:11 am

Well the TPA service, up until a few years ago was done by British Caledonian DC-10's (1996 being my last trip on this great plane) on behalf of BA and that really sucked, talk about cramped seating. At least a 767 is more spacious, even if the pitch is tighter. I would have only been annoyed by the lack of PTV's because I actually prefer the 767 over the 777.
It is a disgrace though how little compensation the premium passengers were given!
Where have all the tri-jets gone...
 
Catatonic
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:58 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:24 am

I can safely say (In my opinion) BA's eco product is inferior compared to most charter carriers having flown both across the pond, also (In my opinion) AA offer a much more superior product from LHR especially on their 777's! In future I will be flying AA!
Equally Cursed and Blessed.
 
fbgdavidson
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:25 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:05 am

BA's eco product is inferior compared to most charter carriers having flown both across the pond

Well I've done BA Y a couple of times in emergencies (never charter! god forbid!) and found it erm crap but what I thought was interesting was this....

'Travellers in economy class passengers get nothing, because BA describes the service as 'broadly similar' to its own economy product'

No. Not that bad grammar at the beginning!  Big grin But the fact BA admit their own economy product is pretty much the same as low-end charter trash!
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
 
dc10tim
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:21 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:00 am

As an economy passenger I would not have been bothered in the slightest. BA took the initiative and got an aircraft to get those passengers to where they wanted to be. Why all the critism? I'm sure people remember the LHR fiasco last summer when BA were hiring lorries to take peoples luggage across Europe days after the strikes had finished. Why couldn't they have charted an aircraft then?

Also, EuroAtlantic are a pretty rare airline to get a ride on anyway, so I might even have been pleased.

Just curious though as to why this is being attributed to the bad weather in the US last month?

Tim.
Obviously missing something....
 
anstar
Posts: 2861
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:18 am

If it was an isolated case I could get over it. But this has been going on for over 2 weeks now, not to mention the cancellations in the last 6 months of 2004.

Don;t get me wrong, I'm a loyal BA flyer, but time to put the house in order and get rid of Mike Street.


 
skidmarks
Posts: 6614
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:51 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:20 am

Back to slanging off BA I see chaps. Well, carry on, but I for one think they did the right thing. And, if you arent happy about the service, complain to their cutomer relations department, not in here.

I stand by my previous statement - at least the flights haven't been cancelled. After last year's fiasco the staff are doing their utmost to get things back on track and try to repair some of the damage done.

There seems to be a lot of Airline slagging in this forum, much of which I don't doubt is warranted, but no one ever gives a thought to how the airline operates and is actually run. Passengers and others spend time knocking and whining about airlines, with very little thought for how they work and the ramifications. Airlines don't just cancel flights because they feel like it, their is usually a damn good reason. They are in the game to make money, and cancelling flights and pissing pax off is not good business.

So, next time you think about having a go, think about the person behind the desk, out on the ramp or in the cabin. They all have a job to do, and if you dont get what you pay for, dont have a go at them, its not their fault! And if the aircraft isn't the one you were expecting, be grateful they bothered to get a substitute - they could just as easily cancel the whole shooting match!

Have a nice flight

Andy
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
 
jc2354
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 9:56 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:22 am

I wouldn't mind one last ride on a tri-star
If not now, then when?
 
anstar
Posts: 2861
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:26 am

At least the didn't cancel the flights above... but heres what they cancelled recently... some of them premium routes...

As I said above.. Its been going on for over 6 months... time to sort it out before they loose more pax to the likes of VS etc

I think we have the right to speak up about this. BA are in the service industry and market themselves as a premium carrier that can fix things when they go wrong... Not recently. Whats the issue? Lack of aircraft? Maintenance? US Visa's?

3 February 2005
BA 297 London Heathrow to Chicago
BA 005 London Heathrow to Narita

4 February 2005
BA 296 Chicago to London Heathrow
BA 297 London Heathrow to Chicago

5 February 2005
BA 239 London Heathrow to Boston
BA 296 Chicago to London Heathrow
BA 113 London Heathrow to New York (JFK)

6 February 2005
BA 116 New York (JFK) to London Heathrow
BA 185 London Heathrow to Newark
BA 006 Narita to London Heathrow
BA 212 Boston to London Heathrow

7 February 2005
BA 184 Newark to London Heathrow
BA 185 London Heathrow to Newark

8 February 2005
BA 186 Newark to London Heathrow
BA 67 London Heathrow to Philadelphia
BA 093 London Heathrow to Toronto

9 February 2005
BA 66 Philadelphia to London Heathrow
BA 092 Toronto to London Heathrow


[Edited 2005-02-12 20:29:28]
 
jmc757
Posts: 1205
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 3:36 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:34 am

I think the only real issue here is people in Club World. Economy passengers are loosing about an inch of seat pitch, and perhaps a slightly inferior IFE system. At the end of the day, the flight is operating.

That article is a load of bull. Quoting flyertalk! Newspapers should not quote anonymous internet forums as if they are industry experts, its ridiculous! It happens all the time, bmi have used EAF 737s before!!
 
skidmarks
Posts: 6614
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:51 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:42 am

Of course, no other airline ever cancels flights do they?
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:06 am

Alot of airlines sub in aircraft as and when required. It isn't a big deal. Better to do it in the low season rather than the high season.
 
DoorsToManual
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:28 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:28 am

Problem at the moment is a shortage of crew, not aircraft. In particular, a shortage of longhaul crew at LGW; new entrants coming in thick and fast, but alas not quick enough to avoid this business of chartering other aircraft. Apparently 2 Edelweiss A330s have been covering some NBO flights.

In the rush to get rid of 1000s of employees after 911, it looks like they brought manpower levels in certain areas of the airline below the minimum required. When it works, BA service is generally quite good; the recent series of strikes and cancellations though, has not done the airline any real favours, especially when (as stated above by another poster) the airline wishes to promote itself as a premium choice.
 
GARUDAROD
Posts: 1136
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 4:39 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:41 am


There is quite a lengthy discussion on this topic on the PPRUNE board.
Seems that the cause is the requirement for the Cabin crew to get
visas to work the USA flights on their own time, so they are "protesting"
for lack of a better word. Also the seat pitch is supposed to be 28"
on the Euro Atlantic B767 vs 31" on the BA World Traveller. Not quite
"Broadly Similiar"
Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
 
fbgdavidson
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:25 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:52 am

That article is a load of bull. Quoting flyertalk! Newspapers should not quote anonymous internet forums as if they are industry experts, its ridiculous!

At least they didn't quote someone off here  Laugh out loud
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:58 am

EuroAtlantic's B767-300 is 289 seats all-economy 2-3-2 - not a particularly high number for an all-Y configuration. By comparison MyTravel's B767-300 seats 326, all-economy, 2-4-2, 29-30" pitch.

So with 7 abreast seating, a similar 289 seat layout on the EuroAtlantic aircraft would easily give a pitch of 30" EuroAtlantic's website says the pitch is 28" - but that seems like a conversion error from metric to imperial units to me... 28" pitch would give more than 289 seats at 7" abreast.

BA would have been able to secure other capacity if the aircraft did not provide even a basic standard of comfort for long-haul operations.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
star_world
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 7:52 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:32 am

JMC757 - I think we can safely say that FT is one of the more reputable sources to quote from with regards frequent BA travellers...! The very fact that you make the comparison with BD using someone else's 737s shows that you don't really appreciate the difference here - as people said above, how would you feel if you'd paid several thousands of pounds (not possible on a shorthaul 737 flight btw) for an international business class flight (with flat beds, etc) and ended up in the front section of a charter aircraft?
 
scotron11
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:39 am

Two of BA's top management, indentified in last years fiasco, have departed or will soon do so.

Unfortunately the consequences are still being witnessed. Hopefully, normal service will resume, pronto!
 
BA Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 11:43 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:54 am

I think BA are currently using L1011's for the Kenya Service.
 
anstar
Posts: 2861
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:02 am

Skidmarks... of course other airlines cancel flights...

But I haven't seen many airlines cancelling a large amount of long haul flights over a 6 month period!

If I pay a premium to fly BA I expect to actually get what I paid for. Travel on BA. And before you start about "the airline is only contracted to get you there" I make a choice to fly BA not some charter airline or mingin old Tristars

 
AZA330
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:20 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:00 am

I was also reading on that article that they are gonna give 250£ back to Club passengers. I travelled 2 or 3 times to Tampa on the 777 in ClubWorld (still cradle seat) with BA and if I was one of those passengers, for sure I would refuse those 250£ and re-route my flight to another BA777 destination. And right now, one more reason to do that (according to me) is the new ClubWorld seat, which is way better than what a charter business class seat is, even with a 250£ discount.

I was wondering what happens for World Traveller Plus passengers...

Ciao
 
fbgdavidson
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:25 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:35 am

I travelled 2 or 3 times to Tampa on the 777 in ClubWorld (still cradle seat) with BA and if I was one of those passengers, for sure I would refuse those 250£ and re-route my flight to another BA777 destination

The £250 compensation is disgusting. I'd ask to be routed through Miami or Atlanta.

I was wondering what happens for World Traveller Plus passengers...

Not yet sold on Tampa route.....I think
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
 
B4REAL
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 5:53 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:42 am

Ushermittwoch says:

At least a 767 is more spacious, even if the pitch is tighter. I would have only been annoyed by the lack of PTV's because I actually prefer the 767 over the 777...



Not sure about EuroAtlantic's B767 configuration, but hopefully the economy passengers were not subject to this:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karim SARR


Count the number of seats across the a/c. It is 8 not 7.
B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
 
Speedbird2155
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:44 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:40 am

Skidmarks

I would have to agree with you that this seems more about slagging off the airline.....seems to be a great pleasure for many.

Of course BA doesn't take pleasure in having to disappointing passengers. It's not an ideal situation and the airline has been making attempts to contact passengers before the date of travel and inform them of the situation. Interesting thing is that I actually work in the terminal dealing with passengers who are affected by the NBO change and most of them have been understanding and calm about it. The people complaining are those on here, who merely read about it, but aren't affected.

For those of you trying to blame it on one reason or one person, stop trying. I'm no fan of Mike Street, but trying to place all the blame on him isn't fair.....he's done his share of messing up, but the ones who've felt it most have been the front line staff in the termnals and we have long moved on. The fact remains that we've had a series of events including the weather disruptions, maintenance overruns and the conversion of the 767s which have impacted on our schedule...and yes we've had crew issues, but please don't make it sound like such a massive crisis with crew. Fact is the weather issues would have messed up crew rotations, in addition when we have flights return, as has happened for various reasons, that also affects crew rotation and hence later flights. All we can do is try our best to get back into rotation and get things running smoothly. Yes it will mean some disruptions, but BA always tries to minimise these.....as I'm sure most airlines do. If trying to get passengers to their destination, albeit not on a BA plane, is a problem, maybe we should simply suggest that they cancel flights in the future.

This isn't meant to be a justification for anything that's happened, but it's happened and will probably continue on our 767 routes while we update the aircraft, but in the end passengers on those routes will have a better product.
 
cheeryguy
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:54 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:47 am

3 February 2005
BA 297 London Heathrow to Chicago
BA 005 London Heathrow to Narita

4 February 2005
BA 296 Chicago to London Heathrow
BA 297 London Heathrow to Chicago

5 February 2005
BA 239 London Heathrow to Boston
BA 296 Chicago to London Heathrow
BA 113 London Heathrow to New York (JFK)

6 February 2005
BA 116 New York (JFK) to London Heathrow
BA 185 London Heathrow to Newark
BA 006 Narita to London Heathrow
BA 212 Boston to London Heathrow

7 February 2005
BA 184 Newark to London Heathrow
BA 185 London Heathrow to Newark

8 February 2005
BA 186 Newark to London Heathrow
BA 67 London Heathrow to Philadelphia
BA 093 London Heathrow to Toronto

9 February 2005
BA 66 Philadelphia to London Heathrow
BA 092 Toronto to London Heathrow

it seems like a lot of cancellations when printed in this way, in real terms though it is a drop in the ocean in relation to the number of flights operated daily. It is also worth pointing out that all the destinations listed are served twice daily mininum....in the case of some ''JFK'' 7 times a day.
 
anstar
Posts: 2861
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:52 am

Sounds like a lot... yes... add this to the cancellations August - December and it is quite significant. I like BA, but why can't they plan/manage their fleet better. Once I can understand, twice perhaps, but for 6 months running... No
 
AngelAirways
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 1999 3:55 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:58 am

Oh dear the broadsheet posh press is at it again, yet they should be ashamed of themselves, the reporting quality is no better than the trashiest of tabloids.. only tailored to better suit the taste of their readers...

Some people still glamourise BA and apply such a label of quality to it its a bit silly.. and the other extreme, i mean...

"Portuguese Jets" "slower"....

the article is clearly snubbing Portugal as an inferior country which I find elitist and shameful of them

Would the passengers be happy if it were cancelled altogether?

And do they fail to realise tha BA only gives them a miserable 31" in that hideous 3-3-3 config???

geez its all in the mind. once you establish a posh name for yourself the public believes it all along.


 
Planesmart
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:02 am

Seems fair enough to me for economy passengers, but not for those who have paid for much better.

I think my family had the worst replacement aircraft experience in the early 70s'. A Court Airlines Tristar replaced by 3 aircraft (Trident, 111 & Danair Comet). I got to experience a Comet!
 
vsmike
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:40 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm

The EuroAtlantic 767-300 operated as BA2037/2036 LGW-MCO-LGW 10Feb2005, which was a first for BA into MCO. Paxs were understandably concerned about the replacement, and VS found a good many "walk-up" passengers purchasing full-Y and full-J fares in the absence of a proper BA aircraft... which was nice  Smile

As a point of correction, VS was the previous owner to both G-VBEE &
G-VSSS (747-200s) currently operating MAN-MCO-MAN. The aircraft is kitted as a full-VS aircraft (full amenities), with VS crew, although the current aircraft owner is Air Atlanta, Iceland. Nothing about the service is sub-contracted or substandard... or charter. Granted, the replacement of 747-200s with G-VFAB, 747-400 on 01May2005 will be a fantastic improvement (mostly just due to operational relaibility). Otherwise the product is seemless to the passengers... legal-eze dictates "Operated by Air Atlanta" be available on travel agent computers & printed on the ticket stock, but in reality it should read: "Aircraft Owned by Air Atlanta". Occasionally a check-captain for Air Atlanta tags along.

Can you imagine if on future reservations and ticketing, phrases like "Owned by RSB" or "HSBC Really Owns This Aircraft" were necessary? Would it instill the same feeling of hopelessness? Doubt it!

VSM
Skyteam. Caring More About Me.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:30 pm

Funny thing is, when I clicked on the Independent link, I went to the site and got a BA pop-up ad.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
KaiGywer
Crew
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:24 pm

That article is a load of bull. Quoting flyertalk! Newspapers should not quote anonymous internet forums as if they are industry experts, its ridiculous! It happens all the time, bmi have used EAF 737s before!!

Yeah, come on, don't quote FT. At least quote A.net  Nuts
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
jc2354
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 9:56 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:08 pm

What is the history of Mike Street?
If not now, then when?
 
foxiboy
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:34 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:42 pm

Well if you read the small print which many people dont do then you would see that any airline can substitute another airline to operate a service,also i maybe wrong but i dont think i am BA were giving £250 compensation + the difference in the fair to passengers booked in the higher classes of cabin,how do i know this well my other half was travelling home on the BA 2036 from mco may have the flight No wrong and he said it wasnt that bad.
Far too many people on here slag of BA constantly which gets annoying and no i dont work for BA but they are alot better than many airlines out there.
 
Speedbird2155
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:44 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:08 pm

Foxiboy

I work for BA and it is frustrating reading these comments at times. We never pretend to be perfect, we have issues like all airlines, but yet, it seems that people on here enjoy taking a shot at BA for everything. Seems like there are a few airlines that people on here enjoy slagging off and the others can do no wrong, no matter what they do.

Few are willing to say good things when it all goes right, but the second something is out of place, then it's the end of the world.
 
FLVILLA
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 8:07 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:17 pm

BA didn't have to do anything, they could have just cancelled entirely, but no, they went out of there way which remember most airlines would not do and found replacment aircraft.

Also passenger on the TPA affected flights where offered either forms of compensation, re-routing via MCO and ATL (airtran down).

It is a complete inconvenience to passengers, but your still getting there ! Last year my VS flt was cancelled to MCO, the aircraft went tech in MCO, so they had about 14 hours in which VS could have found and chartered a plane. Did they, no.

No-ones perfect but at least there trying to sort there shit out.
I hope in life i can work to live, not live to work
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:04 pm

Typical sensationalist journalism, probably witten by a hack trying to pretend he is an expert.

BA have fleet issues with the American operations suffering WX related delays, and also the 763 dusking program is going to bite into availability. So they chartered in. When your cooker is being serviced you send out for pizza....


Just look at all the substitutions the charter carriers do in winter season. Not only for aircraft doing lucrative Hajj operations and Canadian leases, but for aircraft in the hangar getting their heavy checks. BA as a carrier is no different. Take a few aircraft out for a visit to Cardiff or Heathrow hangars and there starts to be a serious knock-on due to delays mounting on top of delays.

Subchartering costs them money on top of the operation of the flight which their own metals would cost, then you have the refund. BA probably lose more money on the flight compared to what a major delay would accrue them. The hardcore leisure traveller or ID90 flight experts might groan but for the business traveller (BA's bread and butter passenger) or frequent flyer, getting there on time is all that matters.

That business meeting isn't going to wait in Florida just because you were vain enough to demand a re-route through ATL and a more comfy seat.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
monkeyboi
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:12 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:21 pm

I think BA BAshing is almost a national sport in the UK!

Come on, give us a break! I do work for BA so may be a little bias, but in the past I have also worked for the 'other' 2 scheduled UK carriers and I can tell you for sure, when it comes to dealing with tech aircraft, delays, re-accommodating passengers etc BA are WELL ahead of the others.

Just have a read of the streams of 'passenger opinions' on websites like www.airlinequality.com The overwhelming majority are very positive toward BA, while compared to our fellow british and US competitors....well read for yourself and check it out.

Sometimes BA does get it wrong, but we do our best to make it right and get passengers on their way.

Of course we get cancellations. These happen EVERY day and always have. What is the point of listing them flight by flight, day by day in posts on here? BA has OVER 100 longhaul aircraft alone in it's fleet compared to Virgins 30-ish and bmi's hand-ful. We operate HUNDREDS of longhaul services a day so of course with an operation of this size it is inevitable that there will be the odd cancellation. Take ANY airline with a fleet and network the size of BA's and there will be multiple cancellations.

In regards to the LGW-Tampa flight, this would not have been a rash decision. I'm sure it is a huge inconvenience for the SMALL amount of premium (club) passengers on this route but this is precisely why this route would have been selected to be replaced by the chartered aircraft instead of the other LGW long-haul routes such as ATL, DFW, IAH etc etc. The Tampa route is traditionally 95% leisure traffic. I have worked the LGW-TPA flight numerous times and Club Class is always pretty much dead.
 
A340600
Posts: 3892
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 10:24 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:04 am

The Tampa route is traditionally 95% leisure traffic. I have worked the LGW-TPA flight numerous times and Club Class is always pretty much dead.

yes, but for those paying for it, £250 money is awful!

Sam
Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
 
AZA330
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:20 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:41 am

All the times I flew LGW-TPA and back Club Class was full.
I don't know how many seats now they have with the new flat bed, but they had 42 seats in the Club cradle seat and I can't remember of looking around at empty seats. Were the "filled seats" all upgrades?

Also a couple of times the 777 operating the route was the one which also has FIRST, which was operated as a normal Club (of course with the First class seat-bed). That airplane had 14 First class seats and another 49 (I think) Club seats and it was pretty full. Were those upgrades too?

I probably flew not enough times to see Club "dead", or maybe I flew it when there were a lot of premium passengers flying that route.
And still..If I pay for BA Club, 250£ back for a charter business class is not enough. This is because I know how good BA Club is. I would re-route my flight instead.

I was wondering how long this is gonna happen. I'm looking for a flight to TPA in April-May and so I was wondering if it is better to fly to ATL instead, to be for sure on a BA aircraft.

Ciao
 
charliecossie
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 5:17 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:01 am

I believe that pax booked in Club would have received the difference between an economy and club ticket AND 250 quid extra as compensation.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:15 am

BA didn't have to do anything, they could have just cancelled entirely

And that would have been the right thing to do?

Legally, I suspect BA could cancel the flight, not reaccomodate people, and proceed to keep the money. Every contract of carriage I've read gives the customer virtually no rights whatsoever.

That doesn't make it the right thing to do, and suggesting that BA is doing all those passengers a "favor" by not screwing them over -- while that's legally correct, let's be clear that it's morally and ethically bankrupt.

Steve
 
Speedbird2155
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:44 am

RE: Flying BA? No... You're On A Charter Today..

Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:32 am

AZA330

Just because you've seen Club full when you've travelled the TPA route, doesn't mean that it always is and neither would you know how many of those were op. upgrades....if you travel in a busy period, it is likely that a large number of them might have been upgrades.

As was mentioned, it is costing BA loads just to ensure that we can offer passengers a flight on the days they want to travel, albeit not with our aircraft. It's not an ideal situation and no-one ever said it was, but BA is trying to get people to their destinations.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Cipango, Devilfish, dibble777, Floppie, georgiabill, KarelXWB, mafaky, smokeybandit, steman and 252 guests