JumboMaiden wrote:

How are they getting around employment laws?
IB crew based in MAD will work MAD/LHR and then one of a few patterns from LHR and back to MAD
but will be on BA aircraft along side LHR based crew.
I understand AY wet lease, their aircraft, their crew more or less their everything.

They’re not IB crew, they will be BA crew hired through a local recruiting agency. Nothing illegal with that, so I’m not sure what you mean by getting around employment laws? I’m more shocked they got it past the union, although that’s not what it once was.

RyanairGuru wrote:

JumboMaiden wrote:

How are they getting around employment laws?
IB crew based in MAD will work MAD/LHR and then one of a few patterns from LHR and back to MAD
but will be on BA aircraft along side LHR based crew.
I understand AY wet lease, their aircraft, their crew more or less their everything.

They’re not IB crew, they will be BA crew hired through a local recruiting agency. Nothing illegal with that, so I’m not sure what you mean by getting around employment laws? I’m more shocked they got it past the union, although that’s not what it once was.

Well actually the union has perhaps got its mojo back and has already made massive strides in returning much of what was lost behind a bleak backdrop including improving the pot significantly for its new members from a fleet it previously was not allowed to represent. I believe a few caveats are to be announced regarding the MAD fleet very soon!

tonystan wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

JumboMaiden wrote:

How are they getting around employment laws?
IB crew based in MAD will work MAD/LHR and then one of a few patterns from LHR and back to MAD
but will be on BA aircraft along side LHR based crew.
I understand AY wet lease, their aircraft, their crew more or less their everything.

They’re not IB crew, they will be BA crew hired through a local recruiting agency. Nothing illegal with that, so I’m not sure what you mean by getting around employment laws? I’m more shocked they got it past the union, although that’s not what it once was.

Well actually the union has perhaps got its mojo back and has already made massive strides in returning much of what was lost behind a bleak backdrop including improving the pot significantly for its new members from a fleet it previously was not allowed to represent. I believe a few caveats are to be announced regarding the MAD fleet very soon!

I see. Thanks, not what's circulating in the CRC! (no big shock there)

I would disagree about the union however but we don't all walk with the same strides.

JumboMaiden wrote:

tonystan wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

They’re not IB crew, they will be BA crew hired through a local recruiting agency. Nothing illegal with that, so I’m not sure what you mean by getting around employment laws? I’m more shocked they got it past the union, although that’s not what it once was.

Well actually the union has perhaps got its mojo back and has already made massive strides in returning much of what was lost behind a bleak backdrop including improving the pot significantly for its new members from a fleet it previously was not allowed to represent. I believe a few caveats are to be announced regarding the MAD fleet very soon!

I see. Thanks, not what's circulating in the CRC! (no big shock there)

I would disagree about the union however but we don't all walk with the same strides.

I wouldnt pay much attention to what’s being said in the CRC, especially if its coming from the other union! Lol

Fortunately the proof is in the pudding and the evidence is available for all to see.

I apologise in advance for sharing unconfirmed gossip, but I think it might be interesting to discuss: 1) IBERIA have a list of 170 cabin crews that were furloughed/their temporary contracts were not renewed during the pandemic and have not been called back. These are the people whose names are being passed on to BA and are the candidates for this recruitment process. 2) These people have already flown with IBERIA not so long ago, so they are certified and have SOME training, therefore the process to get them flying is shorter and cheaper 3) The recruitment and hiring will be done through an agency called RANSTAD according to Spanish law.

I'm hearing from a usually reliable source that in addition to the Iberia Express A320s, BA will be using the two Titan 757s at Gatwick this summer.

With the demise of the BA source, I came across this gem, that some people might like.
https://speedbird.online/fleet.php

Brilliant site

Also ,heard the strong rumours re the Titan 757’s op out of LGW.

TUGMASTER wrote:

With the demise of the BA source, I came across this gem, that some people might like.
https://speedbird.online/fleet.php

Brilliant site

Also ,heard the strong rumours re the Titan 757’s op out of LGW.

G-ZAPX positioned south of the river yesterday operated to and Bari this morning and off to Kos this afternoon !

Current plans are for DBV and ACE for G-ZAPX tomorrow (2nd May)

TUGMASTER wrote:

Current plans are for DBV and ACE for G-ZAPX tomorrow (2nd May)

Is this a one-off, or expected regular utilisation? I'm due to fly LGW-ACE on the 9th, returning the 16th. The BA website still shows this as an A320 (including the seating plan).

3rd May,
ZAPX is planned Venice and Tenerife

Now as we know the A350 ULR specs, do you think BA could also start flights to Australia? IMHO there are some pros that speak for it: 1. BA already operates the 350; 2. BA has the option for feeding the flights from Europe for people that rather have 1 short flight and 1 long flight instead of 2 long flights 3. BA has the routes to deploy the premium heavy aircraft outside of the ULR routes, LHR-JFK or LHR-LAX can be used for such aircraft to optimise aircraft utilisation.

What are your thoughts on that?

It won't work for BA. In order for a new subfleet to make financial sense, BA would have to order at least 12 of the type. There aren't many destinations where BA could deploy ULH and certainly you wouldn't get any meaningful utilisation with 12 aircraft even if you had them.

Unlike QF, BA does not rely on ultra long haul traffic for revenue.

I just don't see BA buying the 35K ULR. They just don't have an O&D pair that currently needs it. Australia will be handled by Qantas. I just don't see there being the space for 2 carriers flying Sunrise routes. It makes a lot of sense to add more regular A35Ks. They fit really well with the existing and future fleet and are perfect for many of the routes BA currently flies. A future fleet with the A35K and 789 being the backbone of the long haul fleet with the 78J and 788 handling most of the intermediate stuff is probably what makes the most sense for them.

IAG posted its Q1 results and no surprise it was a large net loss of €787mil.

https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Files ... esults.pdf

They mentioned short term focus for BA would be:
"British Airways is focusing on improving operations and customer experience, including moderating planned capacity at Heathrow.

Quite the reduction of frequency on long haul in peak summer.

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220509-bajun22lhrlh

Is this related to cabin crew shortage, demand, both?

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Quite the reduction of frequency on long haul in peak summer.
https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220509-bajun22lhrlh
Is this related to cabin crew shortage, demand, both?

If this were at least partly based on demand, I would expect other long haul airlines to cut service to London. I have not seen any reports of this happening

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Quite the reduction of frequency on long haul in peak summer.

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220509-bajun22lhrlh

Is this related to cabin crew shortage, demand, both?

Crew shortage.

New managers have taken responsibility for customer services, operations and IT, the airline confirmed.Chief information and digital officer Anthony Allcock is to be replaced by external hire Dirk John, while Calum Laming is brought in as chief customer officer, replacing Tom Stevens.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 75997.html

Still lots more to do to win back customer support but at least they are trying.

Agreed, a step in the right direction, but I wonder how long it will take before any changes are felt?

I do wonder about IAG's strategy sometimes. You'd think things like IT and digital platforms would be centralised. Why do IB, BA and EI need completely different apps, for example? Surely they should all have basically the same app, developed at the same time and with the same functionality, just with a different skin/branding. Instead we get three completely different apps developed by different people, I am sure at separate enormous costs.

The fact that IAG's IT is not centralised, I think tells us something about IAG.

vhtje wrote:

I do wonder about IAG's strategy sometimes. You'd think things like IT and digital platforms would be centralised. Why do IB, BA and EI need completely different apps, for example? Surely they should all have basically the same app, developed at the same time and with the same functionality, just with a different skin/branding. Instead we get three completely different apps developed by different people, I am sure at separate enormous costs.

The fact that IAG's IT is not centralised, I think tells us something about IAG.

It is indeed quite bizarre. Some years ago, IAG presented its plan to hub (outsource to a 100% owned subsidiary) all BPO and IT at Krakow, Poland and India. Some people left BA/IB OpCos and moved to these legal entities. That's why I find it quite strange the low level of synergies achieved (at least visible from outside)

Hopefully this goes a long way in solving the major issues BA have been having. I actually quite enjoy flying them but I’ve been shocked at how they haven’t been able to handle the uptick in demand

They have had to face Brexit, EU majority ownership requirements, Covid and Heathrow troubles and long range international travel being weak, their core business.

vhtje wrote:

Agreed, a step in the right direction, but I wonder how long it will take before any changes are felt?

I do wonder about IAG's strategy sometimes. You'd think things like IT and digital platforms would be centralised. Why do IB, BA and EI need completely different apps, for example? Surely they should all have basically the same app, developed at the same time and with the same functionality, just with a different skin/branding. Instead we get three completely different apps developed by different people, I am sure at separate enormous costs.

The fact that IAG's IT is not centralised, I think tells us something about IAG.

I agree. I just bought a ticket from the U.S. to Europe on BA's website but on a IB flight and in order to manage my booking I had to go create a new account on IB's website. Ridiculous.

Noshow wrote:

They have had to face Brexit, EU majority ownership requirements, Covid and Heathrow troubles and long range international travel being weak, their core business.

And yet, their customer service issues are self inflicted.

vhtje wrote:

Agreed, a step in the right direction, but I wonder how long it will take before any changes are felt?

I do wonder about IAG's strategy sometimes. You'd think things like IT and digital platforms would be centralised. Why do IB, BA and EI need completely different apps, for example? Surely they should all have basically the same app, developed at the same time and with the same functionality, just with a different skin/branding. Instead we get three completely different apps developed by different people, I am sure at separate enormous costs.

The fact that IAG's IT is not centralised, I think tells us something about IAG.

It's a branding thing. It's not really enormous cost wise if you use the same framework but make the face look different. A good example of a similar situation is Bank of America. They have their standard bank app but a separate one for Merrill Lynch. You can tell at sign in there is a lot in the background framework that is the same but they maintain separate identities on the face for branding reasons. It would be interesting to see if there is revenue differentiation between what the apps capture especially for similar flights. Are business travelers more likely to use the BA version and therefore buy higher yielding tickets even in an IB flight for example.

this is neo-liberalism/capitalism at its finest: consolidate, consolidate, consolidate, grow, grow, grow, shareholder returns, shareholder returns, shareholder returns, bottom line, bottom line, bottom line.

meanwhile, ZERO integration efforts analyzed, planned, designed, built, tested, and deployed in a smooth and effective manner. Processes exist in silos, customer data is flung all over the place (and often breached), system outages take place regularly, operations are disrupted, airline personnel becomes jaded and frustrated, costs build-up having to re-accommodate and compensate passengers, and the can just keeps getting kicked down the road.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Agreed, a step in the right direction, but I wonder how long it will take before any changes are felt?

I do wonder about IAG's strategy sometimes. You'd think things like IT and digital platforms would be centralised. Why do IB, BA and EI need completely different apps, for example? Surely they should all have basically the same app, developed at the same time and with the same functionality, just with a different skin/branding. Instead we get three completely different apps developed by different people, I am sure at separate enormous costs.

The fact that IAG's IT is not centralised, I think tells us something about IAG.

It's a branding thing. It's not really enormous cost wise if you use the same framework but make the face look different. A good example of a similar situation is Bank of America. They have their standard bank app but a separate one for Merrill Lynch. You can tell at sign in there is a lot in the background framework that is the same but they maintain separate identities on the face for branding reasons. It would be interesting to see if there is revenue differentiation between what the apps capture especially for similar flights. Are business travelers more likely to use the BA version and therefore buy higher yielding tickets even in an IB flight for example.

I think you have misunderstood my post. BA/IB/VY/EI do not have the same app, or the same anything, from what I can tell. I am suggesting they should have the same basic app, with the same functionality, just with branding differences, which is designed and managed by a central IAG IT department - like BOA does with its various brands, as you cite in your example.

Exactly- and it should also be able to do things like check-in across the different apps, view flight details across different apps, etc etc. I flew MAN-DUB-ORD with EI and home ORD-LHR-MAN with BA last year. All booked through BA, BA flight numbers on my EI legs, etc etc. Was completely unable to check in online for the EI segments on EI's app/website, even though I'd completed the Verifly stuff for all the covid restrictions. I also had to contact BA to get them to credit my account with the Avios/Tier points for the EI segments.
I have had no issues with AA operated segments booked through BA or BA segments booked through AA - insane that a third party airline is better integrated with BA than an airline owned by the same parent company.
Across IAG it should be, from an IT point of view, be as if you're just on a plane with a different paint scheme.

Nothing will change if the budget remains the same. There have been plenty of decent managers but if they are not given any money then they can’t change anything even less so if all they are told to do is cut and save money.

Most IT is already being handled by IAG it’s just BA sacked the people who made/knew it’s systems and now it’s much harder to make changes without everything collapsing.

vhtje wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Agreed, a step in the right direction, but I wonder how long it will take before any changes are felt?

I do wonder about IAG's strategy sometimes. You'd think things like IT and digital platforms would be centralised. Why do IB, BA and EI need completely different apps, for example? Surely they should all have basically the same app, developed at the same time and with the same functionality, just with a different skin/branding. Instead we get three completely different apps developed by different people, I am sure at separate enormous costs.

The fact that IAG's IT is not centralised, I think tells us something about IAG.

It's a branding thing. It's not really enormous cost wise if you use the same framework but make the face look different. A good example of a similar situation is Bank of America. They have their standard bank app but a separate one for Merrill Lynch. You can tell at sign in there is a lot in the background framework that is the same but they maintain separate identities on the face for branding reasons. It would be interesting to see if there is revenue differentiation between what the apps capture especially for similar flights. Are business travelers more likely to use the BA version and therefore buy higher yielding tickets even in an IB flight for example.

I think you have misunderstood my post. BA/IB/VY/EI do not have the same app, or the same anything, from what I can tell. I am suggesting they should have the same basic app, with the same functionality, just with branding differences, which is designed and managed by a central IAG IT department - like BOA does with its various brands, as you cite in your example.

Yes sorry...thanks for the clarification.

Quick story about my experience with British Airways Customer Service: Purchased LAX-LHR / LHR-SAN round-trip tickets. BA canceled the A380 service (reason for LAX instead of SAN). I called British Airways and IMMEDIATELY spoke with a customer service agent who, without any issues whatsoever, changed the ticket to SAN-LHR-SAN. No problems, no issues, no sweat.

All was well until Monday, May 2. I received an e-mail informing me my SAN-LHR flight was canceled, and I had been rebooked a day earlier. Nice of the airline to do so; however, this didn't work with my travel plans. I figured, "no problem, I'll call them and offer them a different itinerary, and we'll get that settled".

I couldn't have been more wrong.

"We're sorry, but due to heavy call volume, your call cannot be connected at this time. Please call again closer to your date of departure, so we can handle the most urgent cases now".

Ummm, NO...

Three days later, when I finally got through, I spoke with a lovely woman who informed me that her computer would, under no circumstances, permit any changes. No connections, no alternate airports, nothing - "i cannot get the computer to change the dates".

So, we canceled. Total amount refunded, $5,000+. All because the BA computer wouldn't let us change the itinerary at all.

I don't understand why BA would change so many schedules but then refuse to provide enough support to handle all the changes.

I don't understand why BA would refuse to offer any connecting flights on my desired day of travel, even when I came prepared with options.

One of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition HAS to be "never place any obstacles between you and your customer's money". British Airways followed that in December, easily switching my departure from LAX to SAN. Now it's, "you'll take what we give you and you don't get a say in it at all!". How does that happen?

"Bloody Awful", indeed.

Noshow wrote:

They have had to face Brexit, EU majority ownership requirements, Covid and Heathrow troubles and long range international travel being weak, their core business.

They had known several years regarding Brexit. It didn't suddenly happen overnight.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Ummm, NO...

I don't understand why BA would refuse to offer any connecting flights on my desired day of travel, even when I came prepared with options.

One of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition HAS to be "never place any obstacles between you and your customer's money". British Airways followed that in December, easily switching my departure from LAX to SAN. Now it's, "you'll take what we give you and you don't get a say in it at all!". How does that happen?

"Ummm, No..." to what exactly? Whilst I could be wrong, I would imagine it more to be an availability issue (or rules pertaining to your ticket) rather that 'refusing' as you state. You may very well have offered options, but that doesn't necessarily mean all legs/conditions were available. What 'acquisition' are you referring to, although to a certain extent, I see that possibly as 'I demand to get what I want' type of scenario.

Vicenza wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Ummm, NO...

I don't understand why BA would refuse to offer any connecting flights on my desired day of travel, even when I came prepared with options.

One of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition HAS to be "never place any obstacles between you and your customer's money". British Airways followed that in December, easily switching my departure from LAX to SAN. Now it's, "you'll take what we give you and you don't get a say in it at all!". How does that happen?

"Ummm, No..." to what exactly? Whilst I could be wrong, I would imagine it more to be an availability issue (or rules pertaining to your ticket) rather that 'refusing' as you state. You may very well have offered options, but that doesn't necessarily mean all legs/conditions were available. What 'acquisition' are you referring to, although to a certain extent, I see that possibly as 'I demand to get what I want' type of scenario.

Respectfully, you are incorrect. The EXACT words were, "I am seeing NO options to re-book you". I tried giving my desired itinerary, and she stopped me before I could continue: "no, it is not letting me rebook". Not through DFW. Not through LAX. Not through ORD, PHL, or SEA. None. Not even the non-stop out of LAX. It refused.

Perhaps it was a glitch in the system at that time, but there were NO options other than to accept what the computer said.

I have never heard of such a thing either, but there it was. Fortunately, the money was refunded and different tickets on Delta and Virgin Atlantic were purchased.

readytotaxi wrote:

New managers have taken responsibility for customer services, operations and IT, the airline confirmed.Chief information and digital officer Anthony Allcock is to be replaced by external hire Dirk John, while Calum Laming is brought in as chief customer officer, replacing Tom Stevens.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 75997.html

Still lots more to do to win back customer support but at least they are trying.

They stopping trying the moment they outsourced IT to India and failed to have robust replicated services in their data centres - both within a few miles of each other near London (yes just 2). My company have a tenth of their workforce, even we have 8 data centres globally, each able to provide 100% service.

N1120A wrote:

Not exactly several years, given the various wranglings that happened, but they should have been better prepared.[

I would completely disagree. The referendum, and decision, took place in June 2016 so they have known for the last 6 years. But, like almost every other business in the UK, they done sweet little to nothing about it and only when time was running out did they (all businesses, not specifically BA) start whinging about not having enough time. Business does not like change. The various wranglings you mention concerned the terms of withdrawal, not it itself. They should most certainly have been more than prepared with 6 years notice.

N1120A wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Quick story about my experience with British Airways Customer Service: Purchased LAX-LHR / LHR-SAN round-trip tickets. BA canceled the A380 service (reason for LAX instead of SAN). I called British Airways and IMMEDIATELY spoke with a customer service agent who, without any issues whatsoever, changed the ticket to SAN-LHR-SAN. No problems, no issues, no sweat.

All was well until Monday, May 2. I received an e-mail informing me my SAN-LHR flight was canceled, and I had been rebooked a day earlier. Nice of the airline to do so; however, this didn't work with my travel plans. I figured, "no problem, I'll call them and offer them a different itinerary, and we'll get that settled".

I couldn't have been more wrong.

"We're sorry, but due to heavy call volume, your call cannot be connected at this time. Please call again closer to your date of departure, so we can handle the most urgent cases now".

Ummm, NO...

Three days later, when I finally got through, I spoke with a lovely woman who informed me that her computer would, under no circumstances, permit any changes. No connections, no alternate airports, nothing - "i cannot get the computer to change the dates".

So, we canceled. Total amount refunded, $5,000+. All because the BA computer wouldn't let us change the itinerary at all.

I don't understand why BA would change so many schedules but then refuse to provide enough support to handle all the changes.

I don't understand why BA would refuse to offer any connecting flights on my desired day of travel, even when I came prepared with options.

One of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition HAS to be "never place any obstacles between you and your customer's money". British Airways followed that in December, easily switching my departure from LAX to SAN. Now it's, "you'll take what we give you and you don't get a say in it at all!". How does that happen?

"Bloody Awful", indeed.

That actively violates their booking rules. They should have offered the change. First online BA/IAG, then online JV (AA/AY/etc), then online OW (using AS to connect up, for example), then non-alliance OAL

That was my thought. What kind of airline doesn't appreciate someone stepping with (in this case) a OneWorld itinerary ready to go?

Honestly though, AA has created much of this headache here in San Diego because they idiotically pulled their SAN-LAX service.[/quote]

Ironic that I even offered to go BACK to my original itinerary and fly out of LAX, getting up there on my own (Amtrak+FlyAway shuttle), but the computer was determined that I had to go on Sunday, and nothing was going to change its mind.

airbazar wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Agreed, a step in the right direction, but I wonder how long it will take before any changes are felt?

I do wonder about IAG's strategy sometimes. You'd think things like IT and digital platforms would be centralised. Why do IB, BA and EI need completely different apps, for example? Surely they should all have basically the same app, developed at the same time and with the same functionality, just with a different skin/branding. Instead we get three completely different apps developed by different people, I am sure at separate enormous costs.

The fact that IAG's IT is not centralised, I think tells us something about IAG.

I agree. I just bought a ticket from the U.S. to Europe on BA's website but on a IB flight and in order to manage my booking I had to go create a new account on IB's website. Ridiculous.

Yes, I agree. I have done that before. When I bought my ticket with BA, I had segments flown by AA, BA and IB. I was able to choose my connection seats with AA but could not do so with my connection seats with IB!
It does sound like IB is starting to improve the onboard experience in June, not sure if IAG is leading this in all the carriers or if it just IB.

Vicenza wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Not exactly several years, given the various wranglings that happened, but they should have been better prepared.[

I would completely disagree. The referendum, and decision, took place in June 2016 so they have known for the last 6 years. But, like almost every other business in the UK, they done sweet little to nothing about it and only when time was running out did they (all businesses, not specifically BA) start whinging about not having enough time. Business does not like change. The various wranglings you mention concerned the terms of withdrawal, not it itself. They should most certainly have been more than prepared with 6 years notice.

The referendum took place in 2016, but negotiations over the UK leaving the EU went on forever.... How could any business plan for changes when they didn't know what those changes were until a deal was done???

Vicenza wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Ummm, NO...

I don't understand why BA would refuse to offer any connecting flights on my desired day of travel, even when I came prepared with options.

One of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition HAS to be "never place any obstacles between you and your customer's money". British Airways followed that in December, easily switching my departure from LAX to SAN. Now it's, "you'll take what we give you and you don't get a say in it at all!". How does that happen?

"Ummm, No..." to what exactly? Whilst I could be wrong, I would imagine it more to be an availability issue (or rules pertaining to your ticket) rather that 'refusing' as you state. You may very well have offered options, but that doesn't necessarily mean all legs/conditions were available. What 'acquisition' are you referring to, although to a certain extent, I see that possibly as 'I demand to get what I want' type of scenario.

As N1120A has said, this is flat out wrong. In that event of a cancellation, and especially a date change, you are basically entitled to any alternate routing based on a scale of online metal, JBA metal, alliance metal, OAL metal. Standard fare rules are irrelevant, all airlines have a schedule change policy that overrides the fare rules in this situation. Unless you believe that every option via DFW, CLT, ORD, PHL, SEA etc was fully sold, BA are absolutely in the wrong. I agree with N1120A that the caller should have escalated the enquiry to someone more senior.

You folks should try working with this airline as a supplier. They are complete shite! Their employees have no clue what they are doing, they do not respond to emails or phone calls and how their planes are not falling out of the skies is a complete miracle. In all the years working as a supplier for airlines, they are hands down the most mismanaged and disorganized airline out there. I will not fly on them knowing how poorly the airline is run.

IrishAyes wrote:

this is neo-liberalism/capitalism at its finest: consolidate, consolidate, consolidate, grow, grow, grow, shareholder returns, shareholder returns, shareholder returns, bottom line, bottom line, bottom line.

meanwhile, ZERO integration efforts analyzed, planned, designed, built, tested, and deployed in a smooth and effective manner. Processes exist in silos, customer data is flung all over the place

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Three days later, when I finally got through, I spoke with a lovely woman who informed me that her computer would, under no circumstances, permit any changes. No connections, no alternate airports, nothing - "i cannot get the computer to change the dates".

So, we canceled. Total amount refunded, $5,000+. All because the BA computer wouldn't let us change the itinerary at all.

I don't understand why BA would change so many schedules but then refuse to provide enough support to handle all the changes.

I had the exact same thing happen to me on MSY-LHR-CAI-LHR-LAX a while back:
BA had changed my flight to leave a day earlier than I'd booked, due to their own segment cancellation on the day I was scheduled to depart, and it simply did not work for me.... yet every phone agent swore: "we're sorry, there's just no other option that our system will allow."

That's when you get up, and make a trip to the airport.

They'll have at least one manager empowered with override authority who can (though it may require a call or two) work out situations like this.
At LAX, she has her own standalone booth for BA, I can't speak to the setup at SAN.

With relatively little fuss, she was able to rebook me on QR... however a sticking point arose in that QR sells its Q-Suites as "First" on MidEast regional routes, so even though I'm roundtrip paid-Club on BA, the computer forced her to downgrade me to coach on QR, because I would've needed to be in BA paid-F to remain in the Q-Suites for the entire itinerary.

"Annoyed" wouldn't have even begun to describe me. However, after a few calls, she was able to get me a $900+ credit, and assured that I'd still be in the Q-Suites on the 16hr TATL, just not the 2hr regional--- so at the end of the day, I just STFU and took the money.

So yeah, if you get your itin fixed and they put you on QR, just be ready for that. She said "happens all the time."

As we seem to be in full "let's kick BA for being stupid" mode.

9 people flying LAX-LHR-AMS. PRG-LHR-LAX 4 in first, 5 in club

BA cancels the LHR-AMS segment, offers us a different flight, my assistant points out that flight leaves 25 minutes before we are due to land at LHR, so chances are we won't make it. She then tries to get them to just cancel the LHR-AMS leg and refund whatever is owed.....Nope, can't figure that out, just have to apply for a refund 30 days after the flight was due to operate....

Yeah, refund the whole thing, $40k in lost revenue.

I have a question about BA 777 strategy into JFK.

What is the mix of 777 going LHR to JFK. it seems to vary almost daily with some mix of 777-200ER and 777-300ER. is there any rhyme or reason on what plane they are putting on each specific flight too and from JFK?

I know they all have the Club Suites in J, in F are they all the 8 seat configuration or do they still fly the older 14 seat F into JFK at all? Also in F do the 777-200ER have the doors on the F suites or are they non-door F while the business suites have the door?

Any insight into this would be interesting for me!!

gsg013 wrote:

I have a question about BA 777 strategy into JFK.

What is the mix of 777 going LHR to JFK. it seems to vary almost daily with some mix of 777-200ER and 777-300ER. is there any rhyme or reason on what plane they are putting on each specific flight too and from JFK?

I know they all have the Club Suites in J, in F are they all the 8 seat configuration or do they still fly the older 14 seat F into JFK at all? Also in F do the 777-200ER have the doors on the F suites or are they non-door F while the business suites have the door?

Any insight into this would be interesting for me!!

It is usually one 300 a day…atm it’s the 173/112. The F on the 200s does not have doors and normally it is always Club Suites/8 F however on occasion and old configured plane can how up…it happened to me back in February when both my outbound and inbound switched to old Club

shamrock321 wrote:

gsg013 wrote:

I have a question about BA 777 strategy into JFK.

What is the mix of 777 going LHR to JFK. it seems to vary almost daily with some mix of 777-200ER and 777-300ER. is there any rhyme or reason on what plane they are putting on each specific flight too and from JFK?

I know they all have the Club Suites in J, in F are they all the 8 seat configuration or do they still fly the older 14 seat F into JFK at all? Also in F do the 777-200ER have the doors on the F suites or are they non-door F while the business suites have the door?

Any insight into this would be interesting for me!!

It is usually one 300 a day…atm it’s the 173/112. The F on the 200s does not have doors and normally it is always Club Suites/8 F however on occasion and old configured plane can how up…it happened to me back in February when both my outbound and inbound switched to old Club

Interesting... I'm scheduled on Fridays BA116 and now it looks like as of tomorrow 116 is switching to the 777-300ER. (It looks like were scheduled with the 8F configuration on Friday).