BA to scrap meals on short haul flights

[anat0l]

If just treating the flight in the same way as one would pick a train or bus, carriers like easyjet and ryanair have their place. On short flights many people just care primarily about price. If going LGW-AMS in economy ( especially if holding no airline status ) for example, why wouldn't people take EZ if it is cheaper.

Not as if BA is going to give you anything much extra on the 40 minute flight

Dave

Ah well. Everyone's circumstances are different.

In my case, I have OWE status. So there's always lounge access to look forward to.

For non-status pax, obviously we're on a different playing field. But for their sake (and everyone for that matter) if you're going to fly LCC at least understand all the nooks and what not. For example, if you're going to fly Ryanair, you might as well shoot yourself in the foot literally if you don't check in online. Or carry 20kg of checked bags (and as many people here have said, this should rarely be a problem since most Europeans travel light with hand carry only for short hops).

 

[anat0l]

For an average non-status passenger, in what way is BA going to be streets ahead of EZ for a short 1 hr flight

FR does seem to be aiming to be as low as possible, so would ignore them except if they are having one of their GBP1 style deals

Dave

JohnK's view is based on principles solely. It's like trying to convince a vegetarian to eat meat, i.e. impossible to change (for various reasons, of course).

 

[Dave Noble]

Ah well. Everyone's circumstances are different.

In my case, I have OWE status. So there's always lounge access to look forward to.

For non-status pax, obviously we're on a different playing field. But for their sake (and everyone for that matter) if you're going to fly LCC at least understand all the nooks and what not. For example, if you're going to fly Ryanair, you might as well shoot yourself in the foot literally if you don't check in online. Or carry 20kg of checked bags (and as many people here have said, this should rarely be a problem since most Europeans travel light with hand carry only for short hops).

FR does seem to have a number of negatives against them and there are reasons to be wary of them, but on a short hop flight, if you had no status or affiliation with an airline ( such as lounge access via club membership ) , what real benefit would you feel that you would get with BA over EZ and would you still choose BA over EZ if it was more expensive?

The majority of passengers are in that group

Personally, I would pay extra to go BA due to having lounge access whilst I wait for the flight and the ability to pick the exit rows in advance due to being eligable to pre-select... not denying that... but without those extras it would be different

Dave

 

[Mal]

if you had no status or affiliation with an airline ( such as lounge access via club membership ) , what real benefit would you feel that you would get with BA over EZ and would you still choose BA over EZ if it was more expensive?

I think it depends on the destination, and what you intend to do there. As I've commented elsewhere, I'm in Helsinki this weekend and flew over with BA.

Ryanair would have also flown me over if I wanted that option. However, I believe they fly into Tampere-Pikkala airport, which is a 2 hour train ride from Helsinki - around 100 miles. The bus from HEL-Helsinki city is about 30 mins, and about the same if you do bus+train like I did as my hotel is one stop north of Helsinki central.

So, all status etc aside, there are times when Ryanair actually makes sense - if heading North in Finland, then the reduced train journey could be good... but it's still my intention to not step foot on a Ryanair plane if I can avoid it!

Their profits grew this quarter, so many people think they are the best!

 

[JohnK]

With over 50 million pommies, their judgement can't be as sharp as yours, JohnK. :mrgreen:

Hmmm.

For an average non-status passenger, in what way is BA going to be streets ahead of EZ for a short 1 hr flight

FR does seem to be aiming to be as low as possible, so would ignore them except if they are having one of their GBP1 style deals

The statement from Mal I quoted referred to both EasyJet and Ryanair. As a non-status passenger I would simply choose BA because they have customer service, various options for check-in, much more lenient baggage allowances both checked and carry on and are a much more reputable carrier.

JohnK's view is based on principles solely. It's like trying to convince a vegetarian to eat meat, i.e. impossible to change (for various reasons, of course).

That is not fair. My boycott of Jetstar is based on principle. I am not against all LCC's and if you read my post it did mention I will be flying A3 (ATH-SKG return) and make a light hearted joke of how their flights are constantly delayed and/or cancelled. I was also going to have a side trip to Cairo SKG-ATH-CAI (4 flights) if I could find availability for the advertised airfare of €82 each way during the time I will be in Greece.

If a full service carrier operates a specific route and the airfare does not vary much from a LCC then why would anyone fly a LCC? Convenience? I don't think so....

 

[Dave Noble]

]
The statement from Mal I quoted referred to both EasyJet and Ryanair. As a non-status passenger I would simply choose BA because they have customer service, various options for check-in, much more lenient baggage allowances both checked and carry on and are a much more reputable carrier.

There are a lot of issues with FR indeed, but with EZ they arnt greatly different for a short hop if without status. Just picking a purely random date, for LGW-AMS BA was £40.70 vs EZ £22.99. Both go to and from exactly the same airports at each end

BA offers 1 piece of 23 Kg in baggage whilst EZ offers 20K if the £8 supplement is paid; both are strict in allowances and BA will charge for a 2nd piece.
EZ offers 1 piece of hand luggage 55x40x20 cm without a weight limit whilst BA offers 56x45x25 plus a laptop size bag
If paying by credit card EZ charges £5.95 vs £4.50
Both provide online check in and at airport check in except that EZ allows it online up to 60 days in advance which gives better opportunity for pre-selection of seats which is not offered by BA until 24 hours before departure
For early morning departures ex LGW, both offer check in at airport the night before

It is hard to see, to me, really for the average customer where BA really has a major edge

As far as reputable goes, I know numerous people who fly EZ for short flights and find them pretty standard as an airline

Personally, I would pay the extra to go BA due to the lounge access if I have time before the flight and due to being one of a minority in being able to pre-select seats

Dave

 

[notzac]

As far as reputable goes, I know numerous people who fly EZ for short flights and find them pretty standard as an airline

Having flown EZ on the aforementioned LGW-AMS route before, I'd happily fly with them again (though harder to justify the savings when you consider lounge access etc. that I'd get these days).

Their website is easy to navigate and clearly explains the various options, their planes are clean, they have reasonable luggage policies, their FAs were friendly and most importantly they got me to my destination in one piece and on time.

 

[fortymilliondaggers]

Some of the sentiments on this thread (and this board) are amusing. You fly British Airways because you get lounge access and 'status' benefits, and you get those things because you choose to fly British Airways frequently.

Air travel is not the government owned and subsidised gravy train that it used to be, and airlines including British Airways are going to have to adapt. This is a very encouraging move by BA, but if it's about cutting costs or being more competitive, a great worry i think is their ongoing pension liabilities which I think might make it hard for them to be competitive on price with more recent 'upstarts'.

 

[anat0l]

That is not fair. My boycott of Jetstar is based on principle. I am not against all LCC's and if you read my post it did mention I will be flying A3 (ATH-SKG return) and make a light hearted joke of how their flights are constantly delayed and/or cancelled. I was also going to have a side trip to Cairo SKG-ATH-CAI (4 flights) if I could find availability for the advertised airfare of €82 each way during the time I will be in Greece.

I didn't imply (or hope I didn't ) that you were against all LCCs, but your comment w.r.t. easyJet and Ryanair, certainly is motivated mostly on principle and not by the balance of probabilities, i.e. I'm assuming that you haven't flown either carrier once.

If a full service carrier operates a specific route and the airfare does not vary much from a LCC then why would anyone fly a LCC? Convenience? I don't think so....

Some do. Just because its cheaper? How much cheaper that is tolerable depends on person to person.

As Mal said, some LCCs fly you out to some of the more esoteric airports, which can be unusually advantageous.

For the novice flier, some people don't know better; for those that fly on a budget all the time, some may not realise that BA may have a competitive fare because they automatically assume that BA is a "premium" carrier and hence assume that their fares are always more expensive than the LCCs.

Then there are some that are against flying BA in principle as much as some of us would never fly some other airlines based on the same logical (illogical?) reasoning. For example, I'm guessing that there are quite a few people who fly with checked baggage that may not dare go near BA due to their very poor record on losing an embarrassing amount of luggage every year.

There are also some I believe who loathe LHR with a passion; since there are still quite a few intra-Europe flights on BA that leave from LHR, that really only leaves the LCCs that usually leave from other LON airports.

Some of the sentiments on this thread (and this board) are amusing. You fly British Airways because you get lounge access and 'status' benefits, and you get those things because you choose to fly British Airways frequently.

Air travel is not the government owned and subsidised gravy train that it used to be, and airlines including British Airways are going to have to adapt. This is a very encouraging move by BA, but if it's about cutting costs or being more competitive, a great worry i think is their ongoing pension liabilities which I think might make it hard for them to be competitive on price with more recent 'upstarts'.

There are other ways that BA could save money. Cutting unprofitable routes, withdrawing aircraft and cancelling capital orders are other ways that could be achieved. Cutting staff - although one of the most bitter options - will be necessary as well (that, or getting them to work for free more, or getting WW to donate money back into BA's coffers).

But eventually things will have to change, as you said. After all, QF's inflight service on domestic has declined in years gone by, although for someone like me that has only flown QF a lot more again in the last 3 years, I haven't noticed much. There are plenty of people around who have flown the red roo for decades and now have sworn off ever flying them again - to the point of branding them 'evil' and 'short changers' - because of the rolling trend of cut backs and "enhancements".



Who thinks that one day all carriers will operate with an LCC model? Seems like in an age where everyone is vying to be more frugal and the lines between the full and low cost carriers are being constantly blurred, that is the only way to go.....

 

[Dave Noble]

Some of the sentiments on this thread (and this board) are amusing. You fly British Airways because you get lounge access and 'status' benefits, and you get those things because you choose to fly British Airways frequently.

Not really true. I fly BA occasionally and for travel within Europe the lounge access is a benefit over other options ( assuming the price is sane ); I have status due to other travel I do over the year/lifetime status and QF is a corporate preferred carrier

Dave

 

[simongr]

Who thinks that one day all carriers will operate with an LCC model? Seems like in an age where everyone is vying to be more frugal and the lines between the full and low cost carriers are being constantly blurred, that is the only way to go.....

I am not sure I agree. I think the GEC is colouring people's opinions of the long term outcomes. I think the thing that will be most influencing on travel in the future will be carbon issues and as governments try to force down travel though fines and penalties it might be that only the rich or business can afford to fly...

 

[notzac]

Some of the sentiments on this thread (and this board) are amusing. You fly British Airways because you get lounge access and 'status' benefits, and you get those things because you choose to fly British Airways frequently.

You seem somehow surprised? This board is largely filled with people who actively enjoy the various benefits of status, and given this is an Australia-based forum - chances are most people here don't spend a large amount of time onboard BA metal as compared to other carriers, nor would most people be crediting to BAEC.

 

[fortymilliondaggers]

But eventually things will have to change, as you said. After all, QF's inflight service on domestic has declined in years gone by, although for someone like me that has only flown QF a lot more again in the last 3 years, I haven't noticed much. There are plenty of people around who have flown the red roo for decades and now have sworn off ever flying them again - to the point of branding them 'evil' and 'short changers' - because of the rolling trend of cut backs and "enhancements".

Who thinks that one day all carriers will operate with an LCC model? Seems like in an age where everyone is vying to be more frugal and the lines between the full and low cost carriers are being constantly blurred, that is the only way to go.....

Cutting back things like meals and the type of wine served on flights saves pennies in the scheme of things. The bigger problem facing former government owned flag carriers like BA and Qantas is that it is very difficult to cut down on pension obligations accrued in the old monopoly days of aviation. There are thousands of former employees receiving a percentage of former salary plus other perks like cheap or free flights for life. BA faced significant union opposition to reducing entitlements over the years so has found themselves running a pension defecit roughly equal to their market capitalisation, or somewhere between £1.4 and £2 bn, and are hemorrhaging at least £131m per year trying to meet their obligations. By comparison, BA's fuel bill in the last 12 months was £600m which shows how big a deal the issue of pensions is.

The real worry is that these entitlements are not going to go away for a very long time, and there are still employees who've been with the airline for decades being added to the books. All airlines can make operational changes. It's hard to see British Airways being competitive with this sort of a drain on the bottom line and it may even eventually bury the airlines like it did GM in the US.

 

[straitman]

Some of the sentiments on this thread (and this board) are amusing. You fly British Airways because you get lounge access and 'status' benefits, and you get those things because you choose to fly British Airways frequently.

Not really true. I fly BA occasionally and for travel within Europe the lounge access is a benefit over other options ( assuming the price is sane ); I have status due to other travel I do over the year/lifetime status and QF is a corporate preferred carrier

Dave

Dave,

This is like splitting hairs on a bald man's head :!:

You get the lounge access and 'status' benefits because you have status due to other travel you do over the year/ lifetime status and QF is a corporate preferred carrier and because you fly with a Qantas partner airline (in this case British Airways).

 

[fortymilliondaggers]

Totally agree, the point being they've got you hook line and sinker just by providing an 'exclusive' lounge.

 

[dajop]

Dave,

This is like splitting hairs on a bald man's head :!:

You get the lounge access and 'status' benefits because you have status due to other travel you do over the year/ lifetime status and QF is a corporate preferred carrier and because you fly with a Qantas partner airline (in this case British Airways).

I don't agree that it's splitting hairs.

If someone has status because they always fly QF, but will only fly QF because of that status and the benefits it brings - yeh sure - I can see that being some sort of circular argument (hook, line and sinker).

However it is a totally different thing for someone to get status by flying QF, (particularly if based in Australia), as there are a lot of reasons people fly QF in Australia, not just to chase access (for example when I first got platinum it was largely based on regional flying to ports that other lines didn't serve). To use BA to take advantage of that status (lounges, luggage etc) makes sense, particularly if there isn't a huge cost disadvantage. Why wouldn't they? It's not as if they're having to suffer lots of BA flights just to get that status, it could very well just be a few flights a year or less .... sorta makes sense.

 

[straitman]

I don't agree that it's splitting hairs.

If someone has status because they always fly QF, but will only fly QF because of that status and the benefits it brings - yeh sure - I can see that being some sort of circular argument.

However it is a totally different thing for someone to get status by flying QF, (particularly if based in Australia), and use BA to take advantage of that status (lounges, luggage etc). Why wouldn't they? It's not as if they're having to suffer lots of BA flights just to get that status, it could very well just be a few flights a year or less .... sorta makes sense.

We will have to agree to disagree then as I stand by my post :!:

... and as usual this part of the thread is no where near on topic :!:

 

[Dave Noble]

Dave,

This is like splitting hairs on a bald man's head :!:

You get the lounge access and 'status' benefits because you have status due to other travel you do over the year/ lifetime status and QF is a corporate preferred carrier and because you fly with a Qantas partner airline (in this case British Airways).

Not at all.

I get status by virtue of the travel I have to do anyway, predominantly on Qantas since it is a preferred corporate carrier. I do not go around spending time taking flights for the sake of getting status

SINCE I have status anyway, there is a benefit to taking BA over other similar priced options for what are PERSONAL flights when in Europe. I am not taking BA with the intent of attaining status credits nor for the pitiful 250 miles that would be earned from the flight. BA is not an airline that would be likely to be used for business travel

i.e. I use BA because of already having status and so the extra GBP10 - GBP20 on such a route is worthwhile to me

For a typical traveller who doesnt care less about FF schemes ( common in the UK ) nor travel frequently, BA offers little tangible benefit to the typical economy passenger

Feel free to misinterpret as feel fit

Dave

 

[anat0l]

This is nuts. (No pun intended viz. BA's change to catering on CE :shock

People have status with particular airlines and that can influence how they purchase airfares. Just like Dave Noble, I've got OWE status so if I have a choice between BA and others for intra-Euro travel, then I factor in that I have lounge access if I fly with BA. Of course if the fare is prohibitively more expensive, then it's reasonable to think I'll change my mind. But if the difference is small, then I might just take the BA flight. And if BA is the cheapest option then I think the decision is a no-brainer.

Just like when I fly AU domestic, I get lounge access, points and status (even if for QF it is say only 10 SC and 1000 points for simple BNE-SYD flights). DJ or JQ may be cheaper when I'm looking, but I'm prepared to tolerate a "reasonable" amount of difference that the QF fare is more expensive and I'll still choose QF. Given a very large difference, then I'd probably rethink my options.

Status and the like is great and is given for a reason but you would have to be hard pressed to believe that any reasonable human being is completely blinded by status and that makes them 100% predictable as to which airline they would fly for a given sector at a given time with a given set of fares (whether close in price or very disparate). I know some corporate travellers may be bound to certain airline choices and there are those that religiously fly or avoid flying particular airlines (for reasons we may consider to be plausible or otherwise); I'm tempted to call these cases exceptions rather than part of the rule.

The only real unbiased general choice you will get is with a no-status (or no-applicable-status) flyer with no previous dispositions towards any of the airlines involved. That's the only level playing field. Most of us on this board are not in that bucket.

 

[dajop]

We will have to agree to disagree then as I stand by my post :!:

... and as usual this part of the thread is no where near on topic :!:

Well I agree with both these statements, that we'll have to agree to disagree, and as usual way OT :!: