World Airline Awards – Poor BA!

Back to Forum
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 35 total)

  • Anonymous
    Guest

    Infidel
    Participant

    Interesting to see that BA have failed to win anything in this years World Airline Awards. Now for 2 years in a row, BA can’t even manage to break into the Top 25, some could say that’s a consistent performance! Even low cost Jetstar beats them in the league table. Perhaps some soul searching at BA HQ might result in some real market research / focus groups to pin point how they as a brand can improve their world wide negative perceptions and start to play catch up with the true World Class leading airlines.


    AnthonyDunn
    Participant

    @ Infidel – 18/06/2013 23:35 GMT

    Oh, yes, that’s the Skytrax so-called World Airline awards isn’t it?

    http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Awards_2013/Airline2013_top20.htm

    That’s some impressively loud and rather obvious axe grinding I can hear in the background. You have omitted to mention that BA were in 44th place in 2011 and 28th place in 2012 – presumably after the industrial disruption they suffered – so while the 27th place leaves considerable scope for improvement, it also demonstrates a considerable recovery.

    I’ve also just seen VS in 38th (up from 50th) and EZY in 49th, down from 41st. Why no commentary on them? Or are you merely highly selective in your brickbats?

    It’s interesting to see that the top 20 are all either Asia-Pacific or Gulf barring four: TK (9th), LH (11th), LX (16th) and AC (20th) – all *A members. Probably just a coincidence. It would appear that if BA have problems, then certain others have experienced or are experiencing major catastrophes in terms of their “Skytrax rated” (sic) performance.

    Oh, and a propos all of those Asian carriers, I chanced upon this courtesy of another thread:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtDBrp8hSBQ

    (Gatwick Airport ’90 part 10). What particularly struck me was at 09 mins 30 seconds – female subservience in Asian culture. Not my comment but that of the female cabin crew instructor. Is that what all those fans of Asian airlines revel in I wonder? I also wonder whether In order to obtain the kind of ratings achieved by Asia-Pacific and Gulf carriers, those who criticise BA would like to see all or most of the UK-based cabin crew at BA sacked and replaced with considerably more pliant, subservient and cheaper-to-employ Asian females? I have no doubt that it would make industrial relations an awful lot easier for management at BA – and save them bucket loads of cash as well.

    In summary, any chance of a sense of perspective and some balance from your future postings?


    thebigseats
    Participant

    @AnthonyDunn;

    The reason BA (or VS, for that matter) are not even in the top 10 is that they just are not that good. Sad perhaps, but simply true.

    As for;

    ….if BA sacked and replaced cabin crew with considerably more pliant, subservient and cheaper-to-employ Asian females…..

    Well, that’s just a silly point to make isn’t it. THE FACTS are that BA DO employ mainly brits & EK/EY/QR etc DO employ a multi-cultural crew (mainly Asian) because THAT’S THE MARKET they operate in. Simple. Would any business based in, say, Dubai (or even Thailand or Singapore) employ (expensive) Brits when they could employ better, cheaper Asian crew. Of course not. Don’t be silly.

    BA, VS do not cut it. They survive because of their large, captive, perhaps lazy customer base and because they do an OK (but not exceptional) job.


    AnthonyDunn
    Participant

    @ thebigseats – 19/06/2013 02:33 GMT

    You are entitled to your opinion. I’m also entitled to pose the question about what is it that those who favour Asia-Pacific/Gulf carriers like?

    The issue is clearly partly one of cheaper, pliant and more readily dismissible cabin crew from Asia. As you observe, British/European staff are more expensive. They also come encumbered with “silly” things like the expectation of pensions, sickness benefits, possibly even trades union negotiating rights and being able to work beyond age 30.

    It is perhaps unintentionally revealing of your own attitudes and beliefs that you consider observations on such points to be “silly” but I wonder how such benefits compare for Asian staff? If my knowledge of Saudia were to apply to other Gulf carriers, then the answer would be “limited”, “limited” and then “absolutely not” (twice). These points, by the way, applied to the non-Saudi female staff; T&Cs were very different for the (Saudi-national) male managers…

    As you are so critical of BA as doing an OK but not exceptional job – which you consider they are able to get away with because of their “perhaps lazy customer base…” – I am curious as to whether you too insist upon European/North American salary levels, pension entitlements, sickness benefits and the ability to work beyond thirty years or whether you are happy to work on “Asian T&Cs”?

    Or might it be a case of “Just do as I say, not as I do?”


    IanFromHKG
    Participant

    AnthonyDunn – 19/06/2013 03:17 GMT : You are entitled to your opinion. I’m also entitled to pose the question about what is it that those who favour Asia-Pacific/Gulf carriers like? The issue is clearly partly one of cheaper, pliant and more readily dismissible cabin crew from Asia

    Oh good grief…

    Cheaper? Maybe. Not always. Even Asian carriers need Europe-based crew – on my last two CX London flights I was served by ethnically Asian but London-based crew. More pliant?? Anyone seeing the amount of industrial action CX has suffered in recent years would know that that comment is utter tosh. And as for being more readily dismissable – where do you get this rubbish from? I am a lawyer working for a multinational, based in Asia, and I can tell you that in a number of countries around Asia it is almost impossible to fire people – we had one instance of a Korean employee who committed gross misconduct – and we were advised that we couldn’t lawfully fire him. Many Asian countries also *require* employers to provide some of the “silly” things you say that European crew expect, suich as pensions, sickness benefits, trade union rights and the right to work beyond age 30.

    Having debunked (I hope) some of the ludicrous assertions in your post, let’s get back to your original question (which, I might add, is a sensible one) about why passengers prefer Asia-based carriers (you also mentioned Gulf carriers, but never having flown one I won’t comment). For the leading Asian carriers (there are some awful Asian carriers as well, and everything inbetween), my personal comparison for preferences is based on long-haul experience primarily with CX and BA, all in business or first. I have also sampled the long-haul products on TG and some others, but let’s stick with CX and BA to start with since I haven’t flown long-haul on others for a while. Throughout I have had a preference for CX. Why? A large part of it is hard product. There has been much criticism of CX’s “coffin class” old business seat but personally I found it very comfortable (perhaps being tall enough to see over the partitions made me feel less claustrophobic!) and rather more so than CW. Add direct aisle access and vastly better IFE and CX clearly won out for me. The memsahib had a slight preference for CW, though, partly driven by the fact she was usually flying with children and found it easier to keep an eye on them. However, now that CX have their new seat, both she and I have a very strong preference for CX – the hard product is simply miles ahead of BA. That alone would probably be a clincher for us

    Does the soft product also make a difference? Of course. And here I would say it is not so much a case of CX crew being superior (and certainly not because they are pliant, subservient or female) but rather because they are efficient, considerate, polite (not the same as subservient) and – very importantly – very, very consistent. If I fly CX I KNOW, for an absolute certainty, what to expect. I absolutely will not get rudeness, attitude, backchat or anything else remotely unpleasant. If I fly BA, it is unlikely that I will get any of these but it is entirely possible. I have seen staggering rudeness from BA cabin crew, and experienced unbelievable attitude. Let me give you an example – the memsahib was flying first class from BKK to LHR on BA, with our two young children. She boarded with the younger in a buggy and was confronted by a female CC yelling (not saying, yelling) at her that she couldn’t bring it on board and that “YOU WERE TOLD!!” – which wasn’t true. When the CC realised they were in the first cabin she was obviously horrified – not because she had upset a valuable customer but because it meant she would have young children in “her” cabin. The attitude continued throughout the flight. To give one more example – mid-flight, the memsahib had the younger one lying on her tummy because she wouldn’t settle in the bassinet. It was cold, and since my wife couldn’t get up without disturbing the baby, she called for the CC and politely asked her to pass her the blanket. The CC rolled her eyes, audibly clicked her tongue, picked up the blanket – still in its plastic wrapper – and dropped it from a height of a foot onto the sleeping baby before stalking off.

    These are extreme examples (although I can give you plenty of others) but they demonstrate the inconsistency of a key element of the soft product on BA. That inconsistency, of course, goes both ways – on many occasions we have had BA CC who were outstanding, and whose warmth, helpfulness and personal approach were truly special (interestingly, mostly from gay male CC). That rarely happens on Asian carriers. But give me a choice between the certainty of a consistent, polite, attentive, efficient crew on the one hand and a lottery which might give me something similar, might on occasion give me something which is 110%, or might give me attitude, backchat and desultory service on the other, and I will go for the former choice 100% of the time.

    Finally, of course, there are issues such as the ability to fly from regional airports on Gulf carriers and make one-stop connections to a huge number of destinations without having to start off by making a short hop to an overcrowded hub airport on cramped planes with inadequate seats. There is also a broader range of destinations available from Gulf and Asian carriers for long-haul flights from the UK. These don’t make those carriers “better” per se, but they do affect people’s perceptions of carriers and their preferences


    Ellwood
    Participant

    I was with an airline who made a shambles of an attempt at a route to London briefly and Skytrax was a joke.

    It involved a lot of money being thrown at the organisation, you knew they names of the people doing the flight checks and which flights they were on and so rostered on some of the more experienced crews and went round the airport kicking @r$e beforehand and then made sure that you sacrificed every other route to make sure that the flight went as planned.

    I have even less regard for Skytrax after this experience.


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    Skytrax really doesn’t have much credibility here:

    http://www.businesstraveller.com/discussion/topic/Is-Skytrax-selective-in-its-reviews?page=1

    ..and has been recently censured by the ASA:

    http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/11/Skytrax-Research/SHP_ADJ_196416.aspx

    Background
    Summary of Council decision:

    Five issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.

    Ad
    The Skytrax Research airline review website http://www.airlinequality.com, viewed in May 2012, provided an airline rating system and customer reviews for airlines and airports. Underneath the headline “Checked and Trusted Airline Reviews, in the world’s largest airline review site” were links which stated “Over 5 million Trusted customer reviews and trip reports for 681 airlines and 725 airports” and “Official Quality Star Ranking(TM) for hundreds of airlines around the world”. Clicking on the first link opened a page which stated “More than 5 million independent, traveller reviews and customer trip ratings … REAL travellers with REAL opinions!” Clicking on the Quality Star Ranking link opened a page which stated “SKYTRAX introduced the World Airline Star Rating(R) programme in 2000 … The Star Ranking programme operates in a real-time analysis format, to ensure that Airline Star Ranking levels are constantly maintained and adjusted in accordance with changes made by an airline, be this to product or service standards – on average, each airline’s Star Ranking is reviewed in depth every 2-3 months, and adjusted in accordance with the annual ratings”. Links to various Star Rating categories were featured underneath. Clicking on the link entitled “The World’s 5-Star Airlines(TM)” brought up a page which stated “TRADEMARK(TM) PROTECTION – The titles below are protected by Skytrax, and can only be used by a Registered 5-Star Airline with consent of Skytrax”. The titles listed were “5 Star Airline”, “5 Star Airlines”, “Five Star Airline” and “Five Star Airlines”.

    Issue
    KwikChex Ltd challenged whether:

    1. the claims “Checked and trusted airline reviews” and “REAL travellers with REAL opinions!” were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that Skytrax did not verify the reviews on their website and therefore could not prove that they were genuine;

    2. the claim “More than 5 million independent, traveller reviews and customer trip ratings” was misleading and could be substantiated;

    3. the claim “Official Quality Star Ranking(TM)” was misleading, because it suggested that the ranking system was official and not the advertiser’s own creation;

    4. the claim “The Star Ranking programme operates in a real-time analysis format, to ensure that Airline Star Ranking levels are constantly maintained and adjusted in accordance with changes made by an airline, be this to product or service standards – on average, each airline’s Star Ranking is reviewed in depth every 2-3 months, and adjusted in accordance with the annual ratings” was misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that the website continued to display rankings for airlines which were no longer in business; and

    5. the claim “TRADEMARK(TM) PROTECTION – The titles below are protected by Skytrax, and can only be used by a Registered 5-Star Airline with consent of Skytrax” and accompanying list were misleading, because they did not believe that those titles were trademarked.

    CAP Code (Edition 12)
    3.13.7
    Response
    1. Skytrax Research (Skytrax) responded that every review submitted to their website was subjected to a robust verification procedure before being published online. They explained that every user putting forward a review was required to provide their name, country of residence, the date on which they had used the service they were reviewing and their e-mail address, and that at that point a message was displayed stating that by submitting their comment they were confirming it was a genuine review and they did not work for the airline/airport in question.

    Skytrax said every review then underwent a four-stage authentication process, whereby the user’s stated location was matched to their IP address, a verification e-mail was sent to the address provided, the language of the review was manually assessed to ensure it was not abusive, offensive or otherwise unfit for publication and finally trained staff members considered the contents against known facts about the airline/airport and previous user experience to ensure it appeared to be accurate. If at any point staff suspected that the review might not be genuine, they e-mailed the user for further clarification or deleted the review altogether. Skytrax said e-mail addresses were required for authentication purposes only and were always deleted 24 hours after the review had been submitted. On 3 October, they provided examples of reviews submitted to the site in the previous 24 hours which had been rejected because they had failed one or more of the authentication tests.

    Skytrax stated that, as an additional layer of security, all staff members were encouraged to look at the reviews posted on the site and raise concerns if they noticed any which seemed to be misleading. They said in practice this led them to delete reviews from the site around two to three times per month. They said airlines were also able to contact them to discuss reviews which they did not believe were authentic, and that around two to three times per year a review was removed through this process because they were satisfied that the airline had demonstrated it was potentially misleading or inaccurate. In addition, they explained that once a week the reviews on the website were scanned by software which checked for duplication in content, user names and ratings, and IP addresses purporting to be from different users; an average of one to two reviews were removed every week as a result of issues highlighted by that software.

    Skytrax believed that their review verification procedure was sufficiently robust to support their claims that they checked all reviews and that the comments featured on their website came from real travellers. They said they applied more controls and manual checking of reviews before publication than any other similar review site. They stressed that they were very concerned to maintain the credibility of the reviews and that they believed there was a high level of trust on the part of both users and airlines in that part of the website. They also pointed out that the existence of a false review on the website would not influence the airline’s Star Rating, because that operated on different criteria; they therefore believed there was little interest in posting non-genuine content.

    2. Skytrax stated that over 5.4 million traveller reviews and trip ratings had been submitted to their website since its inception in 1999. They explained that because of restrictions on their web space and other site management reasons they were unable to display all of those reviews, and that in 2007 they had taken the decision to limit reviews to a maximum of 10 pages for each airline, airport, etc. All reviews remained on the Skytrax database but were not accessible to the public; at any given point in time the Skytrax website would provide instant access to over 400,000 reviews. Skytrax pointed out that at the end of the tenth page of reviews, the user was shown a message which explained that older reviews had been archived. They said they had subsequently amended their claim.

    Skytrax also commented that each airline or airport page contained a “score bar” which took account of reviews dating back to October 2010, when that system was introduced.

    3. Skytrax explained that they had launched their original airline ranking programme in 1989, and that after detailed consultation with the airline industry the decision had been taken in 1999 to formalise that system. They said it was agreed at that time that the new programme would carry the description Official Airline Star Ranking, and several years later the Official Airport Star Ranking initiative was also launched. They stressed that the word “official” was selected and agreed by all parties in 1999 to reflect the fact that their rankings were authorised and issued authoritatively.

    4. Skytrax stated that it had always been the case that each airline’s Star Ranking underwent a major review on a 12-monthly basis, and that that review might result in changes to the number of stars an airline was awarded. However, several years ago, in response to the increased pace of change in airline products, they introduced a system of internally reviewing each airline every two to three months, to ensure that aircraft upgrades and changes in service were picked up more quickly. They said it was not incorrect to state that the Star Ranking programme operated “in a real-time analysis format” and that “Airline Star Ranking levels are constantly maintained and adjusted in accordance with changes made by an airline” because Skytrax would undertake an internal review of an airline’s Star Ranking as soon as they became aware of significant changes to its product or services.

    With regard to the fact that their website displayed Star Ranking data for some airlines which were no longer in business, Skytrax said this was done because colleges and students of the aviation business often requested that such historical information was maintained wherever possible. They pointed out that, when an airline had ceased trading, the relevant page of the website carried a qualification to alert consumers to that fact.

    5. Skytrax declined to provide evidence demonstrating that the titles “5 Star Airline”, “5 Star Airlines”, “Five Star Airline” and “Five Star Airlines” were trademarked.

    Assessment
    1. Upheld

    The ASA considered that, in order to justify the claims of authenticity made in the ad, Skytrax needed to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to ensure that reviews were checked, trusted and made by “real” people with “real” opinions.

    We understood that Skytrax had a system in place by which every review submitted to the site should be checked carefully for authenticity before it was published online. We noted that that system involved a number of processes, and that if at any point staff had reason to question whether a review was genuine they would either ask for more information from the user or delete the review altogether. We also noted that concerns about published reviews would occasionally be raised by other members of staff or airlines, or by the weekly duplication checks, and that Skytrax had a procedure for dealing with those incidents.

    We considered that, if followed correctly, the approach of assessing every review individually before accepting it for publication, including subjecting it to manual checks by members of staff, was a robust one likely to identify the vast majority of non-genuine reviews submitted, and that the additional checks carried out by other members of Skytrax staff would provide a further layer of security on that issue. We considered that the average consumer would view the general balance of the reviews on the site as being helpful but would not take the claims “Checked and trusted reviews” and “REAL travellers with REAL opinions!” so literally as to constitute a guarantee that every individual review was certain to be authentic. We also noted that the reviews did not impact upon an airline’s Star Rating, although they did contribute to its “score bar”, which was an amalgamation of user ratings displayed at the top of the airline page.

    We considered that Skytrax had described a rigorous authentication process with a number of checks and balances which, if consistently implemented, would be likely to successfully identify most false reviews submitted. We acknowledged the evidence provided on 3 October by Skytrax, which demonstrated that a number of reviews had been rejected in the previous 24 hours because they had not passed the verification system. However, because Skytrax deleted user information soon after receiving a submission, they were not able to provide evidence demonstrating that the reviews which existed on the site at the time of the complaint had been subjected to, and passed, that procedure. We noted that KwikChex Ltd had raised concerns over a number of false reviews which they said had been accepted onto the site, in some cases without verification e-mails having been received. Skytrax were unable to fully investigate those reviews, or other historical reviews on the site, or to demonstrate that verification e-mails had been sent, because the user details had been deleted.

    Because Skytrax did not have the ability to track a review back to its source after the first 24 hours, and therefore could not demonstrate the verification process to which any one particular review on the site had been subjected, we concluded that they did not hold sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims “Checked and trusted airline review” and “REAL travellers with REAL opinions!”.

    On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

    2. Upheld

    We understood that since 2007 Skytrax had imposed a 10-page limit for the number of reviews which would be displayed, and that at the bottom of the tenth page the website did state that older reviews had been archived. Whilst we acknowledged that that had been done for technical reasons, we considered that most consumers reading the claim “More than 5 million independent, traveller reviews and customer trip ratings” would understand that they would be able to access that many reviews on the website. Because the true number of reviews available on the Skytrax website was limited to around 400,000, we concluded that the claim “More than 5 million independent, traveller reviews and customer trip ratings” was misleading and unsubstantiated.

    On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

    3. Upheld

    We understood that the term “Official Quality Star Ranking(TM)” referred to each airline or airport’s individual ranking in the Official Airline Star Ranking and Official Airport Star Ranking programmes. We acknowledged Skytrax’s assertion that they had launched those programmes together with the world airline (and later airport) industry, and that the term “official” had been approved for use by all parties. However, Skytrax did not provide any evidence to support that argument. We noted that the CAP Code required advertisers to hold documentary evidence to prove objective claims before they distributed them. Because we had not seen any evidence demonstrating that the term “Official Star Ranking(TM)” had been agreed at an industry-wide level, we concluded that it was misleading.

    On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

    4. Upheld

    We understood that in some instances the Skytrax website continued to display Star Ranking data for airlines which had ceased to trade, and that in those cases the airline page displayed text to that effect. We considered that that was an appropriate step to take in view of the fact that Skytrax wished to retain that information on their website.

    However, we noted that we had not seen evidence to demonstrate the real-time analysis format of the Star Ranking programme or the frequency with which Skytrax carried out Star Ranking reviews. Because Skytrax had not provided substantiation on that point, we concluded that the claim “The Star Ranking programme operates in a real-time analysis format, to ensure that Airline Star Ranking levels are constantly maintained and adjusted in accordance with changes made by an airline, be this to product or service standards – on average, each airline’s Star Ranking is reviewed in depth every two to three months, and adjusted in accordance with the annual ratings” was misleading.

    On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

    5. Upheld

    We noted that we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that the titles “5 Star Airline”, “5 Star Airlines”, “Five Star Airline” and “Five Star Airlines” were trademarked. Because Skytrax had not provided any substantiation on that point, we concluded that the claim “TRADEMARK(TM) PROTECTION – The titles below are protected by Skytrax, and can only be used by a Registered 5-Star Airline with consent of Skytrax” was misleading.

    On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

    Action
    The claims which breached the CAP Code must not appear again. We told Skytrax not to imply that the reviews on their site were checked, trusted and genuine unless they could provide substantiation to that effect. We also told them not to make claims regarding the number of reviews on their site and the frequency with which they reviewed airlines’ Star Rankings or to state that titles were trademarked, unless they could provide evidence to substantiate those facts, and not to use the term “Official Quality Star Ranking (TM)” unless they could show that this programme had been created in co-operation with the airline industry as a whole.


    Flyboy18
    Participant

    Ian_from_HKG….as a BA crew member I’m ashamed to say I can believe your story….some of the crew I work with are shocking…I can only hope you complained to the CSD and BA about the way your wife was treated.


    IanFromHKG
    Participant

    Sadly, Scott72, we didn’t. Confrontations on board are rarely pleasant, and when the conduct of the CC in question has been witnessed by other CC without them taking any action, one rather tends to conclude that a complaint is only going to result in even more attitude. Writing after the event consumes more emotional energy and rarely results in much other than a perfunctory expression of regret using standard wording which often misses much of the point of the original complaint. To give an example of this – my older daughter (still a minor) was recently delayed by more than 5 hours on a flight back from her boarding school in the UK to HK. At no point was she informed of the reason for the delay, how long it was likely to take, or of her rights under EU261. She wasn’t offered phone calls, food or, indeed, anything else. My initial complaint in relation to that – in which I pointed out that she was just 15 years old, travelling on her own, and although she wasn’t travelling UM I would rather have expected BA to take better care of her particularly considering her age – resulted in a half-hearted apology and an offer of some Avios if the had an Executive Club account. Since she was 15 – which as I said I had pointed out and dwelt on in my original complaint – she clearly couldn’t have had an EC account, so clearly the respondent either had not engaged their brain or was using a standard form letter. They offered 50 quid in shopping vouchers as an alternative. Whoop-di-doo…

    All a bit sad, really, and just reinforces the view I express above that I much prefer knowing that I won’t face such issues on CX where the maximum standard may not be as high as it is with the best BA crew (and I do acknowledge, again, that the best BA crew are absolutely stellar), but the minimum standard is much, much higher and accordingly the consistency and predicability – knowing for absolute certain that you will receive an excellent premium service – on CX pushes me towards them over the BA lottery

    I would add that with one or two exceptions from some time ago (some woman calling herself Ymelord springs to mind) I have found all the posts on here from self-confessed BA crew to be interesting, often insightful, and reflective of the fact that these posters clearly care deeply about the airline and the passengers that they serve, and your post seems to indicate that you are someone in the same mould. I wish you, rferguson, BACrew1 and others (apologies to those whose names I have omitted) could wear an “I post on BT” badge so we could recognise you on board!

    Recollecting Ymelord’s posts prompted me to go back and look up one of the threads where she typified the issues of “attitude” I referred to above:
    http://www.businesstraveller.com/discussion/topic/BA-power-sockets-in-premium-cabins

    I have an unpleasant feeling she may have been on one of my flights!

    EDITED TO ADD: If any BA crew readers are working on BA10 on 22 June or BA9 on 23 June, come and find me in 62K 🙂


    thebigseats
    Participant

    BigDog.
    Participant

    For balance one should be aware that:

    a) Skytrax is a UK based organisation

    b) The five findings against Skytrax related to either

    – bad housekeeping (failure to verify reviews or adjust rating mid-term, remove defunct airlines promptly)
    or
    – self-aggrandizement (over stated number of reviews, official rating was not official, trademarks didn’t exist)

    c) Nowhere in the UK’s Advertising Standards Agency report were there claims that the ratings themselves were corrupt or fraudulent.

    d) BA were Skytrax airline of the year 2006

    e) British Airways new chief executive Willie Walsh said: “It’s fantastic. It means a great deal to me and for everyone at BA.”

    Am sure all the 5 points/criticisms subsequently upheld by the ASA would have been equally valid at the time Walsh was lauding its Skytrax awards.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2007/apr/18/travelnews.business.theairlineindustry

    Bottom line, all these awards are flawed in some way yet the industry still publicises the results.

    Is there a better one?


    canucklad
    Participant

    In our constant need to list things in a ranking of some description or another I find them neither representative nor truly reflective of the real picture……

    Can’t believe that AC is only 20th and EK is better than CX!

    Tried to Google “Best airline for cancelling flights at a drop”, but couldn’t find it that list….and to be fair , BA should be most improved carrier!

    The award at sports day you dreaded winning!

    IMO BT’s own awards best demonstrate flawed results……Why?

    Because, BA & Oneworld always score higher than they should, as does LHR, primarily based on T5!
    Not unsurprisingly as BT’s readership fly BA & use T5 more than the mean figures


    AnthonyDunn
    Participant

    @ Ian_from_HKG – 19/06/2013 04:24 GMT

    Thanks for your posting about Asian female cabin crew. And not being the font of all human wisdom, I am happy to take an occasional shellacking for posing questions and making the odd rather bald assertion (in the interest of “eliciting a response” you will understand… ) 🙂

    Cheaper: maybe, but not always. Okay – yes I was aware of CX “no smile onboard” disputes but despite this, I still don’t know how their CC salary, pensions etc entitlements compare with BA’s or other Western carriers. It is just generally asserted as most likely being the case that Asian staff are cheaper but I’ve not ever seen any hard evidence either way. Are you any more knowledgeable about this?

    More pliant? I was genuinely struck by the Youtube dating back to “Gatwick 1990” (!) and the comments made therein. I wonder whether and by how much such an attitude has changed in the intervening 23 years. On the basis of both my travel to parts of Asia and interaction, both socially and professionally, with the locals, I do not believe that this attitude has completely disappeared. As you clearly fly on more Asian carriers than I do, do you consider that this is not an aspect of their in-flight experience?

    You assert that in some Asian jurisdictions, dismissing people is now next to impossible. But is this universally the case across the entire Asia-Pacific and Gulf regions? Is access to a trades union for negotiating purposes now universal? That too would appear unlikely – but far be it from me to describe your comment as ludicrous as a result!

    Consistency of service is something that I would expect from a top-rated airline and/or service organisation and that is why it is no great surprise to see LH and LX within the top ranking. It is a dreadful shame that BA are not able to deliver the same consistency and this is clearly an area where BA’s management and staff are not delivering.


    AnthonyDunn
    Participant

    @ Infidel – 19/06/2013 11:29 GMT

    Interesting that you have elected not to answer the questions I put to you about your original posting. As I said above: highly selective. It would appear that you have answered my final question: no chance of any proportionate and balanced postings in future owing to the very obvious axe you are grinding.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 35 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls