Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat
Eh?? They:
(1) contracted with a dodgy outfit in the first place
(2) didn't have a Plan B for when the dodgy outfit went titsup.
Perfectly reasonable to do business with a cheap subcontractor, but the clever trick and cunning plan is to do a risk analysis and have something in place ready for when the risk comes true. Yes that costs, but you pay for it out of the money you've saved by contracting with a cheapo outfit in the first place.
This isn't IT buddy, this is the real world! The 'dodgy outfit' was BA's own catering division, sold off to a private enterprise with a ten year catering contract as part of the deal, the only way anybody would take on such a risk. The problems started when GG was taken over by private equity firm Texas Pacific who wanted a better return on their investment from the one-handed washer-uppers. As for risk analysis and subcontracting, would you like to tell us how many catering suppliers there are at LHR, how many would be able to indefinitely keep sufficient spare capacity to cover a loss of production at one of the other plants and how much that would cost on an ongoing basis? Go on, give us a clue how much you think keeping a massive production line and all it's staff on standby for ten years just in case would cost.