I have to agree, they have probably got to be some of the worst offerings of any airline on a long-haul flight. Fair enough, no one these days expects a full cooked English breakfast after an overnight long-haul flight, but what British Airways offer is shocking. Even our UK charter airlines offer something more substantial / and better quality. I feel a rethink needs to be on the cards soon in all fairness. Even if they offered some kind of pastry/croissant, together with some fruit/yoghurt and a drink/smoothie it would be much better. The UK Outbound boxes though are not bad at all and these breakfast boxes should match them. Usually there's a mix of sandwich, a cake/scone and jam and a drink cuplet.

Very disappointed with BA's economy diabetic meals on the LHR-NBO-LHR flights recently. Frankly the hot dishes were inedible(particularly the bitter partly-cooked aubergine (in what might have been intended to be moussaka but had no name) and the tomato in the salad on the return leg was slimy and mushy and not from any added vinaigrette. At least the sandwich in the 'snack' on the outbound was acceptable, but the 'breakfast' on the inbound bore no relation to anything I've had in over 50 years of eating a meal of this name - except that the orange juice was drinkable and the quality of the tea served on board was excellent.

Checkin ,flights,timing-excellent

Food in all cabins-Awful

Have flown a couple of the longer Euro sectors recently in Club Europe. Ordered a vegetarian breakfast - got some cold chick peas in sauce, I counted them - 12. Ordered a vegetarian lunch - got some cold chick peas, 14 this time. Ordered a vegetarian dinner - well, you guessed it - only back to 12 again. Also, no cabin service at all for 45mins after departure and then drinks, tray and coffee all together, curtain to galley closed, two off duty FAs flounced through and had a staff meeting outside the forward toilet for an hour.

At £200ish per sector in CE for these flights, very poor. No quibbles with anything else with BA, but the food offering, style and selection in comparison with most other carriers is worse than useless. Cabin crew generally excellent but let down by some who want to fly the world but do f-ck all on the way.

You'll both have submitted online complaints and won't be flying with BA again then....?

Have given my feedback and most certainly WILL be flying with BA again and again and again and giving my feedback vociferously until you get it right. I'm sure you look forward to having me on board..... I know I do....

On the subject of food, I wonder why they bother serving the pathetic beverage and a miserable packet of chips or a biscuit on short haul European flights? This is another area where easyJet do it better by offering a choice, for a price, and why they for years have had the bulk of my business, for many reasons.

I don't think much of the easyJet catering but at least there's a choice. Do BA simply do this so that they can boast about being a 'full service' carrier and offering inflight 'refreshments'. Who are they trying to fool?

Last time I flew BA longhaul, about 8 months ago, the catering was pretty dire, as others have said, and other airlines are doing better.

Good that you have taken more appropriate measures for complaint than reserving it for here.

Cazza_flyActually - I do expect exactly that. On my last VS in PE, I got exactly that.

I haven't done an overnight 'l-h'with BA for 20 years. Pity, because so much about them is so good.

I never quite understood how the traditional airline business got themselves into all this hoopla. You certainly won't find any of these options on Easyjet etc, where it's pick from their standard basic offerings, or go without.

The costs to the business of providing all the options are considerable. If you really do need a "Halal salt-free low-fat", or whatever, buy your own in the terminal at departure.

It's called providing a service, especially on long haul routes. Special diets have always been a part of legacy carriers especially when it comes to vegetarian options.


You would never get it through security.

I did say at the terminal, not before you get there. If you look at T5 the vast majority of the food places are after security. Gordon Ramsay's restaurant do all sorts of options packed in a box.

British Airways Jobs Under Threat at Gatwick Airport | Business | Sky News

Looks like a cull of ground staff and a disposal of all ramp staff to a handling agent at Gatwick. They do appear to be rather a lot of staff standing around alas. Linked no doubt to the new check in operation where passengers tag their own bags. Struggling to persuade the board to replace the B734s under the status quo no doubt.

Diabetic meals are ordered because of a health condition.

And when have you seen something specifically suitable on sale airside at an airport that will cope with a longhaul flight?

Yes tailoring food to passengers' requirements does cost. But at least each passenger who eats a meal has paid for their ticket. The cost per class is hardly in relation to a similar restaurant meal on the ground ....and not providing foodstuffs could lead to far more unpleasant meals being consumed inflight (eg hamburgers/pizzas/curries ... and other fragrant items) with more gash and considerably more risks in terms of food hygiene than are implied at present.

That's all very fine if you fly from LHR, but although there are restaurants the other side of security they do not offer a takeaway facility. (I don't include fast food)

Very nice too! What about the health risk of carrying food around at room temperature? Additionally are you really going to ask the cabin crew to heat up your vegetable curry or Bhindi bhaji?

Food is chilled and packed in a thermal bag and needs no reheating.

Plane Food - Menus

BA Gatwick
 

I would like to add my own comments about the staff reductions at Gatwick and counter some of the inevitable shut it down and moveto Heathrow views that will probably emerge. I have submitted a similar post elsewhere but for once feel I want to have my say across different forums. I hope that is ok.
In my opinion closing the Gatwick base would be rather short sighted. OK, BA isgaining 42 slots at Heathrow with the BMI slots many of which it wishes to use to develop new routes and strengthen its overall network. This welcome expansion will only bring brief relief to capacity constraints in the short/medium term. Even with the BMI slots there is no way BA could transfer all its operations to Heathrow. Every transfer takes up a slot that could be used forroute development at Heathrow. Also many people seem to overlook the fact thatfor BA to expand at Heathrow another British Airline has been 'lost'. You couldlook at it as a similar number of passengers being carried just with a different carrier. Although I accept BA will probably do so more efficiently and in greater numbers. True expansion at Heathrow will only come with a'bigger Heathrow'.

Currently in the summer BA can have up to 62 Departures a day from Gatwickcarrying about 5 million passengers a year. What company would give away 5million passengers to other airlines? There is also the consequence of losing the brand presence etc... I believe that with foresight and commitment to offering a good and cost effective product BA can run 3 profitable and well regarded London bases(Heathrow, Gatwick and City) Ihope this cost reduction works and in the long term safeguards the base and leads to more employment opportunities there. The company needs to be brave enough to invest in aircraft and routes. It is interesting that on the routeson which it competes with Easyjet it seems to hold its own quite well. In same cases it has been Easyjet that has reduced capacity to certain destinations.

There is also the human cost that has to be considered (unfashionable I know)but it is rather too simple to say that close the base and transfer all the profitable routes to Heathrow. I know the arguments about yield etc.. but hopefully this restructuring could help adress that.

The day may also come when the government finds it more politically acceptableto encourage the expansion of Gatwick (i.e. with a 2nd runway) than at Heathrow(i.e. 3rd runway). BA would find it difficult to start up again there if thatwere to happen.
I also doubt that BA would walk away from at least 62 slot pairs at London's2nd airport.
The base does have a loyal following and is well regarded by passengers.
I believe that BA made a serious tactical error by not purchasing GB Airways a few years back, but that is history now.

I also am not at all anti Easyjet having flown with them several times. However all airports need to offer choice and BA/Easyjet both being at Gatwick isimportant to passengers and keeps both airlines competitive. ‘One airline’airports are not in anybody’s interests. At Heathrow BA has many others to keep it on its toes. Likewise at Gatwick Easyjet also needs others to keep it focused. For example introduction of allocated seating, improved easykiosk etc.. (Would these have happened without the presence of competing airlines?)

I apologise for rambling on and fully expect to be shouted down but I feel better for having made my comments and that's what matters to me!!

Finally I wish all staff affected at Gatwick well and hope they do not have toendure a long period of uncertainty and in some cases long periods of unemployment.
I would also like to stress I have no connection with BA.
V.

What keeps BA (and VS) at LGW is almost certainly directly linked to capacity constraints at LHR.

Had LHR been adequately expanded when neccessary (back in the 1970s/1980s) and BA (and VS) had the required slots and terminal capacity that they need, it is possible that they would not be at LGW at all. Under such (fantasy) circumstances it would make no sense to have a base at LGW with all the extra expense involved.

LGW brings no extra benefits that cannot be had at LHR, except some slots and some terminal capacity. LGW is an "overflow" for mainly "point-to-point leisure routes.

LCY on the other hand is quite different: it is a mainly business "niche" operation close to London's two financial centres, and has a unique selling point of speed and convenience for London businesses (e.g. short check-in times, no long trek out to LHR, etc.).

The situation with BD is unrelated. That appears to be a legacy of rubbish management over several years, and the demise of that carrier is tragic.

Some of the acquired BD slots will be used for new much-needed longhaul routes at LHR, not bringing parts of the LGW operation accross. If there has to be a LGW operation, it needs to be of a reasonable size, (not least to benefit from economies of scale). There is no point dragging part of it to LHR just leaving a rump at LGW, especially if they are to give U2 a "run for their money" on shorthaul.

Suspect that BA (and VS) will remain at LGW for the forseeable.

BA announce ICN commencing 2nd December..

BA17 LHR1300 - ICN0855+ 77Y x3
BA18 ICN1045 - LHR1400 77Y x4

Quote: "BA announce ICN commencing 2nd December..

BA17 LHR1300 - ICN0855+ 77Y x3
BA18 ICN1045 - LHR1400 77Y x4"

Excellent news!