Yet more IT problems at BA

[DaveReidUK]

Reportedly affecting both airport departures and online check-in.

British Airways passengers facing delays after IT failures (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49261497)

[BEagle]

"Holidaymakers travelling with British Airways are facing delays and problems checking in online, with the airline saying system failures are to blame."

Surely it is the airline which is to blame? Its IT policies and outsourcing have caused this.

Just what sort of a Mickey Mouse outfit is ba running these days?

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Ha-ha. Ha-ha-ha. Ha-ha.

What a crying shame.

Best get my EU261 stuff out to destroy them.

[Plastic787]

At what point are senior management going to have to carry the can for this continuing shambles? BA make £2 Billion with the wheels coming off. Just imagine if the airline had everyone pulling in the same direction and competent management. All of that will have an immediate cost though so they aren’t willing to countenance it. Penny wise pound foolish indeed.

[Out Of Trim]

Ha-ha. Ha-ha-ha. Ha-ha.

What a crying shame.

Best get my EU261 stuff out to destroy them.


Still a CLOWN I see! :=

[MPN11]

A constructive explanation on the BA Forum at Flyertalk >>> https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/31388845-post115.html

BA are upgrading their IT systems, but integration of some 30 sub-systems through a single-point Systems Integration Platform (SIP) is challenging. At least, that's how I read it.

[PAXboy]

Whichever way they are working on it - we can be sure they are trying to spend the least money.

[er340790]

It’s kind of amusing to read that BA are ‘switching to Manual Systems’.

81 flights cancelled is proof alone that THEY DON’T HAVE A MANUAL SYSTEM!!! 🙄

[nivsy]

I really hope and wonder if the Iberia system is working ok at T5. They got some criticism for opening up their own desks rather than relying on BA. They inferred they perhaps the BA system did not quite fit their needs for connections etc. Not often IB are proved right but events may prove it so.

[Dark Stanley]

After the fiasco of 2017 I vowed to never give BA any of my hard earned money again. I haven’t, and if I was relenting this just reminds my why. BA back to being Bloody Atrocious...

[MichaelKPIT]

Whichever way they are working on it - we can be sure they are trying to spend the least money.
Buy cheap, buy twice!

[Paul Lupp]

Was the real reason for the May 2017 "computer failure" fiasco ever made public by BA? - and I don't just mean that someone turned off the power to the data centre, but why did the back-up system not work correctly, had it ever been tested etc etc - or was there even a backup system that should have kicked in, and a back-up to the back-up ?

[Hotel Tango]

Failures like this make IT environments better understood and more robust for the future. Give them a break.

I can't help wondering if you would be so understanding if you were flying off on your hols with BA today?

[nivsy]

I can't help wondering if you would be so understanding if you were flying off on your hols with BA today?
Absolutely. For some here BA can do no wrong. Shocking! They should have appropriate contingency plans for such issues. BA contingency is cancel. They are not exactly holding themselves in high regard at the moment.

[PerPurumTonantes]

Was the real reason for the May 2017 "computer failure" fiasco ever made public by BA? - and I don't just mean that someone turned off the power to the data centre, but why did the back-up system not work correctly, had it ever been tested etc etc - or was there even a backup system that should have kicked in, and a back-up to the back-up ?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/02/british_airways_data_centre_configuration/
"... (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/02/british_airways_data_centre_configuration/)wannabe budget airline British Airways" :)

And the rest:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/05/british_airways_critical_path_analysis/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/15/bas_it_systems_meltdown_to_cost_airline_80m/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/02/british_airways_latest_systems_screwup_heathrow_gatwick_lond on_city_airports/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/19/amadeus_british_airways_outage_load_sheet/

[OldLurker]

Airlines have probably the most complex and difficult to manage IT systems after banks. The shear amount of integration, and backwards interoperability they have to manage should give anyone with a serious understanding of IT systems sleepless nights. Upgrades and constantly changing (read innovating) things to keep up with the latest security patches and supported technologies is an extremely important yet risky task. You are damned if you do and damned if you dont. Failures like this make IT environments better understood and more robust for the future. Give them a break.No, not much of a break.

(1) They should long ago have better understood their IT environments and made them more robust. Airlines need to understand that their IT systems nowdays are mission-critical and should be managed and funded accordingly.

(2) I well understand the description of the problem on the BA Forum at Flyertalk – but they should have sorted out their legacy systems long, long ago. Then doing an upgrade, with a significant risk of failure, at peak holiday time? Sorry, no break for that.

(3) From what's being described by passengers, BA seems to have no adequate plan at all for what to do when their system goes pear-shaped. Compliments to staff for doing their best, but there simply weren't enough of them out front to deal with the problem. Too many passengers are reporting being stuck for hours on planes, or unable to get information, or in long queues. It should have been "all hands on deck". Where was WIllie Walsh today? Not out front at Terminal 5, I'll bet. Sorry, no break for that either..

[Paul Lupp]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/02/british_airways_data_centre_configuration/
"... (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/02/british_airways_data_centre_configuration/)wannabe budget airline British Airways" :)

And the rest:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/05/british_airways_critical_path_analysis/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/15/bas_it_systems_meltdown_to_cost_airline_80m/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/02/british_airways_latest_systems_screwup_heathrow_gatwick_lond on_city_airports/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/19/amadeus_british_airways_outage_load_sheet/
Hmm, interesting and I wonder what has changed in the past 2 years and 2 months?
I was "stranded" in the USA when that happened, got to the airport earlier than strictly necessary and was put onto an AA plane that took off about an hour later than my supposed BA flight, and landed a similar amount of time later but at the wrong terminal, so I had to get the dreadful inter-terminal train to get to T5 to collect my car.

The only "compensation" I got was when I queried this aspect myself, nothing pro-active from BA, and was just the difference in price between Premium Economy that I had treated myself to, and cattle class.
I wonder if I was entitled to anything more?? I was just grateful to get home about 2 hours later than planned with my luggage; when I saw/read what some poor unfortunate people went through, I considered myself "fortunate"

[wiggy]

Where was WIllie Walsh today? Not out front at Terminal 5, I'll bet. Sorry, no break for that either..

Madrid ???

[Blackfriar]

What happened to manual loadsheets? I used to do them on my laptop (that's the bit between my knees and hips) with a pen and a £2.99 calculator with final passenger and bag numbers passed over the radio.
I bet no-one on duty can even do one now. Operations has become scary when I hear that loadsheets are completed in Thailand for flights departing LGW. When the pieces of paper cease to mean anything the numbers also become just figures on an iPad. I'm sure the flight crew do understand them, but who knows what has actually been loaded (or left in the hold from the inbound and not on any loadsheet).

[PAXboy]

Before we give BA a break, lets ask how many IT failures other companies have had in the last five years: LH? KLM? QF? Find similar sized carriers with complex interconnections and then make a comparison. I do not have those numbers.

The problem with outsourcing is that, when something goes wrong, you cannot reach out and grab someone warmly by the throat ... naturally, no one on the Board will be grabbed.

[Chris2303]

Do they do it themselves?

I thought they were on Amadeus/Altea?

[oggers]

They did FLY themselves when they needed to replace DCS and to avoid having to pay for AMADEUS. It is supported from India, not even joking. DCS used to be supported in-house. They have a back up called JFE that is clunky but ok for check in.

The system was down again as of 2 hours ago I hear.

[Jack D]

. It is supported from India, not even joking. DCS used to be supported in-house

The system was down again as of 2 hours ago I hear.


Mmmm ! I wonder why it’s so unstable ?

[mikemmb]

The whole dynamics of large businesses has changed dramatically over recent years.

You could describe BA as an IT company that also operate aircraft!

.....hat, coat?

[PerPurumTonantes]

The whole dynamics of large businesses has changed dramatically over recent years.

You could describe BA as an IT company that also operate aircraft!

.....hat, coat?
Leave your coat on the hook. Absolutely spot on.

Banks are IT companies that happen to have a banking license.
Airlines are IT companies that happen to own expensive aluminium tubes.

When the failure of something shuts down your entire operation, it's clear that it's part of your core business. You don't outsource your core business. The CEOs are finally realising this, but it's taken them a while.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Still a CLOWN I see! :=


LC @ LGW I see..

Can you not do a manual L/S??

[beamender99]

The CEOs are finally realising this, but it's taken them a while.

Thirty years ago, internally, it was pointed out to the management that other major corporate companies had, on their board, a Director for Computer Security
or as it was becoming to be call Business Continuity.
It was suggested that a major IT failure could doom the company.

[Timmy Tomkins]

At what point are senior management going to have to carry the can for this continuing shambles? BA make £2 Billion with the wheels coming off. Just imagine if the airline had everyone pulling in the same direction and competent management. All of that will have an immediate cost though so they aren’t willing to countenance it. Penny wise pound foolish indeed.

Having sat accross the table from managers and watching as we proposed changes that would get everyone pulling together but that cost money via investment, I can attest that the usual reactions range from fear to glazed over boredom. Each department has an incentive to beat cost targets and so you have lots of individual silos and no common purpose. In my experience, corporate managers have ONE criteria for basing their decisions. "How will this help my personal prospects" The company does not matter as a whole entity.

[Final 3 Greens]

Airlines have probably the most complex and difficult to manage IT systems after banks. The shear amount of integration, and backwards interoperability they have to manage should give anyone with a serious understanding of IT systems sleepless nights. Upgrades and constantly changing (read innovating) things to keep up with the latest security patches and supported technologies is an extremely important yet risky task. You are damned if you do and damned if you dont. Failures like this make IT environments better understood and more robust for the future. Give them a break.

This is an overhead of being in the airline business and should be appropriately resourced/managed, to provide an efficient and relaible service.

We're not talking about a corner shop, are we?

[yoganmahew]

This is an overhead of being in the airline business and should be appropriately resourced/managed, to provide an efficient and relaible service.

We're not talking about a corner shop, are we?
Disclaimer - SLF in airline IT

The thing is, it's the attitude that IT is an 'overhead' that is the issue.
You cost manage overheads.
You invest in core product.

The problems are not limited to IT (it's primarily a people cost), but to all the other areas that airlines nowadays consider overheads rather than assets - check-in staff, ground staff, air staff, pilots. Get good at what you do and bank some seniority and you are very much an overhead. Unless you're an accountant, it seems...

[Final 3 Greens]

Disclaimer - SLF in airline IT

The thing is, it's the attitude that IT is an 'overhead' that is the issue.
You cost manage overheads.
You invest in core product.

The problems are not limited to IT (it's primarily a people cost), but to all the other areas that airlines nowadays consider overheads rather than assets - check-in staff, ground staff, air staff, pilots. Get good at what you do and bank some seniority and you are very much an overhead. Unless you're an accountant, it seems...

Disclaimer, strategist and executive education tutor in a business school here - I am surprised that you misdescribe an overhead and some other definitions.

Identifying IT as an overhead is not an attitude, it is a fact, it's an ongoing expense of running a business and that does not infer that critical infrastructure is not an asset. An IT system is certainly an asset and like most assets, needs maintaining by the allocation of resources, costing time and money. However, IT does not directly fly planes, serve passengers, load baggage so it is classed as overhead expenditure.

Check in staff, ground staff etc are not assets they are operating expenses directly linked to the product/service and create a capability that is either mandatory (a table stake) or a differentiator that provides market advantage.

The 'issue' (why don't we just call it for what it is, a problem?) is when executive management in a company doesn't understand where a capability such as IT fits in the value chain primary activities and then reduces expenditure in the support activities to the point where it becomes unfit for purpose and detracts from the value proposition.

[Out Of Trim]

LC @ LGW I see..

Can you not do a manual L/S??

I can indeed complete a manual Loadsheet. However, I don't work for BA!

I suspect the major issues were waiting for a Manual Check-in for so many flights simultaneously. It takes a long time to complete and pass the information to Load Comtrol or indeed the flight crew. Therefore flights get delayed or cancelled.

These days, the industry relies heavily on many IT systems to work effectively. Especially as staff levels are cut to the minimum to keep costs down.

[PAXboy]

I worked in telecommunications and IT for 27 years but never for an airline.

Many of these senior people wonder how it is that Amazon got to be so big so fast? They understood IT from day one.

In the UK we still have numerous companies that look down on IT. I recall doing a contract in the 1990s for a VERY well known UK plc and High Street name. They moved the IT director from his direct reporting postion to the MD, to reporting to the Financial Director. So, at a single stroke, they demoted the entire IT department and removed the MD's ability to understand the problems and opportunities.

THAT is the kind of old attitude that does real damage. But, you can be sure, no one will get the blame.

[Rarife]

I do loadsheets for BA and no, Im not in Thailand. But we can not make only LS, we have to make everything for loading. That means loading instructions too. To make this we need cargo information and booked pax to plan ULDs. When this is done and aircraft is loaded we can not just make it simple. All uld numbers, pax, seating, fuel, aircraft weight, pantry, crew and without system it takes ages to get all this info. And you do not even know if station is able to provide this info. And now imagine you are supposed to this paperwork for flight each 10 minutes. Just all the phone calls will take the time. To make manual LS is possible in theory, not in real traffic. It would be possible but you would have to break all the rules. And my colleague got into trouble because he sent LS without 9 bags on A380. We can not miss a single kilogram.

[Chris2303]

I would hazard a guess that a contract with Amadeus or Sabre would probably cost a lot less than the disruption caused by in house failures so far this calendar year

[yoganmahew]

Disclaimer, strategist and executive education tutor in a business school here - I am surprised that you misdescribe an overhead and some other definitions.

Identifying IT as an overhead is not an attitude, it is a fact, it's an ongoing expense of running a business and that does not infer that critical infrastructure is not an asset. An IT system is certainly an asset and like most assets, needs maintaining by the allocation of resources, costing time and money. However, IT does not directly fly planes, serve passengers, load baggage so it is classed as overhead expenditure.

Check in staff, ground staff etc are not assets they are operating expenses directly linked to the product/service and create a capability that is either mandatory (a table stake) or a differentiator that provides market advantage.

The 'issue' (why don't we just call it for what it is, a problem?) is when executive management in a company doesn't understand where a capability such as IT fits in the value chain primary activities and then reduces expenditure in the support activities to the point where it becomes unfit for purpose and detracts from the value proposition.
And this is the problem.
IT does fly planes (try flying one without a flight plan), serve passengers (booking and check-in, APIS, seat assignment), load baggage (load sheets - guess which bit of BA broke in the latest failure).
Check-in staff that can efficiently load a plane, ground staff that can safely load it, are an asset without intangibles like goodwill. Customer satisfaction with the travelling experience is related almost entirely to the staff they encounter.
I put it to you that an airline's staff are more important than planes, in this day of aircraft leasing, same with buildings, same with any piece of physical infrastructure; the only differentiator between one airline and another is the people who operate that airline.

[FullWings]

And this is the problem.
IT does fly planes (try flying one without a flight plan), serve passengers (booking and check-in, APIS, seat assignment), load baggage (load sheets - guess which bit of BA broke in the latest failure).
Check-in staff that can efficiently load a plane, ground staff that can safely load it, are an asset without intangibles like goodwill. Customer satisfaction with the travelling experience is related almost entirely to the staff they encounter.
I put it to you that an airline's staff are more important than planes, in this day of aircraft leasing, same with buildings, same with any piece of physical infrastructure; the only differentiator between one airline and another is the people who operate that airline.
I agree.

Having a reliable IT infrastructure is probably more important in some ways than having aeroplanes, strange though it may seem. If you have problems with aeroplanes, you can transfer to other flights, codeshare, wet/dry lease, cancel and rebook, etc. If you have a complete IT failure, you don’t even know who your passengers are!

“Going manual” is not a viable option these days due to complexity and de-skilling.

[Out Of Trim]

I would hazard a guess that a contract with Amadeus or Sabre would probably cost a lot less than the disruption caused by in house failures so far this calendar year

I believe BA do use a version of Amadeus Altea ! I'm not sure if it is connected to any in house systems though.

[STN Ramp Rat]

"Going manual” is not a viable option these days due to complexity and de-skilling.

That's got nothing to do with it, going Manual is not an option because you cant transmit the APIS data to the government.

[FullWings]

That's got nothing to do with it, going Manual is not an option because you cant transmit the APIS data to the government.
Part of the “complexity”, yes...?

[Final 3 Greens]

And this is the problem.
IT does fly planes (try flying one without a flight plan), serve passengers (booking and check-in, APIS, seat assignment), load baggage (load sheets - guess which bit of BA broke in the latest failure).
Check-in staff that can efficiently load a plane, ground staff that can safely load it, are an asset without intangibles like goodwill. Customer satisfaction with the travelling experience is related almost entirely to the staff they encounter.
I put it to you that an airline's staff are more important than planes, in this day of aircraft leasing, same with buildings, same with any piece of physical infrastructure; the only differentiator between one airline and another is the people who operate that airline.

If you do not understand the language of business, please refrain from commenting on it. Referring to IT as an overhead was a comment made in that context and is precisely correct, even if it does not fit with your (incorrect in that context) worldview.

[Paul Lupp]

To Fly, Two Servers.... and boy are we in trouble if one or both of them crash.....

[occasional]

I would hazard a guess that a contract with Amadeus or Sabre would probably cost a lot less than the disruption caused by in house failures so far this calendar yearDoesn't Amadeus supply the Ryanair system that never works for me.

[Rarife]

I believe BA do use a version of Amadeus Altea ! I'm not sure if it is connected to any in house systems though.

BA uses Fly but it is connected to Altea because some parts of BA or some airports use Altea. When Fly goes down the data just do not go where they are supposed to. Eg. Ramp agents puts all data into his Fly but is unable to finalise the flight. And he is calling you and you are doing that manualy. And you make a loadsheet but you are unable to deliver it. So you end up calling captain and sending it to his email. And he is giving you his email and it all takes to much time. This is what happens these days.

[Blackfriar]

It may seem very difficult now but I did everything you say, manually.
Set up loadsheet in advance of a/c arrival.
1. A/C registration gives weights including pantry equipment/catering for that route. May not have been extremely accurate but today isn't either (see below).
2. Forecast of freight and pax numbers allows you, as traffic officer/despatcher, to create load plan. Usually dead standard (all the bags in the back lads), freight in the front or similar based on aicraft type. Use Mark 1 human brain, exerience and training. Occasionally with very small loads, add ballast.
3. Bound up the stairs when she arrives and stick your head on the flight deck and say "How much fuel for the loadsheet skip?" Add numbers to loadsheet.
4. Check-in closes. Add pax numbers and bags to loadsheet.
5. Check bags and cargo in the right place.
6. Drop trim line and put a cross where the TOW and LW are.
7. Add LMCs (last minute changes) for the runner that arrived at check-in 10 minutes before departure.
8. Sign and present clipboard to captain.
9. Tear off a copy and exit stage left.
10. Put on headset (or just earplugs) and do startup and pushback.

Now your electronic jobby might look highly accurate but with the lack of skill and different languages at LGW, it has been known for the a/c to depart with the inbound cargo still on board and not on the loadsheet.
And all my manual jobs took to the air and landed safely, so not much must have been wrong.
Electronics (like calculators) give an illusion of accuracy and expertise where none may exists.

[Imagegear]

I can remember when reservations, messaging and cargo applications ran on mainframes with contractually guaranteed, no critical failure in the first three years of operation and not to exceed three critical failures in the total life of the product. Purging all crappy components during production and with multi-host file sharing, redundant power supplies, failover systems, transaction recovery on the fly to ensure availability. when everything went really pear-shaped, only then would you resort to backups.

Then along came MS and Windows, the blue screen of death, no failure analysis, crappy build quality, and with games included, how many would you like at the knock-down price of peanuts?

I am sure aircraft and engine build quality went the same way!, I'm just glad to be out of the rotten business.

IG

[BizJetJock]

If you do not understand the language of business, please refrain from commenting on it. Referring to IT as an overhead was a comment made in that context and is precisely correct, even if it does not fit with your (incorrect in that context) worldview.
Or perhaps it's the MBA worldview that not only do they know better than people who actually do the job, but they can arrogantly tell them to refrain from commenting on it, that is the root cause of all these issues in many industries, not just aviation.

[DaveReidUK]

Or perhaps it's the MBA worldview that not only do they know better than people who actually do the job, but they can arrogantly tell them to refrain from commenting on it, that is the root cause of all these issues in many industries, not just aviation.

I don't have an MBA, having resisted pressure to do one (ironically, while I was working at BA), but you don't need one to recognise that IT, for an airline, is both an overhead (in accounting terms) and critical infrastructure (in operational terms).

I'm mystified that there's any argument about this.

[groundbum]

Are the Royal Mail trucks that deliver mail overheads? I think not. So why would the IT that runs the sorting depots and responds to tracking requests and capture the gun scans when mail is delivered etc be considered overheads? IT now is value added business essential, not once a month payroll or profit/loss production. No IT == no business. So clearly not an overhead but a vital cog in the delivery of services/goods. It's silly to argue otherwise. It's also silly to try and save money on IT and have these frequent outages. I've worked for enough Fortune/FTSE 100 companies to know outages cause brand damage, and a well configured data center with appropriate Disaster Recovery (DR)/dual site operation is worth it's weight in gold. How would FEDEX or UPS manage if they lost IT for 24 hours every so often? The entire company would be at a standstill, all 500 planes and 50K employees sat idle until it comes back.

G

[Boxkite Montgolfier]

I recall with fondness a 'Management' brief in BrainCrank, moons ago, attesting to the huge improvements anticipated with a "New Computer" at BA (BEA/BOAC).

Management droned on interminably highlighting the advantages, 65% less input here, 70% less work there, savings over 80% etc.etc
.
A grizzled old Flight Engineer in front of me kept putting his hand up seeking a question and was irritably ignored by the burbling speaker.
Eventually the Engineer managed a response and said. " Do I understand that buying this computer will reduce workloads by over 80% Plus?"
"Yes, Yes" replied management, clearly upset that someone had not appreciated his prolonged explanation

" Well", said the Engineer " My question is Why did we not buy Two!!

Meeting concluded with endless hilarity by all bar one!

[DaveReidUK]

IT now is value added business essential, not once a month payroll or profit/loss production. No IT == no business. So clearly not an overhead but a vital cog in the delivery of services/goods.

That sounds like a pretty good definition of "critical infrastructure".

I'm not sure why we're getting so wound up about what accountants call things, when we all agree that airlines should be run not by them, but by pilots and engineers. :O

[horizon flyer]

Before retirement I was a Computer power & environment specialist and carried out many Data Centre & Computer room surveys from small to large. One of the first questions asked was, how much per hour would the company loose if the room went down or would they still be in business. Only one company knew, Fidelity Finance in Tunbridge Wells, they had servers making over a million pounds an hour so the centre was perfect. Very rare. Visited an airlines data centre in a north London airport once, it was a total mess, running on the edge, if one aircon unit had failed the computers would have shut down due to exceeding temperature limits. Not a nice way to shut down, as machines just panic and crash leaving the software in a mess. I hope they have improved it since then. An example of a company that went under due to a system failure in their Slough date centre was Blackberry was not overnight but the begining of the end. Is BA on this slippery slope, I hope not but the cracks are staring to show.

[Jwscud]

Dave, if you stick your human factors head on separate from a business/accounting head, words matter. Classifying something as a cost creates a negative bias in the minds of those making decisions, which influences their whole perception of that function and how they treat it.

We work very hard on how we communicate to avoid all sorts of bias, and there is material for a number of PhDs in the sociology and psychology of accountancy, but because they don’t directly kill people when they get it wrong, it isn’t a growth field.

[DaveReidUK]

Classifying something as a cost creates a negative bias in the minds of those making decisions, which influences their whole perception of that function and how they treat it.

I don't understand that argument.

Fuel is a cost, crews are a cost, airport charges are a cost, IT is a cost ...

[DDDriver]

I don't understand that argument.

Fuel is a cost, crews are a cost, airport charges are a cost, IT is a cost ...

Exactly the issue. Decision makers try to reduce costs, and we know efficiencies are squeezed out of all of those examples you've given wherever possible. A saving on an IT system would be very tempting as anything costing the business money will be under intense scrutiny.

[groundbum]

A smart business these days will realise that with every employee and every customer and potential customer having a smartphone (aka mini-computer) in their hand then IT can be leveraged to do perform so much business transformation. Look at any business and they're using IT to be agile. Look at any Government department and see how they insist on doing things some convoluted way that almost seems designed to be as labour intensive as possible. I despair when Police programs are on TV and a pair of cops will waste hours establishing somebody's ID, when a $1000 fingerprint device in every car will do it in seconds. All airlines now have eliminated paper wherever possible. It's madness to pennies on the infrastructure required to keep it all running.

G

[Final 3 Greens]

I don't have an MBA, having resisted pressure to do one (ironically, while I was working at BA), but you don't need one to recognise that IT, for an airline, is both an overhead (in accounting terms) and critical infrastructure (in operational terms).

I'm mystified that there's any argument about this.

Absolutely agree, the poster was using terms s/he apparently did not understand.

[Final 3 Greens]

I don't understand that argument.

Fuel is a cost, crews are a cost, airport charges are a cost, IT is a cost ...

I don't understand it, either. In presenting a business case, you are demonstrating that the costs are necessary to generate revenues that provide a margin. If you argue the case properly, spending the right amount of money is important in obtaining value for money, rather than the cheapest solution. Ergo having a properly maintained and viable IT infrastructure is a critical success factor in running an airline (not the only one) and thus requires the right amount of overhead being budgetted to do the job properly - to fail to provide the monetary resources (in capex and opex) is risking company/brand reputation and competitive position.

One doesn't need to have an MBA to understand this, I don't either and I don't teach on MBA classes.

[nuisance79]

The Vendors who supply the IT systems, Fuel etc etc etc, like to be known as 'Enablers' now days and are refer to themselves as 'Partners' not 'Suppliers'. :rolleyes:

[BDAttitude]

I don't understand it, either. In presenting a business case, you are demonstrating that the costs are necessary to generate revenues that provide a margin. If you argue the case properly, spending the right amount of money is important in obtaining value for money, rather than the cheapest solution. Ergo having a properly maintained and viable IT infrastructure is a critical success factor in running an airline (not the only one) and thus requires the right amount of overhead being budgetted to do the job properly - to fail to provide the monetary resources (in capex and opex) is risking company/brand reputation and competitive position.

One doesn't need to have an MBA to understand this, I don't either and I don't teach on MBA classes.
While the monthly expenses and/or deprecation for a certain infrastructure projects are well defined, risks associated with failures mitigated by these are not. Risk is probability of occurence multiplied by damage and neither is clear until the event finaly set in and are therfore subject to manoeuvering, whitewashing, sugercoating. What attention gets a once in a decade or a semi-centurial event by decision-makers focused on the next quarterly?

[Final 3 Greens]

While the monthly expenses and/or deprecation for a certain infrastructure projects are well defined, risks associated with failures mitigated by these are not. Risk is probability of occurence multiplied by damage and neither is clear until the event finaly set in and are therfore subject to manoeuvering, whitewashing, sugercoating. What attention gets a once in a decade or a semi-centurial event by decision-makers focused on the next quarterly?

Disagree. Any properly constructed case will contain a robust risk analysis (using quantitative methods, not qualitative Prob x Imp) and response strategy. The risk of inaction can be illustrated clearly.

[BDAttitude]

Disagree. Any properly constructed case will contain a robust risk analysis (using quantitative methods, not qualitative Prob x Imp) and response strategy. The risk of inaction can be illustrated clearly.
That's the theory. Practice is what happen's to that analysis through the hierarchy until it hits the "one pager" presented to the BOM.

[old,not bold]

Classifying something as a cost creates a negative bias in the minds of those making decisions, which influences their whole perception of that function and how they treat it.

A cost is a cost; something you have to buy or pay (eg tax) in order to run a business. It is a negative figure in the P&L account. (Let's not get into depreciation, which is also a cost). Wrapping that definition in psychobabble simply allows CEOs and CFOs who have no understanding of the hard facts of life to delude themselves that their business is healthy when the hard reality is that it is loss-making and thus heading for administration.

[Final 3 Greens]

That's the theory. Practice is what happen's to that analysis through the hierarchy until it hits the "one pager" presented to the BOM.

It's not theory in the well run organisations I've seen at close hand, it's practise, it may not be at other companies.

[yoganmahew]

Hold on a sec, the distinction is between an overhead cost and a plain cost. An overhead cost being a cost not related to the provision of service.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/overhead.aspWhat is Overhead?Overhead includes all ongoing business expenses (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/businessexpenses.asp) not including or related to direct labor or direct materials used in creating a product or service. A company must pay overhead on an ongoing basis, regardless of how much or how little the company is selling. It is important for budgeting purposes, but also for determining how much a company must charge for its products or services to make a profit. For example, a service-based business with an office has overhead expenses, such as rent, utilities, and insurance (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insurance.asp) that are in addition to direct costs of providing its service. Overhead is any expense that supports the making or selling of a product or service.


IT is no longer an overhead cost for airlines (and hasn't been for some long time). As we see with these outages, airlines cease to fly with certain types of IT outage.

"Disclaimer, strategist and executive education tutor in a business school here - I am surprised that you misdescribe an overhead and some other definitions.

Identifying IT as an overhead is not an attitude, it is a fact"
It is not a fact, it is a mistake. Accountancy needs to put away its quill and amble into the late 19th century.

[Hipennine]

A cost is a cost; something you have to buy or pay (eg tax) in order to run a business. It is a negative figure in the P&L account. (Let's not get into depreciation, which is also a cost). Wrapping that definition in psychobabble simply allows CEOs and CFOs who have no understanding of the hard facts of life to delude themselves that their business is healthy when the hard reality is that it is loss-making and thus heading for administration.

So true. It never cease to amaze me how many finance types can spend hours over the minutiae of balance sheets, and making the numbers work, but have no comprehension of the commercial implications of what those numbers are telling them.

[Rated De]

The problem is endemic in the corporate space world wide.
The reason is simple.
Cost focused management driven "generic" post graduate courses.
Costs axiomatically are the easiest thing to focus on, their reduction simple.

Thus, there are literally reams of graduates sitting with excel, "minimising cost". It matters little whether the business be a public entity or private, the focus is the same.

Penny wise pound stupid.
They know the price of everything, the cost of nothing. They cut until they nick a vein and in aviation related endeavours that can be fatal.

[3rd_ear]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/02/british_airways_data_centre_configuration/
"... (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/02/british_airways_data_centre_configuration/)wannabe budget airline British Airways" :)

I've worked for a company who outsourced building maint to CBRE; all existing staff were TUPed over with some exchange of positions within CBRE. Some of the electricians were seasoned old hands who, after one ludicrous outage elsewhere called the other team the "Have A Go Heroes". Outsourcing in a nutshell.

[old,not bold]

They know the price of everything, the cost of nothing.I was unfortunate enough, quite a long time ago, to be running an aircraft maintenance/hangar/charter facility in the UK, which was a 100%-owned subsidiary of a large construction and plant organisation which went into adminstration. The aviation subsidiary had just begun to turn an operating profit. That meant nothing; every Friday at about 3.30 someone would appear on the site from the administrators team; invariably an arrogant prat with an MBA and no idea whatsoever of how things actually work. We had a wide-range of approvals for different aircraft up to and including King Air 200. He would come into my office and without any preamble inform me that i needed to sack a number of staff, including the highest paid ie Licensed engineers. We were down to the minimum manning to maintain the licence for the approvals we had, without which we could not sign off an aircraft. I would try with enormous patience to explain to the berk that if we lost any more LAE we might as well close down the business. That would cut no ice, and I was simply incapable of understanding how things had to be. So I would then tell him to select the people who would be handed their cards that day (this is why he always came of Friday) and then tell each one, himself, face-to-face in my silent presence, that he was being fired and why. The threat of actually confronting people whose lives you were ruining because his silly little spreadsheet said they had to go was invariably enough to send him back home to Head Office, not having sacked anyone, to complain about my uncooperative attitude. But we kept the staff and head office had a good laugh. If I appear to have a contempt for MBAs and accountants that episode, along with other similar ones, is why..

[Final 3 Greens]

Hold on a sec, the distinction is between an overhead cost and a plain cost. An overhead cost being a cost not related to the provision of service.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/overhead.aspWhat is Overhead?Overhead includes all ongoing business expenses (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/businessexpenses.asp) not including or related to direct labor or direct materials used in creating a product or service. A company must pay overhead on an ongoing basis, regardless of how much or how little the company is selling. It is important for budgeting purposes, but also for determining how much a company must charge for its products or services to make a profit. For example, a service-based business with an office has overhead expenses, such as rent, utilities, and insurance (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insurance.asp) that are in addition to direct costs of providing its service. Overhead is any expense that supports the making or selling of a product or service.


IT is no longer an overhead cost for airlines (and hasn't been for some long time). As we see with these outages, airlines cease to fly with certain types of IT outage.

"Disclaimer, strategist and executive education tutor in a business school here - I am surprised that you misdescribe an overhead and some other definitions.

Identifying IT as an overhead is not an attitude, it is a fact"
It is not a fact, it is a mistake. Accountancy needs to put away its quill and amble into the late 19th century.

You really do not get it, do you? IT is an overhead, it is also a critical enabler to airline operations - the two things are not mutually exclusive. Pilots are direct costs, they are also critical to airline operations.

As the OP posted, I really don't understand why there is an argument about this.

[Final 3 Greens]

I was unfortunate enough, quite a long time ago, to be running an aircraft maintenance/hangar/charter facility in the UK, which was a 100%-owned subsidiary of a large construction and plant organisation which went into adminstration. The aviation subsidiary had just begun to turn an operating profit. That meant nothing; every Friday at about 3.30 someone would appear on the site from the administrators team; invariably an arrogant prat with an MBA and no idea whatsoever of how things actually work. We had a wide-range of approvals for different aircraft up to and including King Air 200. He would come into my office and without any preamble inform me that i needed to sack a number of staff, including the highest paid ie Licensed engineers. We were down to the minimum manning to maintain the licence for the approvals we had, without which we could not sign off an aircraft. I would try with enormous patience to explain to the berk that if we lost any more LAE we might as well close down the business. That would cut no ice, and I was simply incapable of understanding how things had to be. So I would then tell him to select the people who would be handed their cards that day (this is why he always came of Friday) and then tell each one, himself, face-to-face in my silent presence, that he was being fired and why. The threat of actually confronting people whose lives you were ruining because his silly little spreadsheet said they had to go was invariably enough to send him back home to Head Office, not having sacked anyone, to complain about my uncooperative attitude. But we kept the staff and head office had a good laugh. If I appear to have a contempt for MBAs and accountants that episode, along with other similar ones, is why..

Geez, that is arrogance on a stick.

[Blackfriar]

I don't have an MBA, having resisted pressure to do one (ironically, while I was working at BA), but you don't need one to recognise that IT, for an airline, is both an overhead (in accounting terms) and critical infrastructure (in operational terms).

I'm mystified that there's any argument about this.

I do have an MBA (paid for by BA) and totally agree with you!

[Blackfriar]

Aren't Senior Management both overhead and critical?

[Final 3 Greens]

Aren't Senior Management both overhead and critical?

That's one way of putting it :)

[cee cee]

You really do not get it, do you? IT is an overhead, it is also a critical enabler to airline operations - the two things are not mutually exclusive. Pilots are direct costs, they are also critical to airline operations.

As the OP posted, I really don't understand why there is an argument about this.

As someone who does not have an MBA, but is in IT in a different industry, this is what I am seeing.

Generally, IT cost is an overhead. It does not directly proportional to the per unit cost of the product. That is fine so far in terms of accounting.

Now comes management who wants to better the bottom line. The simplest way to do that is to cut cost. And since overheads are not directly related to per unit product cost, it is contiually in the crosshairs of shaving x% off in the name of efficency.

That is not the end of the story. Because IT is a combination of infrastructure and employee knowledge, these reduction in spendings does not lead to immediate failures. Like a house that is not maintained, it may very well stay up for another decade or two before the roof falls in. Risks increases slowly but not visibly. Embolden by the seemingly good results of the previous cycle of cost cutting, senior management continues blithely on, most of them not seeing the consequences as they are long gone by the time the piper needs to be paid.

In the organisation where I work, IT has just been demoted to report to Finance instead of straight to the president. The whole team that manages email has been made redundent (and we have since had email issues that no team is willing to take responsibility for). The team I am in have been constantly losing one position every year or two while taking on more responsibility with each reorg. The last reorg made workers redundent while increasing the number of managers, contractors and consultants. Morale is through the floor and we have had around 25% absentism this year, which increases the workload on those left behind even further.

[Final 3 Greens]

As someone who does not have an MBA, but is in IT in a different industry, this is what I am seeing.

Generally, IT cost is an overhead. It does not directly proportional to the per unit cost of the product. That is fine so far in terms of accounting.

Now comes management who wants to better the bottom line. The simplest way to do that is to cut cost. And since overheads are not directly related to per unit product cost, it is contiually in the crosshairs of shaving x% off in the name of efficency.

That is not the end of the story. Because IT is a combination of infrastructure and employee knowledge, these reduction in spendings does not lead to immediate failures. Like a house that is not maintained, it may very well stay up for another decade or two before the roof falls in. Risks increases slowly but not visibly. Embolden by the seemingly good results of the previous cycle of cost cutting, senior management continues blithely on, most of them not seeing the consequences as they are long gone by the time the piper needs to be paid.

In the organisation where I work, IT has just been demoted to report to Finance instead of straight to the president. The whole team that manages email has been made redundent (and we have since had email issues that no team is willing to take responsibility for). The team I am in have been constantly losing one position every year or two while taking on more responsibility with each reorg. The last reorg made workers redundent while increasing the number of managers, contractors and consultants. Morale is through the floor and we have had around 25% absentism this year, which increases the workload on those left behind even further.

cee cee, I see this a lot. It is myopic management and fails to recognise that IT is a core business activity these days. Value should be the true aim, not cost reduction and boards who fail to recognise the critical nature of good IT are failing miserably.

[Paul Lupp]

BA site has gone partially down again.... just about to check in online and from the main BA page, online check-in (was OK to click through), it's gone to "sorry not able to do that" and now the whole site is down too.

What a way to run an airline in the 21st century......

[esscee]

That is the problem, IT at BA is NOT up to 21st century standards!

[SteppenHerring]

Because IT is a combination of infrastructure and employee knowledge,
This. The employees with the most knowledge also tend to be the most expensive. Look at the high-profile IT failures that have happened in the last few years. They all could've been averted by having expert staff with the power to take action.
That is the problem, IT at BA is NOT up to 21st century standards! That is the problem, IT at BA is NOT up to 21st century standards!
IT at BA is exactly up to 21st century standards.

[Jack D]

I do have an MBA (paid for by BA) and totally agree with you!

As there are so many people holding MBA,s at BA
why is it such an average experience to fly with them
( as a passenger I should add)
Does that peculiar little Irishman who runs the show have an MBA .. ? He might as they are handed out fairly freely ( but not cheaply) but didn’t he used to be a F/ O at Aer Lingus ?

[PAXboy]

This emerges now regarding the strikes:
British Airways has admitted it made a mistake when it advised passengers flights were cancelled, and told them to book new ones.

Passengers have described "confusion" as cancelled flights were reinstated, but only after some of them rebooked.

Pilots are set to strike next month, but some people with flights on non-strike days were told to rebook, or get a refund.

BA apologised for any concern caused and said the email was an "error".

"We are getting in touch with all those customers this afternoon to clarify that their flight will go ahead as planned," a spokesman said.

"We are sorry for any confusion and inconvenience this has caused."

He encouraged anyone who had spent money on new flights to get in touch. "We will deal with each case on an individual basis," he added.
IT or fumbling fingers on the keyboard? The interesting aspect is in the last statement. No blanket, "Of course we will reimburse anyone out of pocket" but make everyone jump through the hoop. A great combination of IT failure, management not in control and harsh customer relations. Perfect.

[hunterboy]

Typical BA- always making a drama out of a crisis.

[c52]

Flights being cancelled is an everyday occurrence: how is it possible for BA to have given pax the wrong information? I am absolutely staggered. It's not as if the strikes took them by surprise or they have no recent experience of strikes.