BA scraps Unaccompanied Minors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA scraps Unaccompanied Minors
British Airways stops 'Unaccompanied Minor' service in bid to cut costs | News & Advice | Travel | The Independent
Are the costs of this scheme really that high? Anyone more in the know have any comments?
Are the costs of this scheme really that high? Anyone more in the know have any comments?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what additional costs are incurred other than a set fee to appointed handling agent at either end, usually £50 or so.
Isn't this passed onto the customer anyway?
Isn't this passed onto the customer anyway?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Bid to cut costs"?
IAG, BA's parent has in the past week reported a 51.5% increase in their 2015 net profit compared to 2014 at $1.66 Billion and a full-year revenue up 13.3% over the previous year - clearly a bid to cut costs is an urgent necessity.
I wonder if there's not more to this - could it be cabin crew driven perhaps? It's a great pity for parents who, through no fault of their children, and out of necessity, live many thousands of miles apart, yet within a matter of a handful of miles from two points well served by BA (and, incidentally no others), and who have come to rely on this service as a means of spending any meaningful time with their loved ones. I'm certain that parents would pay a premium for such a facility, and therefore, as such companies are not shy at creating additional revenue streams, I feel there may be another angle.
IAG, BA's parent has in the past week reported a 51.5% increase in their 2015 net profit compared to 2014 at $1.66 Billion and a full-year revenue up 13.3% over the previous year - clearly a bid to cut costs is an urgent necessity.
I wonder if there's not more to this - could it be cabin crew driven perhaps? It's a great pity for parents who, through no fault of their children, and out of necessity, live many thousands of miles apart, yet within a matter of a handful of miles from two points well served by BA (and, incidentally no others), and who have come to rely on this service as a means of spending any meaningful time with their loved ones. I'm certain that parents would pay a premium for such a facility, and therefore, as such companies are not shy at creating additional revenue streams, I feel there may be another angle.
could it be cabin crew driven perhaps?
From what I've seen
the UMs are escorted to/from the aircraft door by groundstaff. The cabin crew's involment with the UMs during the sector itself, whilst certainly very important, is a relatively small part of their overall duties. OTOH there certainly will be costs involved in administering the scheme and providing any ground staff required - I'd suggest PAXboy is sadly probably spot on with his suggestion..
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy,
"...is a relatively small part of their overall duties" but nonetheless, an additional duty with associated responsibilities. My experiences with BA C/C in the oversight of UM's has, without exception, been of the utmost highest standard in terms of care and professionalism, however we live in a very different world to the one in which such services were conceived; and that's before you consider the implications of EASA FTL's on a relatively short sector...
I'm inclined to agree with PAXboy's suggestion as well though - this was a special service that made BA different. Very disappointing.
"...is a relatively small part of their overall duties" but nonetheless, an additional duty with associated responsibilities. My experiences with BA C/C in the oversight of UM's has, without exception, been of the utmost highest standard in terms of care and professionalism, however we live in a very different world to the one in which such services were conceived; and that's before you consider the implications of EASA FTL's on a relatively short sector...
I'm inclined to agree with PAXboy's suggestion as well though - this was a special service that made BA different. Very disappointing.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad for the children of ex-pats, as Reverserbucket" says.
I was one such sixty years ago. I went BOAC from London to Singapore unaccompanied in 1951 and the crews were, as far as I recall, wonderful. Outbound in a Connie, lunch stop and a city bus tour in Rome, then overnight at the Heliopolis Palace Hotel in Cairo. A (very hot) refuel stop in Bahrein and another night stop in BOACs Speedbird hotel at Karachi, then via Calcutta to Singapore - old airport of course at Changi was still a jail. Return was the reciprocal route but in an Argonaut. What a difference! Perhaps my late-life hearing loss owes something to the nearby Merlin at full chat for many hours! Very sad that the young of today can't experience such excitement; you really knew you had traveled then.
I was one such sixty years ago. I went BOAC from London to Singapore unaccompanied in 1951 and the crews were, as far as I recall, wonderful. Outbound in a Connie, lunch stop and a city bus tour in Rome, then overnight at the Heliopolis Palace Hotel in Cairo. A (very hot) refuel stop in Bahrein and another night stop in BOACs Speedbird hotel at Karachi, then via Calcutta to Singapore - old airport of course at Changi was still a jail. Return was the reciprocal route but in an Argonaut. What a difference! Perhaps my late-life hearing loss owes something to the nearby Merlin at full chat for many hours! Very sad that the young of today can't experience such excitement; you really knew you had traveled then.
Although I've lived abroad most of my life I have never used this. I now live back on The Island and have grandchildren abroad but would not wish my children to send their issue over as an UM. The amount of paperwork involved on both the sending and receiving ends could lead to a numpty at one end or the other refusing carriage/acceptance thereby giving the airline and parents costs, not to mention disappointment to the child/ren concerned. Purely a commercial decision, I believe. It's probably another of these non-thought through Brussels edicts. Harrumph.
My experiences with BA C/C in the oversight of UM's has, without exception, been of the utmost highest standard in terms of care and professionalism,
and that's before you consider the implications of EASA FTL's on a relatively short sector...
if you're implying there's a link between the introduction of EASA FTLs into BA and the discontinuation of the UM scheme you've lost me...then again I'm easily confused.In any event I'd agree that it's very disappointing, but given that the incoming CEO has already being having a hard look at the finances, and given his provenance it is perhaps not surprising
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy, slightly off topic, but if this is the doing of Mr Cruz then I would suggest that he is going to have to take a big reality check if he isn't about to totally ruin BA. BA isn't a low cost, it's a premium product and therefore cannot be subject to the same kind of business model as Vueling without alienating a large part of its customer base.
It's the old saying, you can take as many toppings as you like off the pizza but sooner or later no one will want to buy it. I'm preaching to the converted I'm sure but I'm genuinely worried about this incoming CEO and his low cost tunnel vision/lack of understanding of a how a legacy airline should operate.
I've seen many people declaring that their business will go elsewhere purely as a result of this decision! Death by a thousand cuts or penny wise/pound foolish. They all seem appropriate.
It's the old saying, you can take as many toppings as you like off the pizza but sooner or later no one will want to buy it. I'm preaching to the converted I'm sure but I'm genuinely worried about this incoming CEO and his low cost tunnel vision/lack of understanding of a how a legacy airline should operate.
I've seen many people declaring that their business will go elsewhere purely as a result of this decision! Death by a thousand cuts or penny wise/pound foolish. They all seem appropriate.
Last edited by RexBanner; 1st Mar 2016 at 05:53.
If I ran a business where demand for a particular service had dropped two thirds in a decade (and 21% in a year) and where only 2% of the target market (children travelling) used the service, I might be tempted to drop it.
Actually, I wouldn't just be tempted. I'd do it, and re-deploy the people and money expended into an area that might (a) grow new business or (b) support other higher fare paying passengers.
Obviously, this is not a view shared by some posters on this thread but at least it's based on the actual facts of the situation...
Actually, I wouldn't just be tempted. I'd do it, and re-deploy the people and money expended into an area that might (a) grow new business or (b) support other higher fare paying passengers.
Obviously, this is not a view shared by some posters on this thread but at least it's based on the actual facts of the situation...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captivep, if you can quantify how much this service actually costs BA and demonstrate that the money could be better used elsewhere in terms of, as you say, growing new business I would absolutely agree with you.
However if, as I suspect, the figures involved are absolute peanuts in the greater scheme of things then that argument ceases to be as relevant because all it is doing is deteriorating the public image and perception of the level of service that BA provide. That has repercussions way beyond the minute figures involved in maintaining an Unaccompanied Minor service.
Penny wise, pound foolish. It is seen again and again in this industry. The trouble is the Chief Execs concerned don't care about the long game they are there for short term gain, increase short term profits, collect their bonus and then move on to their next company. They could give a damn how the airline is doing in ten to twenty years time.
However if, as I suspect, the figures involved are absolute peanuts in the greater scheme of things then that argument ceases to be as relevant because all it is doing is deteriorating the public image and perception of the level of service that BA provide. That has repercussions way beyond the minute figures involved in maintaining an Unaccompanied Minor service.
Penny wise, pound foolish. It is seen again and again in this industry. The trouble is the Chief Execs concerned don't care about the long game they are there for short term gain, increase short term profits, collect their bonus and then move on to their next company. They could give a damn how the airline is doing in ten to twenty years time.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wiggy,
"...if you're implying there's a link between the introduction of EASA FTLs into BA and the discontinuation of the UM scheme you've lost me...then again I'm easily confused."
I'm not suggesting there's a link, but with the new minimum rest periods on a relatively short (LH) sector, say JFK-LHR, and no adjustment of crew compliment, time available to conduct meal services will be tighter with less opportunity for other activities in the cabin. I appreciate that UM's don't take up much of a crewmembers time however it is an additional responsibility that, although I'm fairly certain an individual crewmember has no gripe with, perhaps their union has a view on? This is a personal opinion though and not based on any anecdotal evidence. Sorry to confuse.
"...if you're implying there's a link between the introduction of EASA FTLs into BA and the discontinuation of the UM scheme you've lost me...then again I'm easily confused."
I'm not suggesting there's a link, but with the new minimum rest periods on a relatively short (LH) sector, say JFK-LHR, and no adjustment of crew compliment, time available to conduct meal services will be tighter with less opportunity for other activities in the cabin. I appreciate that UM's don't take up much of a crewmembers time however it is an additional responsibility that, although I'm fairly certain an individual crewmember has no gripe with, perhaps their union has a view on? This is a personal opinion though and not based on any anecdotal evidence. Sorry to confuse.
Rexbanner - I don't know how much money it will save but by the same token, and with respect, no-one seems to know how many people's view of BA will be coloured by this, either.
I, for example, couldn't care less about the loss of this service; it has no impact on me and it doesn't affect my view of the service I get from BA. I doubt any childless passengers of BA would care (or even know!).
So, we're down to BA passengers who have children. Not all of them will ever need to fly BA with their kids (many will only fly on business, for example) and, of those who do, 98% of the children who fly on BA already fly accompanied by parents or carers so it, presumably, doesn't bother them that much either.
I'm afraid it seems to me that some of the reactions to this news stem from misty eyed memories of being a child being escorted to a Comet and introduced to the Captain before he puts a stamp in your "logbook"...
I, for example, couldn't care less about the loss of this service; it has no impact on me and it doesn't affect my view of the service I get from BA. I doubt any childless passengers of BA would care (or even know!).
So, we're down to BA passengers who have children. Not all of them will ever need to fly BA with their kids (many will only fly on business, for example) and, of those who do, 98% of the children who fly on BA already fly accompanied by parents or carers so it, presumably, doesn't bother them that much either.
I'm afraid it seems to me that some of the reactions to this news stem from misty eyed memories of being a child being escorted to a Comet and introduced to the Captain before he puts a stamp in your "logbook"...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captivep - true, the majority of BA's passengers could care less I'm sure, but it's not all about sentimental repatriation to 'Honkers', Nairobi or other far flung corners of the Empire by Junior Jet Clubbers experiencing their first trip on a Comet or VC10; for me, this is an absolutely essential service that enables me to spend time with my children that I would otherwise, and indeed may now be, unable to do. So yes, it affects me and I am deeply saddened by the withdrawal of this exceptional product and not from a whimsical point of view.
Paxing All Over The World
Perhaps I may be allowed to expand on my simple 'death of a thousand cuts' as, having thought further, I have a guess as to how this cut happened.
In the mid 1980s, a US fashion in business was to split an organisation to give 'more autonomy' to each main department and sometimes, to sections within them. This idea was enthusiastically taken up by many corp orates.
The idea was that, by giving each department/section head control of their budget and resources - they would do better than being dictated to from above. However, having watched this process from the inside of an American company, I quickly saw the way the new system could be turned on the dept manager.
The mgr was given responsibility and some authority but only enough to ensure that - if they made a klanx up - they could take all the blame and senior mgmt walked away.
So my GUESS is that the department that is responsible for the UM service found it was no longer cost effective (for whatever reason) and got permission to close it down.
It is possible that top mgmt had no idea about this being done and that no one said, "Hang on a minute - in the small scheme of things this is pricey but in the greater scheme it is a unique offering that sets us apart and with the overall company profits, we can continue to partly subsidize this. Not least on the basis that, if we show ourselves to be a good supplier to young people, they will think favorably of us when they are actually buying the tickets."
So, it may be more ¢o¢k up than planning.
In the mid 1980s, a US fashion in business was to split an organisation to give 'more autonomy' to each main department and sometimes, to sections within them. This idea was enthusiastically taken up by many corp orates.
The idea was that, by giving each department/section head control of their budget and resources - they would do better than being dictated to from above. However, having watched this process from the inside of an American company, I quickly saw the way the new system could be turned on the dept manager.
The mgr was given responsibility and some authority but only enough to ensure that - if they made a klanx up - they could take all the blame and senior mgmt walked away.
So my GUESS is that the department that is responsible for the UM service found it was no longer cost effective (for whatever reason) and got permission to close it down.
It is possible that top mgmt had no idea about this being done and that no one said, "Hang on a minute - in the small scheme of things this is pricey but in the greater scheme it is a unique offering that sets us apart and with the overall company profits, we can continue to partly subsidize this. Not least on the basis that, if we show ourselves to be a good supplier to young people, they will think favorably of us when they are actually buying the tickets."
So, it may be more ¢o¢k up than planning.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UM's
Back in the days when I flew short haul quite a lot,
and before the PC people stopped children sitting next to
male adults, I was quite often asked if I minded having one of
these children sitting next to me. I did fly on a route which was popular
for children traveling on to join a long haul.Actually it did help with the tedium of the flight,
and no need to eat your airline pudding or sweeties either.
and before the PC people stopped children sitting next to
male adults, I was quite often asked if I minded having one of
these children sitting next to me. I did fly on a route which was popular
for children traveling on to join a long haul.Actually it did help with the tedium of the flight,
and no need to eat your airline pudding or sweeties either.
Reverserbucket
Hi
Sorry to sound like a dog that's got hold of a bone but I'm genuinely curious about this. I can't see any reference in our supposedly EASA compliant Ops manual as to requirements for mandatory rest periods or breaks on the likes of a LHR-JFK, and I've heard no mention of the same (yet) from any of the cabin crew I've worked with on the several "short" longhaul sectors I've done since EASA came in at BA. If I've missed it apologies but you know what getting info out of iPads is like at the moment 
If you are able to send the relevant Ops manual Ref by PM I'd appreciate it (and I'll leave this topic alone) - that way I'll be armed if the subject comes up in my next "short" long haul sector...
Hi
with the new minimum rest periods on a relatively short (LH) sector, say JFK-LHR, and no adjustment of crew compliment, time available to conduct meal services will be tighter with less opportunity for other activities in the cabin.
If you are able to send the relevant Ops manual Ref by PM I'd appreciate it (and I'll leave this topic alone) - that way I'll be armed if the subject comes up in my next "short" long haul sector...
Last edited by wiggy; 4th Mar 2016 at 10:33.
