Sorry, Final 3, but "withdrawing the company business from BA" is only a "valid decision" that "he is perfectly entitled to make as the top executive office of the organization" if it is based on an objective assessment rather than a subjective one.

A subjective decision is an abuse of power and position. I sincerely hope that the shareholders DO hold him to account for it.

Ladbrokes: not just a bookie.
 

As it happens, I am a shareholder in Ladbrokes.

They are a leisure industry company, a bit Like BA, if you will. They own hotels, lots of them, they are not just bookies.

I think our CEO was entitled to have a hissy fit over BA's action, for the simple reason that they displayed poor management of a prime customer.

Are we really to believe that Mr Bell didn't turn up at the check-in desk with his daughter and her friend? Were they really travelling in the back while he travelled in the front? Maybe so, but they would surely have still checked in together.

Over many years of international travel with BA, I have found their attitude to me to be quirky and quixotic, to say the least.

The final straw came when they made me a free life member of Exec club silver (thank you!) and withdrew it six months later on their whim.

I haven't flown internationally with them since, Sir Richard has had all my company's business. He has done me no special favours, but he didn't lie to me either.

I could make a better job of running BA's marketing operations and customer relations, really, I could. Probably anybody could.

Sorry, Final 3, but "withdrawing the company business from BA" is only a "valid decision" that "he is perfectly entitled to make as the top executive office of the organization" if it is based on an objective assessment rather than a subjective one.

Utter nonsense, most business decisions are subjective.

If business was about objective analysis, then why would companies pay a premium for executives? Any competent analyst could be an effectgive CEO.

This really does sum up BA over the last 5-8 or more years. When they are good, they are very good, but when they are bad they are conversly very bad!! (isnt there another thread about this..) They used to be consistantly good, and if you did get a problem usually you would get it smoothed over by someone, even if it wasnt the initial response from their staff. Unfortunately that old attitude has gone and this time they caught the wrong guy out with the new attitude.

I have a feeling that its got alot to do with the way the company management is treating its frontline staff, which then filters down to the customer.

Personally, since I have tried to avoid flying through the UK since the "security enhancements" now in place, I dont fly BA much anymore. I also think that the current UK security setup doesnt reflect well on BA, because pax see it as part of their experience flying BA though London, regardless of it being nothing to do with them. Its abit like the "extra security" you get flying an american carrier to the USA.

BTW, To those that say "whats the big deal, the girls flew didnt they", Im convinced the only reason that happened is because their father was there and caused a stink about it.....:rolleyes:

I assume then that the reversal of the decision to withdraw company business from BA was also a valid decision made by a top executive looking after the interests of organization and it's employees, while having nothing to do with a 250.00 bung each to his daughter and friend! Or am I too cynical?

I assume then that the reversal of the decision to withdraw company business from BA was also a valid decision made by a top executive looking after the interests of organization and it's employees, while having nothing to do with a 250.00 bung each to his daughter and friend! Or am I too cynical?

You are too naive.

I imagine it cost BA a lot more than 2 x 250 to reverse the decision and added something to Ladbroke's bottom line as well as ensuring that their people will be taken a bit more seriously (at least for a while.)

Well done Chris Bell.

Final 3 Greens,

No, I'm not too naive. Thats why I can't believe that Mr Bell started all this in the interests of his company. I wonder if this ban would ever have crossed his mind if he, himself, had not hit a problem. Allegedly, there was a history of problems suffered by his employees when travelling on company business so why had he not addressed this until it happened to him?

No one that was not directly involved knows exactly what went on in this situation but it sure seems like someone abusing their position to me.

JSL

No one that was not directly involved knows exactly what went on in this situation but it sure seems like someone abusing their position to me.

So you believe that you don't know what happened exactly, but are sure he is abusing his power?

That's a logical thought process - not :rolleyes:

I said, "it sure seems like someone abusing their position to me". This, in my eyes anyway, indicates that it's entirely my opinion and not fact. Just the same way you are allowed to have your opinion despite you not being there. Unless you were of course in which case, you win! :{ :p

JSL

I don't know why you are so keen to side with Mr Bell, Final 3.

The world is full of bullies - and the world is a worse place for it.

Throwing your corporate weight around because of a personal inconvenience is exactly what corporate bullies do. He should be ashamed of himself.

Selfloadingcargo wrote:
Agreed. And PPRuNe is full of threads about how a bullying BA management have taken away from BA line staff any ability to think or act for themselves, which is probably why such a daft situation as this came about at all...

No he shouldn't. In fact, we should be very grateful to him.

It is only when people in such positions of power as Mr Lee publicly throw their toys out the pram / throw their corporate weight around [delete as applicable] and force WW et al to realise that a problem exists, that there is even a vague glimmer of hope that WW and the rest of BA 'management' might just wonder if they're doing something wrong?

WW doesn't know and probably cares even less that I actively avoid flying with BA whenever possible (and FR too for that matter), because of their respective appalling customer service. If people like Mr Lee can have some impact on what used to be The World's Favourite Airline then good luck to him!

Thanks cargosales.

That pretty well sums up how I feel.

cargosales - the fact that you have a personal beef with BA does not mean that you should automatically approve of someone behaving badly towards them.

I am sure BA behave disgracefully themselves on occasion. I condemn that as roundly as I condemn Mr. Bell's actions. However, one organisation behaving badly does not excuse another one doing so.

If you agree, as you appear to, that the world would be a better place for a lack of bullying, then it is somewhat inconsistent to approve, as you also appear to, of having Chris Bell throw his (bullying) corporate weight around too.

You can't have it both ways.

I agree that organisations have to be made to face up to the way they treat their customers, but there is a right and a wrong way of doing it. My point is purely that using your shareholders to fight a personal battle without their approval is a great example of the wrong way to do it.

Selfloading cargo

Where does an 800lb gorilla sit? Anywhere it likes

Where does a 1200lb gorilla sit? Anywhere it likes

In this case BA was an 800lb gorilla and Ladbrokes a 1200lb gorilla

That's how things are

People like cargo sales and me are 200lb gorillas, so we admire 1200lb gorillas

Fortunately I'm human so I admire qualities other than size and weight.

I'll send you some bananas.

I'll send you some bananas.

Its hard to know how to reply to someone of your obvious intellectual stature.

If that's the best you can do, I can see why you're struggling.

Let's just agree to differ shall we? This is becoming unedifying.

Ladbrokes isn't a 1200lb gorilla. Ladbrokes is a 50lb chimp, the kind of chimp trainee gorilla handlers are given to practice with. The only reason the chimp got some bananas in this instance was because the press decided to jump on the bandwagon. Otherwise the chimp would still be out in the cold and it wouldn't make a jot of difference to anyone.

Ahem....
 

Anyone mind if we close this down now? - we seem to have moved on to "Guess the weight of the primate" and that's rarely a good sign...


:)