From the initial message, it looks like the flight concerned was on Saturday 31October, in which case it was G-BNWA and this has been with BA from new - April 1990. I have flown this aircraft many times to LCA and cannot think of any notices, signs etc that might lead one to believe that it was an ex American aircraft. Granted, it is a bit tired but its almost 20 years old!

I went on a business trip to Athens recently. My colleague flew on BA, whom I refuse to fly on, and I went on easyJet. When we met up he commented, unsolicited, on how tired and tatty the cabin was, and how disgruntled and surly the cabin attendants were. I appreciate that these are not easy times for BA, least of all for their cabin staff, but they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot.

I have never been on an easyJet flight where the cabin was anything approaching 'tired and tatty'. Sometimes a little untidy due to the fast turnarounds, but nothing more than superficial.

tamazi dont go! none of us would ever gain knowledge if we didnt ask questions, dont worry about the smart arsed :mad: on here, luckily there are plenty of willing posters to help and share without shooting people down:ok:. mean while i cant see too many carriers spending a lot of money on interior revamps in the current climate especially at ba. sorry sign of the times it seems.:{

Perhaps the notices were on the Atlas containers or the food cart used by the flight attendants? :)

In my company we have lovely new planes but the Atlas boxes show the names of many random old airlines and competitors. If pax can sometimes think that the plane is an ex-Air-Zimbabwe plane, this is really bad. No brand-manager would allow to have all these foreign airlines on display in our (open) galleys. Save a few pennies on old Atlas boxes, but spend millions on branding only to have it undermined. :ugh:

Disgruntled
 

In the loo as I understand.

I have travelled on BA 767s to IST and can confirm that the notices abount not smoking in the toilet refer to "federal" laws.

Also, the aircraft were, in my opinion, shabby. However, in my case, the staff were friendly.

Somewhat off topic, I know, but for the record US-registered 767s did fly in BA colours at one point. These were US Air aircraft and flew with US Air cabin crew in BA uniforms, if I remember correctly.

Seat62K

Good memory!

767-200s from LGW, IIRC.

I am old enough to remember paxing on the last of the BA BAC One-Elevens in their final weeks of service, operating out of Birmingham. I think this was in 1991 and the aircraft had been built in 1968.

The interiors were totally clean, undamaged and up to date right to the end. In fact they were spotless. BA did sell them on, so it was not as if it was all wasted. But we commented at the time on how well they maintained their standards to the end on their fleet.

It really is stretching things to believe that the same airframe engineers and fitters, at the same maintenance base, and with parts availability out of the same stores, will be so painstaking over the mech/elec components, and just let the cabin items go hang. In any event we hear again and again of failed lights, which are surely electrics ? Age of the airframe is nothing to do with it. How you keep it up and presentable is.

I guess it's all part of the Willie Walsh "let's wear the BA brand down so everyone will go with my old mate Mikey at Ryanair, because it's no worse, and then one day Mikey will see me all right" campaign.

.....or maybe the cabin spares aren't kept in stock any more, at all manned bases, because it costs a fortune to hold them (which few airlines can afford these days).
Maybe the cabin defects are entered in the techlog as level 2 deferrals or as level 1's iaw the MEL where applicable. Trust me, it's a lot more hassle to defer cabin defects than it is to actually fix them!