They fly 24/7, things go wrong 24/7, they used to have this service 24/7. It's not impossible in a global business to have proper coverage.

I don't think the original poster was asking for every business & government department to supply 24/7 support, he was asking that BA did.

And as the OP mentioned, BA's call centre response would have been the same regardless of whether he was phoning with a minor, self-inflicted problem, or if he had been a premium ticketholder stranded in some remote airport.

While BA's service onboard can be very, very good, its customer service on the ground, and particularly on the telephone is often very, very poor. Whatever the reason for your contact. Whether you are a one flight a year low-life, or an EC gold card holder.

The defence of "but you should expect poor service when something big is going wrong" is, frankly, pathetic, given how often "something big" goes wrong in BA and in the aviation business. Snow and fog happen every winter. Airports close, for some reason, whether it be due to weather, or volcanoes, or security incidents, every year. Industrial disputes (not always involving BA) affect flights on a regular basis. Heathrow as an airport is permanently teetering on the brink of chaos. BA should be able to cope with flight disruption far better than it does.

Many individuals within BA really care about customers, but collectively, the organisation often fails to deliver on customer service and support. Running a big airline is about a lot more than just flying planes.

There was a time when BA was my default choice of airline. Now it's just one of the crowd. That's not down to the service on board - although some Heathrow cabin crews have been particularly sour-faced lately. It's down to the whole end-to-end experience, including how the company deals with "unexpected" problems.

One of the issues with some of BA's "customer" service agents, and their managers, is that they believe that they still are a Government agency.

:ok:

I left BA (EC Gold at the time) due to their call centre's poor handling of a reroute the day before one of their strikes. I won't boar you with the details but this, and the crappy (non) follow-up by their (non) customer service, means I haven't flown them with a revenue ticket since. (I did burn through my miles though) :E

And from the comments on this thread, I see no reason for going back either.

Great company
 

:ok::ok:Well after reading all these negative comments, I'll just have to count my lucky stars that I've always received 100% customer service from all of the BA staff with whom I have had contact, whether by phone, internet or face to face, on the ground & in the air.

It's a shame that we still haven't heard from Capot as to whether or not he managed to get BA to sort out his forgetfulness.

I'm backing BA. :ok:

.Many moons ago I remember a BA pilot telling me that when he was promoted to Captain he first had to undergo an indoctrination course, where they were educated about the running of various departments of the company and passenger handling. Part of this Touchy/Feely-All-Pals-Together course involved running a mythical marketing exercise, and my pal told me that they came up with ideas that, they claimed, would make the airline 10% better than the competition.

We don't want to be 10% better than the competition, said the Marketing Moguls, that would cost money, we only need to be 1% better - a much easier, and financially manageable, target.

Says it all, really.

The whole business with snow and airports reminds me of a comment of W.S. Gilbert.

'Although Saturdays come round with amazing regularity, they still seem to catch the Metropolitan Railway by surprise'.

The same for both BA and BAA.

In BA's case, it's the crap back office staff that let it down -plus stupid rules. It proved cheaper for me to cancel a ticket and lose the original fare and buy a new one in a higher class than to take the upgrade they offered.

YorkshireTyke That is a SUPERB example of our times and thanks radeng for summing it up in one line.

Sadly, truly sadly, BA + BAA are just two examples of the many that function in this way. It is symptomatic of why the UK is in the dwang. (self explanatory South African slang!)

I have just (5 mins ago) completed a 'customer satisfaction survey' from my mobile phone supplier. I made it plain that their network is good but the customer service is poor. Their rates are not as good as the competition and their website where I can manage my account and see what has been happening/change things, is not as good as the competition. Consider that, as a business, mobile phone companies have only existed in the UK since 1985 and you can see how quickly they have moved form being the best to an also ran. They have had my business for over 15 years but are within an ace of losing it. That is modern management for you.

A few days before returning from the USA home to the UK I tried to upgrade using some of my points using the website. Not allowed so the website says and suggested I ring a number. As I'm very deaf that's not a good option for me, so I e-mailed. Response : we'll be in touch within 14 days!

Okay, so I take my chances and try and do the upgrade at Atlanta airport. I can't upgrade using points there either. However the check in guy gives a deal on a cash option (too expensive for me), but then swaps my existing seat so that I'm not sitting next to anyone else.

At the gate, I explain I don't hear announcements so could they give me the nod when it's time to board. Not content with that, they decide to let me board after the First/Business passengers, but ahead of the general boarding.

My point being parts of BA are great but try and raise any form of customer service query, even in Executive Club, and they're generally appalling. I think it's must be because they don't actually have to meet the customer, so they think they can get away with it?

Don't forget that the modern style is to break the company up into separate pieces. The idea is that each department will then try and do it's best - but they forget that they are part of a process. If each dept is succeeding on it's own terms then they can ignore the departments before and after them in the sequence.

That's the short explanation, it's complicated by multiple managers all reporting that they are doing brilliantly and no one having overall control - at an operational level. The company is too large for anyone to hold it together and that is the curse of EVERY company, charity, govt that gets too big and old. Look at the USA still clinging to the idea of having one person as head of all the tribes? That won't last. The only way for big companies and govts is down - even as the mgmt produce pretty graphs to show how well they are doing. :rolleyes:

I've been in mega global corporations and seen it at first hand.