Editor's Blog2 mins ago
Who's to blame for the T5 "hiccup"..... BA or BAA??
5 Answers
Hi
Two senior BA execs have resigned today, has the actual problem been established and laid with BA. I thought BAA owned and operated the new T5, they have been very quite in all this?
Can anyone enlighten me??
Brendan
Two senior BA execs have resigned today, has the actual problem been established and laid with BA. I thought BAA owned and operated the new T5, they have been very quite in all this?
Can anyone enlighten me??
Brendan
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Irishlad74. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What you say is true, but BA had the ultimate responsibility to establish that the business processes and supporting systems were working to their complete satisfaction before letting the general public loose in there. There will likely be a financial settlement between the two parties reflecting BAA's failure in the matter - but we will probably never get to hear the details.
The removal of the Customer Services Director is probably more associated with what happened AFTER the initial problems were experienced and BA's response to it (or lack of it).
The removal of the Customer Services Director is probably more associated with what happened AFTER the initial problems were experienced and BA's response to it (or lack of it).
Both Companies have culpability, but for different aspects.
But you are right Irish, The BAA have been very quiet.
It is BAA's terminal, the building, its infrastructure: lifts, toilets, announcement system, flight information screens, & critically, the baggage system, are ALL the responsibility of BAA. The fact that many of these items were not complete (& still arent, & many wont even be ready in June after the delayed switch!!), is completely the fault of BAA as is the disruption associated with these.
BAA were also responsible for the staff carparking- not having kicked the builders out of the car park for operational staff, & getting the bussing wrong. They also failed to provide enough staff to man security points, meaning an hour for BA staff to get through and report for work.
Builder refers to testing before moving in & BA's responsibility. To some extent this is true, there must have been failings in the testing not to have picked up the problems staff were going to have finding their way around the place and knowing what to do. However the period of operational readiness (testing and getting ready and familiarising staff), that BA were given was SUPPOSED to be a completely finished building with all systems and infrastructure in place and no construction, by MID SEPTEMBER. As we know building work still hasnt finished, & in essence it wasnt safe to get passengers and staff in to test properly till Dec. A large number of trials had to be cancelled or de-scaled.
More-see part2!
But you are right Irish, The BAA have been very quiet.
It is BAA's terminal, the building, its infrastructure: lifts, toilets, announcement system, flight information screens, & critically, the baggage system, are ALL the responsibility of BAA. The fact that many of these items were not complete (& still arent, & many wont even be ready in June after the delayed switch!!), is completely the fault of BAA as is the disruption associated with these.
BAA were also responsible for the staff carparking- not having kicked the builders out of the car park for operational staff, & getting the bussing wrong. They also failed to provide enough staff to man security points, meaning an hour for BA staff to get through and report for work.
Builder refers to testing before moving in & BA's responsibility. To some extent this is true, there must have been failings in the testing not to have picked up the problems staff were going to have finding their way around the place and knowing what to do. However the period of operational readiness (testing and getting ready and familiarising staff), that BA were given was SUPPOSED to be a completely finished building with all systems and infrastructure in place and no construction, by MID SEPTEMBER. As we know building work still hasnt finished, & in essence it wasnt safe to get passengers and staff in to test properly till Dec. A large number of trials had to be cancelled or de-scaled.
More-see part2!
So if BAA have had large culpability, what was BA's?
Well, over promising to the media for one. Any large project needs bedding in, & nearly all global major airport moves have had significant problems. BA made the error of bragging publically, and set themselves up for ridicule when it went wrong.
What else? I think also the risk was underestimated of how little time staff had been able to spend in the new building before hand, getting used to the new ways of working. My gut feeling is that if the BAA issues of parking, security and baggage system hadnt happened, BA may just have got away with it - chaotic but under control. But with the combination of factors on the day, expecting the staff to cope with new processes, new building and a barrel load of problems on the first day was too much and it all came crashing down.
The final cuplability of BA? The only thing that might have changed things was if someone had made the decision not to move in as the building wasnt ready. This very nearly happened, But they didnt, and no one gives prozes for nearly. The BAA delivery programme was significantly behind a year ago, when the decsion could just about have been taken before it was too late. Letters were exchanged between the companies threatening to pull the opening if BAA didnt rectify the slippages, promises were made, and believed... with hindsight...... who knows!
Well, over promising to the media for one. Any large project needs bedding in, & nearly all global major airport moves have had significant problems. BA made the error of bragging publically, and set themselves up for ridicule when it went wrong.
What else? I think also the risk was underestimated of how little time staff had been able to spend in the new building before hand, getting used to the new ways of working. My gut feeling is that if the BAA issues of parking, security and baggage system hadnt happened, BA may just have got away with it - chaotic but under control. But with the combination of factors on the day, expecting the staff to cope with new processes, new building and a barrel load of problems on the first day was too much and it all came crashing down.
The final cuplability of BA? The only thing that might have changed things was if someone had made the decision not to move in as the building wasnt ready. This very nearly happened, But they didnt, and no one gives prozes for nearly. The BAA delivery programme was significantly behind a year ago, when the decsion could just about have been taken before it was too late. Letters were exchanged between the companies threatening to pull the opening if BAA didnt rectify the slippages, promises were made, and believed... with hindsight...... who knows!
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.