On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:43:54 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:19:05 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
being exposed to it.

Apparently the catering company employer had already formally
considered engineering an unofficial strike to allow them to dismiss
the existing workforce at no notice and replace them with cheaper
labour.

The source of this appears to be one of the tabloid newspapers (and I
don't mean the Times).



Fundamentally the problem is that of outsourcing. The management
consultant mantra is to "outsource" non-core activities. Bear in
mind that most management consultants have never actually managed
anything in real life and most lack any ability to do so and you
don't have to look hard to see the weakness in this argument.

In that respect, I agree with you. I have little respect for
management consultants for the reasons you describe, but also because
they allow, in effect, people who should be managing a business not to
make decisions and take responsibility for them.



I have a cookery book written some years ago by BOAC/BA chefs
explaining the oddities of in flight catering. It is written by
enthusiasts who had a real interest in their passengers and with
providing them with a service. No such book is for sale today.

Generally neither is the service because relatively few customers are
willing to pay the price involved. For most airlines, their business
and first class passengers produce the highest margin, but I still
wouldn't describe the service as outstanding.

Some months ago, I made a trip on BA's first class using frequent
flyer points. The catering and choice thereof was reasonably good,
but I wouldn't say outstanding.

I've also used Virgin's Upper Class (priced about the same as BA's
business class) and frankly that is better value for money and
customer ethic rather better as well.



BA decided that cost, not quality, was all that mattered and off
loaded catering to Swissair for GBP36m, Swissair went bust and the
present lot bought the company apparently for several hundred
million. At the time of purchase BA accounted for some 95% of
turnover. It didn't take the brain of archdeacon to realise that if
the operation had been off loaded to reduce cost and you had just
added a few hundred million pounds of takeover costs to the books
that this created a problem. (At least for all except those board
members who had taken their money and run).

I think that the customers and the WTC bombing made the largest
difference in the sense that people want ever cheaper flights. Since
fuel costs are the same and maintenance (hopefully) is of the same
standard, catering is an obvious area for cost reduction.





No outsourcing company is interested in quality or innovation, they
simply want to reduce hassle and push quality down to the minimum
they can get away with. Anyone having the unfortunate experience of
eating BA meals in the last few years will know their caterers have
managed to do this with great skill.

This may or may not be true of airline catering, but in other fields,
outsourcing companies certainly do try to bring a certain amount of
innovation to their customers, a) because the contract may require it
and b) because it is one method by which they can seek to
differentiate.

IME, some outsourcing is purely initiated as a pencil and paper
exercise by accountants while in other cases the parties have much
better than an arm's length relationship. The latter, are generally
more successful.






BA however have the same lack of ability in junior and middle
management of many UK firms backed up by senior managers whose eye is
only on this years bonus. Get in, make change, get out. That the
"saving" doesn't last 6 months beyond departure is irrelevant.

Until they get some competent managers who understand people this
cycle of disaster is going to continue for evermore.

There are no bad troops, only bad officers may be a very old saying
but it as true today as when it was first proposed.

I don't disagree....


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl