Latest news on IFBT's

Another thing to bear in mind is the way the upper class cabin has grown, especially on the LHR 744s where there are now 54 J seats! It takes the IFBT a long time to introduce herself and speak to every single passenger, and this is before she has a chance to start her treatments. On a quick EWR or JFK this doesn't leave her much time to do many treatments, thus resulting in a large number of J-Pax not getting one. This is probably why customer satisfaction levels have dropped. To continue the IFBT service they should really have two of them on these configs but that will never happen due to the extra costs involved. Sadly I think this is the end of the IFBT. Virgin will save a lot of money by taking the IFBT off each flight, once you add up the trip pay, allowances and hotel costs for that crew-member. Plus the weight reduction of removing the IFBT station. I just hope they invest that money in improving the in-flight service for the customer.
I really feel for the group of IFBTs who just finished nine weeks training and had their wings ceremony last friday.

Originally posted by tugpilot
In open skies VS need to decide where they are going and I don't see the strategy. The major threat is from the US carriers at LHR and I would think anything and everything which differentites is a plus.

I think some of this is clear - focus on getting through the airport and make that a good experience, but only for premium passengers. My view, it's great at Heathrow now, fabulous even, patchy elsewhere.

Organically posted by Howard Long
IMHO the reason it's less of a draw is that in recent times the chances of getting an on board treatment have been less and less ...

For these reasons I've pretty much given up on getting a treatment onboard at all these days to the extent where I don't even bother requesting one when the IFBT comes round.

I don't know if my views are resonant or not, but that's how I feel about it, and it's my feeling that's why the GAP survey reports that pax give less value to the IFBT than to other services. Sadly I think partly it's also a cause-and-effect situation from the apparent less likelihood of having the benefit of the IFBT experience.

Sounds like a lot of truthfulness here.

Organistically posted by Darren Wheeler
Instead of doing away completely with IFBT's, perhaps a reduction could be offered.

Daytime flight - Full IFBT treatments offered
Night flight - No IFBT. They work as 'normal' crew.

Now there's an idea, and two of them on a 747?


I still maintain that for me personally, IFBT is a gimmick. Yes it's great if you want to chat, a minor diversion from a film or the bar or work ... or sleep and the treatments are very limited (three hand treatments and one massage that is strictly rationed ...).

In such times as these it's easier to cut the cost base than magically find more passengers.

Originally posted by willd

Originally posted by tugpilot

In open skies VS need to decide where they are going and I don't see the strategy. The major threat is from the US carriers at LHR and I would think anything and everything which differentites is a plus.

I would tend to disagree with you. What VS is currently doing with the IBFT's is part of them deciding where to go and what their strategy is. Obviously the long term strategy of VS in a post open skies era is currently being kept very hush. I would imagine that they will end up adopting the BD approach which is lets just sit and wait to see what happens over the next 18 months.

BA have been very brave by starting up their new airline 'Open Skies' but in reality if it fails it is easier for them to absorb the loss back into the company and transfer the 757 back to the mainline. On the ground if 'Open Skies' fails BA losses nothing as they already have ground handling operations in CDG and JFK. For VS to establish such an operation it would cost a lot more.

In the meantime VS has decided that given the current climate (increase fuel prices, the environmentalists etc) and taking on board UC feedback the best option is to have a period of deciding what to do with the IBFT.

On the part of the American carriers arriving at LHR. What we now have is four American carriers offering poor flight times and a poor inflight product. DL were so worried about the effect of operating LHR-LAX on poor flight schedules that they handed the route over to AF to operate.

I would agree that the threat is not from the US airlines but possibly from AF as they seemed to buying up airlines just to get the slots at LHR.

That's the crux of 'open skies', it's OK that any airline can fly to the US from LHR but the slots are not available because they're already taken. As some of the US airlines are near bankrupt and the rising cost of oil, I can't see them paying out to offer some fresh new product to entice pax to fly with them.

Those who fly PE and UC do not do so to get the cheapest flight.
We are willing to pay extra to get the better service.
OK - to an extent I can accept that IFBT may not be the most important aspect of flying Virgin - but what is, IMHO, is the service we receive from Virgin.

If management continue to treat staff in the way that this issue has been dealt with, how can they expect staff to continue to give that something extra?

On their site Virgin claim (I deliberately paraphrase!)
that they are aware that consumer needs are changing with the battle for pax being increasingly fought on the ground. They know pax love the bed and want to sleep in it. They also claim we want to move through the airport in a quick and seamless way and enjoy the benefits of our Clubhouses before they travel. They mention significant investment on ground services.

Consider the reality - it is not just the IFBT service from LHR.

Other services appear to be being cut back.

A prime example is cutting costs by only using remote stands at MAN. Again we find out through leaks on the web. Just consider an UC pax - arrives from the heat of Florida to be told that they must spend another hour, first waiting on board for set of steps and a bus to arrive, no priority disembark, standing in freezing rain on those steps for more buses, then that extra comfortable bus ride to the terminal!
And they claim quick and seamless movement at the airport! They claim additional investment in ground services.

Now consider the crew - they do not get paid extra for the additional time on board. They have to endure the continual complaints of the pax who now have to endure a worse service than many Low Cost charters! Consider whether they are likely to give that extra special virgin service next time they fly!

I recognise that fuel costs are going up. I recognise that Virgin are working to a tight margin. But I am paying a PE or UC fare! I clearly am willing to pay extra for that extra level of service.

Virgin also claim (again paraphrased) they need to be very clear about what their customers want is to be sure VS is in the best possible competitive position.

We need to tell them.

What we do NOT want is a general deterioration of service! What is the next cut that will be made?

If fares must rise - so be it!
But if Virgin deny that service then I must try to find it elsewhere.....
and hopefully I will meet some of the excellent CC that VS now have on another airline that does consider both their staff and their customers, that considers genuine improvement in service and does not insult our intelligence with ridiculous claims

[rant over!]

I really hope that VS do not 'sit and wait like BD'. I always saw them as leading edge, innovative and compeititve, not a market follower.

[Darren Wheeler]

As far as I can tell, the use of remote stands at MAN has not been confirmed as a permanent 'cost saving' measure.

Again, as far as I can tell, VS have handled the information side of the IFBT review well.

In both these cases, the source of the information has come from CabinCrew.com. Even a casual read of the threads shows a high level of moaning by a small number of malcontents who seem to have an axe to grind against VS but are quite happy to keep turning up and taking the money. The IFBT thread is full of what can only be described as supposition at best, scare-mongering at worst.

Personally, if there was a tread saying it was raining I'd got the window and check.

And yet again, I will say it.
What changes then for Gatwick/Manchester/Glasgow Upper Class passengers?

Nothing.
I do wonder if the changes only affected these three airports whether there would be such a discussion on here.

Welcome to the service we have had for years.

Originally posted by DarkAuror
That's the crux of 'open skies', it's OK that any airline can fly to the US from LHR but the slots are not available because they're already taken. As some of the US airlines are near bankrupt and the rising cost of oil, I can't see them paying out to offer some fresh new product to entice pax to fly with them.

I agreed with your post, however don't forget that the legacy US carriers have large corporate contracts and no matter what, they'll fill a certain per cent of the premium seats with execs who want to fly to Heathrow. Then they can offer others at discount and threaten BA / VS ... or they do what NW / KLM have done and release some slots operated by low revenue UK - Netherlands flights.

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
As far as I can tell, the use of remote stands at MAN has not been confirmed as a permanent 'cost saving' measure.

Again, as far as I can tell, VS have handled the information side of the IFBT review well.

In both these cases, the source of the information has come from CabinCrew.com.

Darren - if we do not register our concern do you honestly believe that it would not become permanent?
Is it not obvious that when peoples jobs become known to be at risk, they are going to discuss the issue. I do not believe that staff learning of the likely fate of their job on the web to be 'handled well'
CC.com was by no means the only source of information.
eg here

AlanA,
I fully agree - LGW/MAN do receive the second class service - and we must guard against it getting worse!
VS are claiming increase in investment - we have yet to see any.

Originally posted by tugpilot
I really hope that VS do not 'sit and wait like BD'. I always saw them as leading edge, innovative and compeititve, not a market follower.

Personally I would prefer a sit and wait attitude rather than blindly following the big boys and us all ending up with no VS to fly and lots of lost jobs.

Originally posted by Slinky09
I agreed with your post, however don't forget that the legacy US carriers have large corporate contracts and no matter what, they'll fill a certain per cent of the premium seats with execs who want to fly to Heathrow.

I would agree with that but having looked at the timings of some of the new LHR services, for example the DL JFK service the timings are rubbish. Sure American companies are particularly loyal but are the loyal enough to say have an exec lose 8 hours of work? One would also imagine that some of the major American companies have multiple corporate contracts with airlines.

Is it just the 'big boys' who are the threat to VS?
Silverjet must surely be taking a substantial slice of Virgin's possible market.

As I have posted earlier on here, I for one will be very saddened if, after the consulation period ends, VS decide to axe the IFBT service.

I have recently moved both my business and personal flights, in the main, from another UK carrier to Virgin. This was based on the reviews I had receieved from colleagues and read on this forum about the service, I, as a full fare paying bunsiness class pax (it matters not if my company pays or my wallet) made what I consider an informed decision.

After a few months of extensive use of VS I was of the opinion that this carrier is different and suits my needs and will retain my business.

Some of the service pointsI like - in no particualr order:

CDC: BA, for one, used to provide a CDC service for J and F pax - this was withdrawn after 9/11 but I have heard this may be re-installed to FIRST pax and PREMS so that would mean a plus for me.

Clubhouse - I would rather spend my time in the office/at my London home and value a clubhouse the same was as other carriers First/Concorde lounges ie somewhere nice to linger for 45 mins or so but no longer than that.

In the air. This is where, in my opinion, Virgin has excelled. I like the seats - but they are not as good a BA FIRST and have a plus and negs over the BA New Club World but not enough to win me over (i.e. I like to recline relax while watching a movie - one thing I can with with BA and not VS) Also looking forward to seeing the new BA FIRST cabin due in 2009.

The bar and IFBS - staffed by such excellent cabin crew (whether they be FSM, SCC, CC or IFBT) make the difference for me. Beeing a solo traveller on many VS flights I have made extensive use of both the abr and ifts and they are clear plus points for the Upper Class product for me.

I understand Virign wanting to look seriously at their products and subsquent feedback, which I have given, and that it is their right to change the product as 'they' seeing the market forces being. It is also my right to re-look at the choices presented to me and vote with my walet.

Regards,

Ian

Originally posted by Bill S
Is it just the 'big boys' who are the threat to VS?
Silverjet must surely be taking a substantial slice of Virgin's possible market.

Some would question if Silverjet have been a bit blind also.

Anyway getting back on topic, I guess todays announcement is not as bad as some had first feared. Knowing VS look at this board maybe if enough people voice a pro IBFT opinion the consultation period will not be so bad?!?

Willd
I just hope that the 'review' will include a reasonable consultation!
Virgin are instructing their staff not to discuss the issue on external forums.
It would be nice to see someone from VS management actually posting on this board.

Originally posted by slinky09

Originally posted by DarkAuror
That's the crux of 'open skies', it's OK that any airline can fly to the US from LHR but the slots are not available because they're already taken. As some of the US airlines are near bankrupt and the rising cost of oil, I can't see them paying out to offer some fresh new product to entice pax to fly with them.

I agreed with your post, however don't forget that the legacy US carriers have large corporate contracts and no matter what, they'll fill a certain per cent of the premium seats with execs who want to fly to Heathrow. Then they can offer others at discount and threaten BA / VS ... or they do what NW / KLM have done and release some slots operated by low revenue UK - Netherlands flights.

Is that NW/KLM who are owned by AF which I percive is the bigger threat. Be interested to see if AF do buy Alitalia.

As I wait/save for my 1st trip in J, I can't really offer an insight to the IFBT service. However, I know that it would be something to experience even if it's just once. This is where I can see where the experienced J pax are coming from. Where that VS are offering/promoting a service which J pax like using but it's not readily available to all of J pax.

One option would be to have 2 IFBT but the other option would be to replace it with a service that all J paxs can use. The question is what to replace the IFBT service with?

[RichardMannion]

I see it as a tough one - There is a reason why Upper passengers are placing the IFBT at a lower value, and its a reason that some of the earlier replies have indicated, and that is not actually getting a service onboard.

How many times have you:

- Got on a flight and found there is no IFBT at all? (be it due to absenteeism, or none ever been there a la LGW routes)
- Got on a flight, and not got a treatment even though you requested one? (be it busy cabin, or 'you had one in the CH')

Each of those will cause a person to react negatively to the service, especially the latter if one experiences the attitude on our flight to NRT where the IFBT did very little because most people who wanted a treatment had already had one in the LHR CH.

Those kind of actions and experiences will reflect badly on the IFBT service - most of it through no fault of the IFBT at all. VS has spent a great deal of money over the last decade hyping the IFBT service - not a week went by without seeing the 'BA don't give a shi-atsu' campaign been seen in the Sunday Times. You try selling something to a customer, and then not delivering - that is always going to come round to bite you. Unfortunately in this case, customers are rating it as less important, and the IFBT's become the patsy.

If the IFBT service is removed, would it make me change carrier - no, as bluntly I'm a little tired of the onboard lottery of whether I get a treatment. The cynic in me would say, if it's a busy flight 2 IFBT's should be loaded as crew, as they can operate as normal crew anyway. I often see the IFBT busy working through her long list of pax that want treatments, whislt the other crew are not so busy as the meal service is done. With that, the ratios of pax that get a treatment goes up and naturally customers would rate it as a key component of the Upper service.

Anyway, lets see if VS do consult their paying customers, as so far no one has asked any Gold card members I know if they think removing IFBT is a good thing. Yes times are tough, but in my eyes that cost cutting should be happening down the back - the profit margin on an Upper Ticket isn't exactly razor thin.

Thanks,
Richard

Originally posted by RichardMannion
Yes times are tough, but in my eyes that cost cutting should be happening down the back - the profit margin on an Upper Ticket isn't exactly razor thin.

As someone who uses Y, I would actually agree with Richard. [:0]
After all, Y doesn't pay it way on a flight, being heavily subsidised by J and PE. How about increasing the number of J and PE seats, decrease the number of Y seats and reduce the price of J and PE slightly so they're even more attractive to buy.

For majority of Y pax, the first thing that they look at is price and not amenities. So if they want to use a different carrier then that's their choice. However, I would admit I would look to VS first because of the cabin crew, I've never had a bad word to say about them unlike BA, CO, UA .. and the list goes on.

[RichardMannion]

So my own post got me thinking. Sorry to be the bearer of this again, but I think some of this is fallout from the pay dispute - we all know margins and costs are tight, and crew wanted more money but ultimately as some thought that money had to come from somewhere.

Now here is one for both staff and customers to comment on:

Toss-up between:
A) IFBT going away OR:

B) Keeping the IFBT, and losing one of the other crew to balance the cost out.

I remember all hell breaking loose when it was suggested during the pay dispute to reduce crew by one on a A346. So I can imagine some interesting responses

For me as a customer I'd choose B, as the IFBT can assist with normal crew duties if not busy. It's about optimisation of labour usage during a flight. Speaking personally, some of my best flights have been when there have been crew down.

Awaits asbestos coat.

Originally posted by RichardMannion

Toss-up between:
A) IFBT going away OR:

B) Keeping the IFBT, and losing one of the other crew to balance the cost out.

I agree wholeheartedly with Richard and his suggestion. Number B please !! This would keep my business with VS too [:D]

Had a flight the other day - 5 crew down from LAX and a busy LFBT (but I did get a treatment [:p]) was one of the best flights ever - the spirit in which the whole cabin crew worked was amazing.

Richard,

Did think it could have been fallout from the pay dispute (but didn't want to say as not to start WW3). As you said, in the pay talks, VS wanted to cut a crew member.

As IFBT are trained up to senior cabin crew, I would go for option B.

Just got to save my pennies to be able to experience the service![:D]

Totally agree with Richard and, as the VS website shows, some treatments can be done at the suite so only 1 station would still be required. Basically 1 IFBT + 1 jobbing IFBT as time permits.

IFBT + Suite + Bar set VS apart. full stop.

I also agree - but the spirit and morale of the crew is critical to maintaining the service that all pax will agree is the most important part of Virgin's offer.

Talking to CC suggests that things are not improving.
CC.com and pprune comments also indicate problems - and not just from a few.
It is interesting to compare staff comments on Virgin with comments on other airlines such as Silverjet where
morale and self-esteem appear very different.

If profitablity is to be increased, it is most important that the PE/UC service and features are not diminished.
I'd much rather see a cost increase!

[RichardMannion]

Originally posted by Bill S
I'd much rather see a cost increase!

Mmm, not too sure on that one. PE and UC aren't exactly peanuts - the problem in reality lies with VS trying to offer the old-school Y service with good amenities whilst trying to compete on price with other carriers that offer less. There have been long discussions in the past about how to improve Y, and basically it is pointless as people in that sector tend to focus squarely on price.

If you want cheap, then go fly cheap and get what you pay for. If you want the uprated amenities, then it should cost you more. But it's a brave move for anyone to consider. Very little of a Y fare is actual fare anymore, most of it is tax/surcharges - hence the razor thin margins. Look at BA that in the past have turned over over £5bn on the Domestic/European routes and actually made a loss of ~£30m. The profit comes from the premium cabins.

Richard - It is the PE & UC fares that could increase if that is the only alternative to service curtailment.
I agree that Y is very price sensitive but particularly the UC sector is service sensitive.

VS seem to be going down the path of cutting UC service - that will only end in tears.

In case anyone still does not know the outcome of todays meeting between Virgin and the IFBT's here are the facts (IN MY OWN WORDS!!)

Virgin is reviewing whether to continue offering the Inflight Beauty Therapy Service.

Virgin said our customers think the flat bed, clubhouse and upper class wing is more important when choosing who to fly with, the IFBT is not relevant anymore.

Virgin say NO final decision has been made on whether to continue with the IFBT service.
A decision on the future of the service will be reached by May 2008. However from end of April they will be derostered and not onboard any flights (Sounds like they have already made up their minds!!)

If the service is stopped all IFBT'S who choose to would be redeployed as cabin crew.

Upper Class customers will receive a letter at the airport informing them that the IFBT service is being reviewed and that there is a possibility that there may not be one onboard.

I would personally rather loose the IFBT than another CCM from the service, we don't have enought crew as it stands to give a good service.
I love the IFBT onboard and don't wanna see them go, but Virgin is keen to save money and from an FSM's point of view this would be the best person to loose im afraid to say.

What does our J pax think??