As you stare at the dead British Airways website, remember the hundreds of tech staff it laid off The ba.com and britishairways.com websites and online check-in system for British Airways have been down for the past seven hours or so. The UK's major airline says it has people "at work" fixing the cockup, but as of 1800 GMT no resolution is in sight and BA has not provided an explanation beyond "technical issues." A trip to …
It's a nice idea but I'm thinking you don't understand how the world of business works,
I sell dogs (I love a good dog analogy but I'm actually more of a cat person though I've had dogs all my life as well)
I employ 30 people to help with selling the dogs and running the business but it would appear I can get rid of 10 of them and increase my profits by outsourcing their roles.
Instantly I have stated my intentions and that is to make as much money as I can from dogs.
Something goes wrong with the outsourced part of business and there is now shit all over the lawn.
I can't get the original people back and just put up with the sub-standard lawn shit clearing ability of my out sourced team. It doesn't affect me personally because it's not my lawn and quite frankly I don't care.
I'm not going to change anything because my sub-standard lawn shit cleaning team are still cheaper.
Sure, feel free to pay more for the dogs but the lawn is still going to have the same amount of shit on it regardless, you are just giving me and my share holders money for free because if I can pay less for something even if it's not as good then I will. I'm still careful though not to cross the imaginary line that would hit sales, shit on the lawn for a few hours rather than a few minutes is acceptable for me.
The customer should never have to clean the shit off the lawn.
I think you made a linear assumption too far.
It's an idea to exchange cost for quality. The amount may be more than that but it is still a feasible business approach.
Let's re-use your example. I sell dogs and I employ 30 people to help with selling the dogs while running the business.
Instead of getting rid of 10 of them, I utilize those 10 to increase our dog qualities with a mix of research and marketing. I present our dogs as happier dogs with some early training to improve customers initial impression. It ultimately increased the cost, the quality, and satisfied customers.
Think of this like a 5-star hotel vs a 3-star hotel. It doesn't work for all cases just like the case you noted where you have already aiming for the lower cost in exchange for quality.
However if you have an iPhone, it pretty much shows that some customers prefer a device with some quality engineers, rather than an unknown cheap China android phone with no engineer and 30% more likely to explode when charging.
I'll throw in my own dog analogy too.
I sell dogs. I have 30 staff. I then learn of cheaper dog handling talent in India and decide to cost-save and dismiss all but 3 staff to hire 27 cheap Indian dog handlers, knowing full well that GOOD dog handlers in India don't stay there, but get enough skills to move to the developed NA/European/Australasian countries where they get better wages...
... so I have my 27 graduate or incompetent dog handlers who can't get better jobs, but they're much cheaper than my original 27 staff. After a year or so of operation, one of my three remaining staff is doing quality checks and spots that the Indian dog handlers are breading in genetic defects into my stock as they don't fully understand the dogs! A process, which on further investigation has occurred repeatedly over generations, resulting in higher dead and returned puppies.
What do I do? I decide that dogs just aren't for me, and shut down my dog breeding program, as I'm sure my other cat and bird breeding programs won't suffer this same issue with their Indian handlers.
With a staff of 30 you must be selling a hell of a lot of dogs, so you're obviously running a puppy farm.
A lot of people get upset by puppy farms. I've never understood why. Surely it's better for Korean restaurants to buy their meat from a farm than to steal people's pets off the street.
Mine's the one that somebody has inexplicably put dog shit in the pocket of.
I don't understand the analogy. You start talking about dogs and halfway through there's shit on the lawn. I didn't catch when you switched from running a dog business to a telecoms business.
It does seem that there needs to be a way to convince business to play the long game, instead of seeing what kind of bonus they can make this week.
Maybe we should all pay a few quid more for flights and keep people employed.
They will go to increase the bonus of the person who was so stupid that he did not realize that the new LHR runway will run over his office and he will be paying for demolition, relocation and expansion all in one.
It will not go for more IT staff. As far as him and other similar golfogarchs are concerned is a "cost centre" - it is to be cut.
Maybe we should all pay a few quid more for flights and keep people employed.
The only way you will change anything by paying more money is if you use that to fly with another company. That's what made Ryanair eventually go nice. They make a profit, but it's not a big one (and it's about to get even less now the oil prices are resuming their original level).
That said, with the site down it's not like you had any other choice - I hope the contractors they had to call in to fix it will charge them emergency rates.
It's not "a few more quid" you'd be paying, but a LOT more Euros. Or, in old money: pesetas. Because British Airways is about as British as paella. Same way that energy supplier Scottish Power is anything but an outstanding regional enterprise, rather an outfit with the worst customer service record of any large company in the UK.
Spanish Airways and Spanish Power are infused with an identical corporate culture, which is to slash costs, treat customers with contempt, and in the event of formal or informal censure, issue a grovelling apology then set off and do the same thing all over again. And again.
Spanish Power's most noticeable tactic has been to 'adopt' a leading charity, shove some money into it, and then run full page newspaper ads extolling its nobility. I now await a similar advertising campaign from Spanish Airways.
I'm waiting for British Airways to officially become just BA so it can lose that tedious 'British' bit - the same way that British Petroleum became plain old BP and British Telecom metamorphosed into BT.
That way they can get rid of all their expensive British workforce, headquarter somewhere sunny that just happens to have low taxes and rake in even more money for selling a third-rate service as a premium product.
Just you wait, in a few month's time Ryanair will have a option to not be chosen to be deplaned if they overbooked the flight. Its perfect, they'll make money from both ends! They can overbook more than other airlines by saying that anybody who didn't take the option knew and accepted that they could be ejected. And they make more money by upselling when you by the ticket.
People being axed does not mean this would be avoided. That's speculation, at best. Good effort at making a news story without any information to go on, though.
Sorry situation for BA, though I've no tears to shed for them. They have a terrible business model where they're trying to emulate low cost carriers (LCC's) such as Ryanair while having the much higher cost structure of a legacy. They've made some efforts at bringing that down, but it's a shit strategy that eventually leads to bargain basement prices instead of quality product. One day, I predict they'll die a miserable death in the form of a takeover by Ryanair or other LCC after failing to pivot the business.
Cheers for cheaper flights!
People being axed does not mean this would be avoided. That's speculation, at best. Good effort at making a news story without any information to go on, though.
You're right of course, but if one were a betting man... If it's some mega hardware fail, I'd like to see that being fixed from afar.
Sorry situation for BA, though I've no tears to shed for them. They have a terrible business model where they're trying to emulate low cost carriers (LCC's) such as Ryanair while having the much higher cost structure of a legacy. They've made some efforts at bringing that down, but it's a shit strategy that eventually leads to bargain basement prices instead of quality product. One day, I predict they'll die a miserable death in the form of a takeover by Ryanair or other LCC after failing to pivot the business.
Yep, quality will sell, but only if someone offers it. Unfortunately the market for a quality product is much smaller than the market for a cheap, low cost market, so guess which market everyone bundles in for.
It takes a small, niche player who doesn't fundamentally care about growth, market share, or being taken over, but is quite prepared to offer a slightly more expensive product and make a modest profit reliably over a very long period of time.
Such an outfit isn't going to be owned by shareholders...
The only way that a minimum quality can be guaranteed is multinational government intervention on matters such as passenger space, etc, to set a lower limit on how bad things can get.
"The only way that a minimum quality can be guaranteed is multinational government intervention on matters such as passenger space, etc, to set a lower limit on how bad things can get."
Perhaps governments can support an education that'll produce more "Dog expertise" instead of the crap passing for *skills known as "marketing ".... not that we'd want air travel to turn into a system of "public transit"... ahem.
It's a jolly strong cause though.
"Our IT systems worked yesterday, and so shall they work today, tomorrow, and forever. Onwards, cost cutters, there is baggage to be trimmed!"
"What do you mean, they were actively maintaining the system, preserving life? Oh sod."
I never minded the budget carriers - they were cheap and I could accept a lot from them as their way of justifying the price. I also actually actively liked some edicts like "You're late, we're taking off, and I don't care if we leave you behind".
I've never liked flying. It's better sitting at the front and more pleasant in the lounge, but aside from a holiday I'm only there as my employer is making me and I would ALWAYS prefer to be at home.
My requirements are basic. I would like to get on, be comfortable and ideally spend as much time as possible asleep. The point of the comfort to enable me to sleep. My dining requirements being enough G&Ts to enable me to overcome the discomfort - to allow me to sleep.
BA are currently retrofitting their planes to offer less leg-room than Ryanair.
Currently I have to chuck the magazines on the floor simply to get that f'in bar at the top of the seat pocket to not grind into my shin. I have to endure the (*&£er infront of me wondering why their seat won't recline (my legs) - and should I get an aisle seat, allowing me to get an extra inch by allowing my feet to go into the aisle the sodding cart being rammed into them.
Oh, and don't start me on the "enhanced entertainment system" which is a metal box welded under the seat infront...
..alright, I've gone off topic here.
Scum class in BA is vile and angers me. Ryanair tell me the hate me, but at least let me buy enough drinks, don't have the pocket, the entertainment box and..
"Scum class in BA is vile and angers me"
I haven't flown BA in 20 years. Back then it was surly service, threadbare seats and microwave dinners for inflight catering. In retrospect it was emblematic of England at the time. I see that they have gone downhill from there...
These days I quite enjoy flying for work. That's mostly because I won't do it unless they send me business class. On most airlines you get wider seats and plenty of leg room plus a complimentary drink and can blag a second if you ask nicely. I've actually had a Singapore steward cover me with a blanket and tuck me in after falling asleep like they do in the ads.
What, you won't spring for a seat up the front of the plane? Then its clearly not important that I go.
"People being axed does not mean this would be avoided. That's speculation, at best. Good effort at making a news story without any information to go on, though."
On the other hand, we've had previous stories of banking systems being upgraded remotely from Indian outsourcers going pear-shaped because they didn't know the systems as well as the long-experinced, now redundant locals. The odds are pretty good that if and when the real story leaks, it will be something similar, especially since the out-sourcers have only a few months of "live" experience with what is almost certainly a similar situation, ie multiple, incompatible legacy system all joined together with some fairly effective bodges but needing an experienced hand at the controls.
Seriously?
In the general case yes; correlation is not causation, and yes; there's probably no causal link between internet explorer market share and murder rates, or between Autism diagnoses and organic food sold, even though the graphs show a correlation.
This however was a database upgrade causing several hours outage, so I'm sorry, but without information to the contrary the most likely cause is an error by one of the people involved. That the people involved were changed out a few months back, then that's a little beyond correlation.
We can confidently expect more of this as the number of bits of active code running, on "the system" continues to grow exponentially. Microsoft's plan to hoover apps and data has the appearance of a last ditch effort to cure the incurable. Some years ago, in an effort to sell the notion that "information superiority" would so awe a numerically superior enemy that that they would surrender without a shot, the US Department of Defense came up with the catch-phrase, "The network is the system."
The US have since learned and adapted to the reality that it is the nature of cornered animals, including us, to bite. But the slogan had it right.
The network is the system. And anything attached to it, including our new toaster oven, is part of it. The size and configuration of this system is indeterminate, and--as a practical matter--indeterminable.
Every device, every component, every bit of code, and every user, human or automaton, is part of a vast, complex, dynamic, non-linear system.
"But wait," the IT geeks cry, "it's DIGITAL; that's not non-linear."
But it is. Network queueing theory tells us so. As does the fact that my Windows workstation regularly spikes to 100% Disc Usage, for no single discernible reason that anyone has been able to pin down that I'm aware of. Something to do with Skype, Chrome, your disc driver. . . (Then there all those ROHM'd transistors merrily sprouting tin whiskers.)
The responses are all quintessentially non-linear.
The history of computing, from Jacquard's one operation/second loom in 1806 to today's petaFLOP computers internetworked with literally millions of computational devices capable of giga- and teraFLOPs leads us to believe that there are no limits.
It ain't necessarily so. The network is the system. Everyone hooked to it--including the connected cyberterrorist--are insiders.
My perspective is admittedly biased by fond memories of programming computers the size of refrigerators by punching binary indicator light/switches on the font panel. Between then and now I've seen inconceivable changes. The problem is that those changes have evolved at inconceivable rates, with results that were unimaginable when the critical design decisions were being made. Those include radical changes to the "cyber-ecology" in which the internetworked system lives.
All my experiences and observations persuade me that the flaws and failures reported in el Reg are symptoms of a more serious, potentially catastrophic condition. At this point, "Security First!" is just a marketing slogan. The IT community needs to give serious consideration to the possibility that the current design is not equipped to survive in the environment it created.
We need to go back to first principles and ask what a system designed for security first in today's (and tomorrow's) cyber-ecology needs to look like. I suspect the answer will not look anything like what we have.
"didn't do too well for United" - BA's screw up while affecting many did not result in any reports of paying customers being assaulted because management incompetence. That is an improvement over the Unfriendly Skies where management reserves the right to 'Send in the Goons' on any pretext they can think of.
"I don't know how this will work out for BA's stockholders but it didn't do too well for United; I see from the Beeb that they're down 3%."
IMHO after what happened with United, I am amazed that they are not down TO 3% rather than merely down 3%
This comes about because of the common belief by far too many senior managers that "IT is a cost centre" rather than an investment to make money or increase profit.
In their view, it makes perfect sense to trim the costs involved in providing IT services; and when things go wrong, they still don't see it as an issue, even when the financial team tell them how much they lost.
In the end, the performance report is by the balance sheet; and reducing costs will be highlighted on there, whereas "lost sales" won't.
I think you meant to say "eventual lost sales" but how can i upvote you twice?
As you say, too often companies only consider immediate cost or revenue from that quarter without considering the fact they are plowing the company into the ground by neglecting any common sense when it comes to long-term performance
BA's parent company IAG is expected to report profits of 3 billion euro this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35662763
Just think, if they hadn't cut the IT budget, maybe they'd only be making 2 billion profit. I'm so glad that they're unencumbered by concepts like customer and employee loyalty. /sarcasm
Yes, I realize it has to be done every once in a while. As seen with United, though, everything is at the business end of a billy club. Overbooked? Club the passengers off the plane. Here, we have an airline not allowing people on. And when you do go, you get searched in the most invasive way possible. And for things that only work in a movie script.
If people really want to change how airlines do business, don't do business with them. Don't like the security? Travel by another means. There are alternatives to the sky buses, and you can fly without all the security theater bother.
Act, and things change. Sit and stare, and nothing changes. You will choose, one way or another.
really...? The majority of flights cover journeys that are impractical by any other means.
The cartel... ahem... code share // alliance system means there's rarely any choice on a route unless you happen to live next to LHR, CDG or similar so you're forced to accept what you are given.
Unfortunately the setup costs of a new route mean once an airline has removed any competition they'll milk it for all it's worth
"Had you thought of installing that 'app' thing that obviates the need to print out anything?"
No thanks, it'll probably want to know my location, contacts, files, microphone, camera and whether I wipe my arse with my left or right hand.
"No thanks, it'll probably want to know my location, contacts, files, microphone, camera and whether I wipe my arse with my left or right hand."
Generally I just use toilet paper, hands are just the backup system.
HeadDashOH: How does this website work?
HackIT: We offer complex products to a diverse customer base who then securely procure them via a multi-st...
HeadDashOH: No, simplify it please!
BrownNose: We put flights on shelves and customers buy them..
HackIT: It;s much more complex than th..
HeadDashOH: Sounds simple enough to me - I don't think we need many people for that!
BrownNose: Efficiencies can be always made if w...
HeadDashOH: I don't need the details - get it done.. Too many layabouts down there with their iPods!
And that was all she wrote...
Haha hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha chortle
As one of those BA IT dudes that was deemed "surplus to requirements" the failure of their website doesn't surprise me at all. When I was still working their, all the BA employed IT people still had some pride in what they did (and maybe even a bit of loyalty, despite the company trying to destroy that as well).
I suspect whatever caused this issue - which I strongly think was nothing to do with a "database fault" - simply wouldn't have happened if the BA IT staff were still employed. Outsourcers do not care for what they do - in fact, most Indian workers are told by their management to do the bare minimum within their contracts. And since BA is trying to screw them over more and more, is it any wonder that things go wrong?
Incidentally, I'm now working for a company that had outsourced their IT, realised how shoddy and expensive it was, and is bringing it back in-house (and having to pay premium for good techies).
Maybe BA will wake up one day.....
I'm an IT outsourcer (Managed Cloud) and I DO care about my customers - but then I'm totally UK based and realise happy customers are long term ones - longest running one 15 years and counting.
I thought all this outsource to India shit was dead in the water now, never seen it do anything but cost more in the end.
Outsourcers do not care for what they do - in fact, most Indian workers are told by their management to do the bare minimum within their contracts.
I always get the impression from a lot outsourcing disasters that after the questions have been asked about SLAs for answering in two rings, and calls taking no longer than three minutes, no one thinks to ask "But is it fixed after that three minute call?"
- Had 2 grand taken from me by this airline last year...
- Warning to anyone planning to transit through the UK. Be careful, as the airline can deny boarding at departure yet keep the entire cost of the flight.
- I protested the unfair treatment via credit-card resolution but got nowhere. The regulator was even less interested in helping.
- There are some fine laws regarding air-transit through UK airports that isn't well publicized, if at all, and if you get caught up in that net you're screwed!
- After the aggressive treatment of the Doctor on the overbooked United flight this week, I'd say United and BA deserve each other.
- Things will only get worse too with Brexit etc...
This post has been deleted by its author
"Maybe we should just turn shit off now and again just to prove we are worth the money."
I've always thought that that should be the response to beancounters wondering about the value of this "cost" centre. "Shall we turn it off for a day and see?".
And isn't it surprising that those who invented the term "cost centre" never see themselves for what they are: a cost centre?
"Maybe if the tech team had done a good job in the first place"
Oh, are you familiar with the team you mention?
If you are then please let us know what it is that they did wrong. If you do not then you are either just trolling or an accountant at BA trying to justify the inevitable cock-up that has just occurred.
Personally I was subject to this "outsourcing magic" Our team who had built and maintained the systems were ditched for people brought in from India. From what I heard later the whole thing turned into a shambles and the company involved had to take the support in-house again.
See, the thing is you get what you pay for.
I couldn't help but wonder why a "database upgrade" (if indeed it was this) would cause such a profound effect on their website. I mean, even in the world of outsourcing they must have test scripts and maybe even blue/green or A/B environments for test/dev/staging to prod? (I know that might be a stretch).
In my experience, off shore staff do precisely what they're told, when they're told and nothing else. If they're told to click next next finish, they'll do it. Ultimately someone higher up the chain than button bashers should take the blame for a total lack of acceptance testing.
As of now, Google's search results page is showing "British Airways - Splash Page" as the home page. The Google cache shows the actual "sorry page" from the outage.
Sigh... more developers who don't understand that they shouldn't use "200 OK" when displaying an error page. Of App Delivery folks who can't or don't want to support proper 5xx-codes. Or both.
I'm adding the screen captures to my list of examples for when I once more try to explain the difference between "503" and "200". It probably won't make a difference, though.
One of United's databases needed to change data centre, so local security beat the shit out of a random BA doctorwebsite which turned out to actually have important reasons for being up.
No worries though, apparently the United CEO sent an internal memo saying it's all good as the BA website was being uncooperative and therefore deserved it anyway!
When I was at university we had the then CTO of BA come and talk to us about their approach to informatics. The big quote that stood out to me was that the CEO's (and CTO's) big nightmare at the time was of getting a phone call saying "ba.com is down", as so much of their operations and sales required a web presence.
Looks like their nightmare came true.
Simple math on the part of BA; profits ahead of customers. These things have a way of working out over time, though usually not the way executives intend. OTOH, the executive(s) in question will have likely moved on by the time the chickens come home to roost, so maybe their personal bonuses will get paid but their successors will be hanged.
I worked at Big Airways in the 1980s when the IT department led the way with advanced GUIs for Inventory Control, pioneered ticketless travel for Shuttle passengers and other innovations.
When you lose control, outsource your core PSS (Passenger Service System), treat programming like building an Ikea wardrobe and the competition is beating you on pure ticket price, then you get an endgame like this.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
