BA holds thousands of jobs and I'm sure the government wouldn't allow it to go into ruins.
I thought that about Rover but look what happened and that had more jobs across the whole of the West Midlands relying on it some friends badly affected by it.
While the parent may disappear the spin offs without the Liabilities would still employ people ala Alitalia.
Yup its worst case scenario and have lot of friends who work for BA I just don't believe it is unthinkable that in existing form they may cease to exist.
But as we have seen in the past, what will come out, in the unthinkable case of BA going under, would be a new airline, very similar, called British Airlines or something along those lines.
But I would guess a consortium would come along and scoop the airline up before it got even close to that. Alitalia didn't have LHR - BA does.
Clearly hit a raw spot with MUFC, however this is an open forum which is available for all viewpoints, (except libellous). The trouble with BA is bad management and their current outdated view that their salvation is the premium traffic segment. They still have about 10 widebodies a day to New York or 10% of their L/H capacity. And yet are withdrawing from large chunks of the world eg OZ. The world is moving on, why else would low cost carriers flourish. I believe if they marketed a much improved premium economy segment, deleted First which lives in a bygone era, and sold themselves one notch above LCC's then they could make progress. Merely to wring their hands and blame the loss of premium revenue, which I detected even WW recently hinted at never returning, is not going to solve problems.
The problem with BA doing that is that they will lose even more premium traffic. They currently have an extremely high number of frequent fliers compared to other carriers and if they were to reduce their level of service to lower than that of AF, KL and LH then they will simply lose custom.
It is all well and good saying BA should do this and do that but the matter is that BA are in a rut they cannot get out of. They are very limited to what they can do at LHR due to the slot constraints. They have no way of keeping business travellors. Taxes are rising to ridiculous levels in the UK now, with that stupid distance tax coming in whenever which will basically crush the 12hr+ services from LHR on price compared to a hop over the English channel and much cheaper taxes.
My personal opinion is that for BA, they should adopt a similar style to VS. High quality business, premium economy and a decent economy class. However, I do feel there are a number of routes that BA do benefit massively in the F cabins (LAX/DXB to name a couple) so I would guess that maybe they have a mix.
Something needs to be done but they have very little leway and the future doesn't look bright while taxes continue to rise.
My personal opinion is that for BA, they should adopt a similar style to VS. High quality business, premium economy and a decent economy class. However, I do feel there are a number of routes that BA do benefit massively in the F cabins (LAX/DXB to name a couple) so I would guess that maybe they have a mix.
The problem with BA is it's a Dinosaur. Starting from an advantageous position as a former Flag Carrier they failed to keep the brand fresh. In my opinion the multi coloured tail fiasco was the beginning of the rot of recent years.
Successive CEOs have been unable to tackle the big issues and now the company is a basket case.
Unless huge cuts to services are made and only profitable sectors remain, in 2 years it's over. Moving everthing to Madrid or cutting the payroll by half will slow the amount of cash being burnt.
BA's best hope is that they can survive the recession and stay liquid. Currently the UK government could help them by cutting departure taxes and reviewing security arrangements to make LHR more attractive to pax.
I foresee, about half the present operation this time next year and probably another rights issue. Those who think the government will bail BA out are mistaken.
'BA holds thousands of jobs and I'm sure the government wouldn't allow it to go into ruins'
BA is a private company and I am fed up with this governments
'interviening' to safeguard jobs.The market will decide if it sinks
or swims -we do after all live in a capitalist western world.
BA has held a privilaged place in aviation for a long time -
managing such a company did not require too much business
knowledge - hence the current situation caused by brilliant
bosses - not by the poor 'staff'.
Why should I/my government bail out any private company (or bank
for that matter).
Accountability should be a legal requirement and bosses should be
held responsible - not let off or excused by their friends in power.
The scent of people getting off on the possibility of BA going down is hardly a surprise on here. Some of the usual suspects who moan that BA no longer serves the regions should remember that BA never made a penny outside London due to the much lower cost base of the competition. Armchair CEOs moan that nothing was done to lower this, sadly with a unionised militant workforce, every time something was done they went on strike.
I think the behind the scenes, the management of BA are trying to cut costs and manage their way out of the current problems, but there is one big problem, the unions! We all know BA cabin crew are over paid, and I also hear rumors that check in staff and call centre staff including shift pay etc are on £40K in some cases, if on old contracts!!! The only reason that BA dont offer a different product in premium economy is because the unions wont allow it!
Some of the usual suspects who moan that BA no longer serves the regions should remember that BA never made a penny outside London due to the much lower cost base of the competition.
Can you back that up with facts and audited figures Skip?
Quote:
We all know BA cabin crew are over paid, and I also hear rumors that check in staff and call centre staff including shift pay etc are on £40K in some cases, if on old contracts!!!
Again, a citation would be good. Not rumour.
Quote:
The problem with BA is it's a Dinosaur. Starting from an advantageous position as a former Flag Carrier they failed to keep the brand fresh.
You are joking. I've lost count of the number of rebrands since pivatisation.
When was the last time American Airlines painted their a/c a different colour?
Quote:
Armchair CEOs moan that nothing was done to lower this, sadly with a unionised militant workforce, every time something was done they went on strike
Only in certain departments Skip. Some of us rolled over and got shafted with the rest of the private sector. Don't tar us all with the same brush.
No doubt Willie Walsh has a monunmental task ahead of him, however, I am confident that he will get the cost cutting onboard, excuse the pun. He had a huge challenge to complete this in Aer Lingus when it was on his knees and he did it.
I think that issue has been a one of complacency. I think that he felt that things would naturally come good and with the initial amount of redundancies he thought that would be enough.
Obviously he has a huge challenge getting costs into line, and costs that dont rely on so much Premium Passengers. However, I think that airlines flaw is that it is too reliant on London ie Heathrow, as they dont seem to have a big interest in Gatwick.
Willie needs to get costs to a level where a BHX or a MAN base would work? I think that when they threw in the towel back then was the signal that the system needed reforming.
BA's shares are up 5% today with Iberia also up 10% today. It is reported that both boards are meeting today to thrash out final details of a merger, the current equity split is rumoured to be BA 55% IB 45%. Any one have any more information, my source is from the FT.
That is not correct. When Lord King and Colin Marshall were in charge lots of monies were made and competition was virtually nil? It was a win win situation, far removed from today!
Iberia on strike this week, BA staff threatening to strike. A merger looks like a match made in heaven. They could have weekly strikes on an alternating basis between the Spanish and UK operations.
I still, for the life of me, can't see the attraction of this deal from BA's point of view. (I can see why the merger might be attractive to Iberia.)
I've heard the arguments from so-called "City experts" but in terms of brand image it looks to me like the Daimler-Benz/Chrysler merger. Merging with Iberia will do harm to BA's brand, without doubt.
The BA/KLM merger would have made much more sense. The plan, as I understood it, was to route low yield longhaul traffic from regional UK airports via Amsterdam, keeping Heathrow for high yield nonstop traffic.
Terminal 4 at Barajas is magnificent (much nicer than T5 at LHR, in my view) but given its geographical position doesn't offer the same connection possibilities.
Latin America? Don't make me laugh! The so-called "experts" referred to above trot out this mantra but are they serious? How big is the UK-Latin America market? Miniscule, I'd have thought.
Skipness BA did make profit in the regions when it kept Brymon and BRAL seperate, it didnt make profit once it lumped those two companies in with BAR and formed one company BACON . Now I am sure you are talking about Big BA not making a profit in the regions, my point being that there was an opportunity to make money in the regions if BA had used its subsidary companies in a better way.
Linear Mode
