British Airways: risk of turbulence on Willie Walsh’s flight path

[heli_port]

British Airways hopes that Operation Columbus will transport it to a new world of low costs in which it can survive, and even thrive, in an era of sky-high fuel prices. But it threatens to plunge it into the all too familiar old world of industrial confrontation.

British Airways: risk of turbulence on Willie Walsh’s flight path - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4222090.ece)

[BIGBAD]

my heart bleeds...........

[PAXboy]

As with the other majors, it is Merge-or-Die. The problem for BA is that it always wants to be the boss of any merger. All of the discussed mergers have come to nought. The only way that they have grown is by acquisition (or forced merger by UK govt in the past).

If they retain this approach (based on the past this is inevitable) then they will eventually be acquired. How long this will take is impossible to say as there are still too many imponderables: fuel, staffing issues and the recession have yet to settle into a clear pattern.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

'British Virgin' has a certain ring to it.

:) FOK

[411A]

The unions fear that Willie Walsh, BA’s chief executive, might use its OpenSkies operation as a Trojan Horse that would gradually take over other routes.



And, he absolutely should.
If present BA staff, who apparently have had it far too good for far too long, fail to understand, then change will come, whether they like it or not....and their is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

BA pilots found out the hard way, I expect it is now time for the cabin crews to fall in line, or be shown the door.
And, don't give me all this happy horses**t about...'the customer service will suffer'.

Bring in new faces, presto, problem solved.
SQ, years ago, did the very same.
They signed CC to short term contracts, and rotated in new faces on a regular basis.
Time for BA to do the same.
WW is on the right track, make no mistake.
Staff will either comply, or can consider themselves...gone.

[Dan Winterland]

And SQ is such a great place to work!!! But of course, 411a is 'managemet' as he often tells us, so don't expect any sympathy for the underworked overpaid pilot from him.

But it's not just BA who are going to feel the pinch. The major US carriers who were protected from the natural progression of economics by Chapter 11 after 9/11 are not going to be so lucky this time. The high fuel cost is here to stay and the long term prognosis for the Uniteds of this world is bleak. let alone any operator still flying aviation dinosaurs like the L1011!

[411A]

...let alone any operator still flying aviation dinosaurs like the L1011!

Strangely enough, Dan, for certain types of operation, the 'ole TriStar still makes a handsome profit for its operators, mainly on a seasonal basis.

Make no mistake, CC are a dime a dozen, and always will be. Many charter operators hire fresh new faces, put 'em through a major airlines training course (oddly enough, a profit center for that major carrier), and these new folks perform just fine. Satisfaction all around.

Don't make the mistake of considering CC anywhere in the same boat as experienced pilots.
Pilots take far longer to train than CC...not in the same league by any stretch of the imagination.

If BA pilots could be brought in line, CC should be a cinch.
Will the concerned CC like it?
Most likely not, so they have the option of packing their bags and moving on.

Simple as that.

[BIGBAD]

Unfortunately the CC at BA are heavily unionised and very militant. A CC strike would be very bad press for BA and the cabin crew would have walsh over a barrel if they decide to walk out.

CC are ten a penny and can be replaced slowly but not the whole lot in one go. BA CC like to tell us how they deliver a good product, but a recent airline customer survey says otherwise !

The problem is the strong position the BA CC are in !

[Walnut]

I have just had a firm booking in Sept ex TLS moved to another flt/day, just as an exercise I looked through the booking computer & already BA is cutting flts. It appears the middle flts on the shorthaul destinations are most at risk. So if this becomes a trend then 30% less crews will be needed for the winter schedules.

[Skipness One Echo]

Why is it "merge or die" ? The problem with agreed thinking is that it's often wrong. More accurately it's "merge if the right partner and synergies are there" like Air France / KLM, not for the sheer Hell of it.

[Poof in Boots]

Well 411A it seems that you belong in a different era. No doubt you could be replaced by a cheaper East European.

Yes pilots take longer to train than cabin crew obviously, but there is no mystery to flying. Aren't Boeings designed to be flown by two Africans anyway as a BA pilot once told me?

The current oil price shock is not an excuse to get everyone on new contracts. It has happened before. Far more airlines have gone bust due to poor management decisions than employee costs....LAKER, PAN AM, EASTERN, BRANIFF, SWISSAIR.

As for pilot costs, when BA have tried low cost operations in the past like AML, the drivers were still on their big mainline salaries. Why didn't they volunteer to take a pay cut?

As far as the Cabin Crew union 'BASSA' being militant, perhaps a few stewardesses may have more balls in dealing with Mr Walsh than the windy BALPA lot, who will now be screwed after their latest failure over Openskies.

[tristar500]

... so flying (aquiring) new(er) acft is always cheaper? If you own an older aircraft outright, then it is in some cases more beneficial...

Depends on who operates the dinosaur, where in the world they operate - and where to/from and on what terms and conditions. Not all crews are paid Birdseed Airways salaries (Conditions)...

BA are finding it increasingly difficult to compete - their home base is now 'Open Season', rather than 'Open Skies'...

Bring on the changes, challenges and in the extreme, the cuts. Simply its change or dissapear...

[Poof in Boots]

Birdseed. You have failed to notice the £750 m profit that BA made last year. BA has no problem competing, it is an extremely profitable business. However management numbers have burgeoned and are a drag on the business. Every weekend and bank holiday aircraft still take off and land without them at their desks.


The problem with you pilots pontificating, is that the passengers take no notice at all in what YOU do, except when you stuff the aircraft in and the oxygen masks fall down. That's the only time passengers make any comment about flight crew.

It is the cabin crew who win and keep the customers.

[411A]

Well 411A it seems that you belong in a different era. No doubt you could be replaced by a cheaper East European.


Quite likely not, an there are not many L10 current Captains around anymore, and certainly no one is training any.
Besides, management stays, like it or not.

Now, as to your...
...LAKER, PAN AM, EASTERN, BRANIFF, SWISSAIR.


Laker.
Strange you should mention them.
They had the very best management one could hope for, good employee morale, but were undone by collusion of the likes of BA, TWA, Pan Am versus McD Douglas.
Sir Freddie proved it in court, and collected a trunk load of cash from the offending airlines.
Eastern Air Lines.
Gross mis-calculation by the IAM (this would be the mechanics union for those that don't know), nothing to do with EAL management.
The airline simply folded up when the IAM did not accept the terms offered.
Braniff.
Nothing to do with airline management there, either.
Predatory pricing by AA did 'em in....twice.

What we have is an airline (BA, in this case) that needs to trim its payroll burden in a big way, just to stay in business.
The shareholders are going to hold BA management responsible for doing so....and make no mistake, it will be done.
The BA pilots thought otherwise, and they promptly folded like a house of cards, just as I predicted.
The BA cabin crew will do likewise, it just might take a little longer.

All these airline unions are swimming uphill in the present fuel price scenario, and I would suggest it is they who are thinking of a bygone era.
These unions had better wake up...or their members will be out of a job in record time.

Like the message?
Probably not, but them's the facts.

[eagle21]

The BA cabin crew will do likewise, it just might take a little longer

No they won't. You seem to underestimate them. Are you forgeting the last strike ballot? 96% in favour !! And what did BA do cancel over 300 flights, and what did the cabin crew do, call off the strike the night before. BA looked so stupid cancelling 300 flights when in fact their cabin crew were never on strike! And by doing so managment managed to waste about 50 million pounds.

BA cabin crew would prefer to shut down the airline rather than give up, why? Because they don't have much to loose , specially the newer ones( a majority). The worst thing that could happen is that they end up with these new T&Cs in a new airline, the best thing they can hope for is that they will manage to maintain much of what they have, so why not take the gamble?

What airlines should start doing is raising the ticket prices to meet the fuel price and then see what happens, maybe after all people keep flying specially BA customer profile, not so much your average FR pax.


Why airlines insit of making money by reducing cost? And not so much put as much energy in the first place on generating revenue?

[411A]

BA cabin crew would prefer to shut down the airline rather than give up...

A typical union member response.
Don't count on it, bubba....not likely to happen.
BA management is likely to chip away a little at a time, to achieve the desired objective.
They have the funds to do so, unions don't...as the foolish BA pilots found out, much to their dismay, I'm sure.

[eagle21]

411 All these airline unions are swimming uphill in the present fuel price scenario, and I would suggest it is they who are thinking of a bygone era.
These unions had better wake up...or their members will be out of a job in record time.

Like the message?
Probably not, but them's the facts

Well, I see from your profile that your location is USA. The fact is that all these unions have managed at least in BA to maintain decent working conditions for crew, not like what you get in the USA, where the NTSB has to issue warning on crew fatigue to your FAA!

I seems to me you envy other peoples TCs and envy is not good for health purpouses...

Time will tell, what is clear is that on theses side of the Atlantic we will always have better term and conditions since we fold 15 years later than you guys do.

[eagle21]

411A typical union member response.
Don't count on it, bubba....not likely to happen.
BA management is likely to chip away a little at a time, to achieve the desired objective.
They have the funds to do so, unions don't...as the foolish BA pilots found out, much to their dismay, I'm sure

I am not a member of any union at the moment.
And the only foolish here is you, disregarding the fact that BA's TCs have always set a trend among the industry. You should start having more respect for these proffesionals before you insult anyone.

Why not join Naomi Campbell on anger managment classes?? It will do you good.

I will not engage anymore with you , is simply not worth it in this case.

[411A]

...disregarding the fact that BA's TCs have always set a trend among the industry.


Yep, and this, I suspect, is about to change in a rather large way.
How could BA management do this?
One way would be to...
Start hiring/training now, for new CC, to be ready for the fall season of cutback flights.
It would have been better to have started in April, but now is nearly as favorable.
Then, keep these new folks on retainer, for when the time comes.
When that time is ready, lay down the gauntlet to the present CC, and if they strike, the company simply swings into operation with the new folks, already trained....all in accordance with the law, of course.
You say the law won't allow this?
The BA pilots also thought so, and look how far they got.
Quite frankly, the sad thing is, the unionized CC folks just don't presently realise how this might be achieved, and how devious the company management might/will become.

Kinda funny, actually, when you think about it.

[eagle21]

Start hiring/training now, for new CC, to be ready for the fall season of cutback flights.


You don't seem to understand that there will be a strike if BA recruit a single cabin crew on a a contract with different terms and conditions to the agreed ones now.

BA managment are not the brightest of the people in the world but they are not stupid and they know thay are playing with fire.

What makes BA? It's pilots, crew , ground staff and little more.

[411A]

You don't seem to understand that there will be a strike if BA recruit a single cabin crew on a a contract with different terms and conditions to the agreed ones now.

BA managment are not the brightest of the people in the world but they are not stupid and they know thay are playing with fire.



I understand all too well, eagle21.
BA engages an outside agency.
Said outside agency does the recruiting, IE: nothing to do with BA at the time.
Then, when necessary, this outside agency offers CC on a contractual monthly basis to BA.
An Air Atlanta recruitment type of operation.

BA CC would be very foolish to expect BA management to not try to trim expenses in every way possible.
CC wages are certainly ripe for this.
Having said this, BA management would also be well advised to look in their own area, in order to weed out un-needed ' middle management' personel.
Trim the fat there as well, as I suspect it is long overdue.
Gotta start sometime, now is as good a time as any.

[rubik101]

Eagle asks; What makes BA?
I'm afraid his or her answer is as far wide of the mark as it is possible to be. BA, like any company, is shaped by the management, however incompetent, and the demands of the shareholders. If survival means that BA becomes RYR MkII then that is what it will take to keep the pilots, cabin crew etc. in work.
Strike as long and hard as you like; look what happened to the all powrful (sic!) print unions, the steel industry, the mineworkers et al in the 80s.
Wake up to the real world before you are swept away in the tide of change coming to an airline near you in the near future.

[jetset lady]

Right, I wasn't going to join this discussion but....

Poof in Boots, you totally deserved that response from Monty77. Your comments were ill thought out and bang out of order. However, Monty77, while I appreciate you probably replied in anger, IMHO, you went too far. Please do not assume all CC have the same attitude. I would say PiB is in the minority.

eagle21, do you not think BA will have thought through the likely result if they were to put a plan, such as subbing crew out, into action? Believe me, they will have planned ahead and regardless of what we think, no single group of staff will ever be able to bring an airline the size of BA down. As for there being a strike if BA hire any cabin crew on different T&C's, they already are. Not even taking into account LGW, how about Open Skies? I said before that they are as much a threat, if not more so, to CC as they are to our flight crew and I'll say it again now. How do we know how many are being trained up?

411A, what is it like up there on your podium of total knowledge and righteousness? It must be fantastic to know that you are always right and everyone else is "foolish"!

Sorry to interrupt. I'll go back to my own threads now...

Jsl

[411A]

...podium of total knowledge and righteousness?

Quite nice, thank you very much.:E

However, as I have been in the airline business for over forty years, I've seen it all before.
The young'uns (especially the younger militant ones) expect they have thought of everything.
All I can do is laugh my socks off at that thought.
BA management will roll over 'em like a runaway steam roller on a warm summer day.

Splat.:eek:

[Poof in Boots]

I didn't see the response by Monty.

Just because a cabin crew union is strong, protects its members interests and ensures they have good pay and conditions, the Flight Crew here say that it is "militant". It's about time that they did a better job of standing up to predatory management.

We need to be protected from idiotic management who waste millions on big ideas like ethnic tailfins. Who gave Ayling that thought? McKinsey.

Unfortunately Willie Walsh is an embarrassment to the pilot community,a
former IALPA rep who is now out to shaft BA Flight Crew. How many ex BALPA reps are now in BA management?

What a shower!

411A:

If you list many of the larger airlines that have gone bust in the last 30 years, in virtually all cases it was due to bad management.

PAN AM: Ordered too many 747's it couldn't fill/Lockerbie caused by security lapses through management not having a policy in place to screen interline bags. BA as an example did screen all hold baggage at that time. PAN AM management were just trying to save money, but were charging their passengers for enhanced security they didn't receive.

LAKER: Thought he was clever having his aircraft loans in U$ until the Pound almost went par

EASTERN: Sold in 1986 to Frank Lorenzo, who was named by TIME magazine as one of the 10 worst bosses of the 20th century. Labour unrest caused this airline to fail.

BRANIFF: CEO Lawrence Harding expanded the airline too fast during deregulation and it went bust.

SWISSAIR: In the 1990s Swissair initiated the Hunter Strategy, a major expansion program devised by the consulting firm of McKinsey & Co.
The criminal trial began January 16, 2007 in Bülach. The entire Swissair management board stood facing criminal charges of mismanagement, false statements, and forgery of documents. Top defendants in the trial were Mario Corti, Philippe Bruggisser, George Schorderet, Jacqualyn Fouse, Eric Honegger and Vrena Spoerry. Corti, Honegger and Spoerry entered statements proclaiming their innocence.


McKinsey were advising BA in the late 90's and were responsible for the 'Tailfin' fiasco.

[lord mash]

Flights cant go anywhere without cabin crew, just as fuel tankers dont go anywhere without fuel tanker drivers. Shell caved in and gave the tanker drivers what they wanted so why shouldnt cabin crew stand up for what they want when under threat of worse terms and conditions. If it was really true that cabin crew are ten a penny then why are so many rejected by BA even before getting to interview stage?

[Tiger]

I`ve said several times before regards to 411A don`t entertain. The person dislikes BA, BA cabin crew for whatever reason. Right or wrong every time BA cabin crew on pprune this person is so anti. Its almost like the ex partner was cabin crew and guns them down everytime.
Whatever the out come 411A will be there won`t you?:zzz:

oh and I do wonder to the regards of the USA state.

[virgo]

411A........."BA management will roll 'em over like a runaway steam roller"

I don't think an American would know what a "steam roller " was..........are you a closet Englishman ????

[Tiger]

Aer Lingus trio's investment plan
Friday, 2 July 2004

Three senior members of the Aer Lingus management team, including chief executive Willie Walsh, have asked Transport Minister Seamus Brennan to allow them to develop what they describe as an investment proposal for the company.

A statement from the three - Mr Walsh, chief financial officer Brian Dunne and chief operations officer Seamus Kearney - said they had also advised the Aer Lingus board of their request.

The statement also said they would 'fully comply and co-operate with any specific corporate governance procedures put in place.'
Advertisement


Aer Lingus's has been transformed in the last couple of years into a profit-making low cost carrier.

Legislation brought in last year allows the Minister for Finance to sell his Aer Lingus shares but beyond that, no firm way forward has been agreed at the Cabinet table.

This evening, a spokesman for Transport Minister Seamus Brennan said the letter from Aer Lingus raised issues of corporate governance, potential conflicts of interest, and transparency, adding that it had raised the spectre of a management buy-out.

The biggest union at Aer Lingus, SIPTU, has repeated its opposition to any privatisation of the company.

SIPTU's national industrial secretary, Michael Halpenny, said that the first it had heard of plans by senior management to arrange a buy-out of the airline was in media reports this evening.

Mr Halpenny added that the commercial viability of Aer Lingus had been delivered by the sacrifices of the workforce.


... and it never happened!!! He got sacked!

[marlowe]

Bacityflyer cabin crew are on the worst terms and conditions in the BA group fact! But the terms and conditions they are on are the basis for what BA would like to bring in for mainline crew .When the new terms and conditions were introduced 15 months ago there was no consultation with crew just an imposed set of conditions, take them or goodbye. BASSA need to to start looking at this fully owned subsidary and opening their eyes to the fact that this company have been the testing ground for BA to try out different little rules and regs and seeing what they can get away with, for the last 15 months a group of BA workers have been effectivly denied union recognition by the company, they have used every excuse not to get involved with a union. When it was BAConnect there was union recognition with Amicus but that ended with the formation of flyer .The unions need to realise that the seeds for the future T&Cs in mainline are already cultivating elsewhere in the company .

[GS-Alpha]

BASSA have already allowed temporary contract cabin crew. BA simply need to make all future cabin crew recruitment temporary contract. Then when numbers are great enough, and their contracts expire, they are offered jobs with the new outfit. When mainline cabin crew strike, the new outfit has sufficient numbers to keep the operation going, and the action will be rendered impotent. It is precisely for this reason that BA pilots were/are worried about Openskies. BA already has it's openskies for the cabin crew, through the acceptance of Gatwick T'c and C's and also the ability to recruit temporary contract crews. And now BA has it's Openskies; to play the same trick on the pilots.

Each scheme will take a little bit of time, but reduction in flight and cabin crew T's and C's within BA is going to happen, whether we like it or not.

[eagle21]

Well it would take at leat 24 years since BA have around 14000 cabin crew, they training capabilities would be bout 50 new entrants every 5 weeks. To keep the operation going you need at least 75% of the 14000 so 10500 new entrants at 50 every 6 weeks you need 1260 weeks to complete this plan with a full speed training department so it is not as easy as you may think.
.
Some people here have no idea of the numbers they are talking about, that is because they have never worked for BA in the first instance

[bermudatriangle]

411A seems a very anti union/anti decent pay and conditions type character.his laughable proposal to train an army of cabin crew who are waiting in the wings,to take the place of BA's current workforce if they fail to agree to some new contract is rediculous.does he realise BA employ about 14,000 cabin crew.just how long does he think it would take to prepare such a workforce and how would they gain any online experience ? any proposals to save costs have to be agreed by both sides in a fair and sensible approach,which recognises the needs of the business to remain profitable and therefore be able to offer secure employment,balanced with the needs of the employess to earn a living wage.this has always worked in the past and i am sure will work in the future.

[JennyB]

Eagle21,

Are you saying that BA can make a immediate saving by getting rid of 3500 cabin crew and still be able to operate all routes?

If you know as crew that you are overstaffed, sure that BA management do too

[Bedder believeit]

The biggest industrial mistake one can make is to think that that they irreplaceable. Just ask the PATCO controllers in the early 80's and the resigning pilots of ANSETT and Australian Airlines in 1989.

[PAXboy]

eagle21BA cabin crew would prefer to shut down the airline rather than give up, why? Because they don't have much to loose, specially the newer ones( a majority).Actually, they have their jobs to lose. As the recession really bites in 2009, you may expect that people will start to think twice about going on strike.

What makes BA? It's pilots, crew , ground staff and little more.From one perspective that may be true but, in fact, it is the majority shareholders and the main board. They set policy to achieve certain financial targets. If those targets are not met, then shareholders may withdraw, then the company share price falls and - if it continues - they become a take over target.

Merge or die? Larger groups will usually draw larger financial backing to weather out the storms of recession and strikes.

Naturally, no one can guess if they will succeed in reducing costs and improving their image but I expect that, when the end does come for BA, it's financial collapse will be frighteningly sudden - within months. I do not expect that for another couple of years and it may be avoided. So, perhaps: Reduce costs, Merge or Die.

[rubik101]

eagle 21, you, amongst others, seem to conveniently ignore the facts that you read here, or not perhaps, as the case may be. As an example, ignored by you in earlier posts, check on the history of Fleet Street in the 1980s. The print unions had full support from their members, full support from the TUC, full support and sympathy strikes from other unions, Health workers, Transport drivers, Electricians and many others.
During many months of strikes, costing the members and the TUC many millions of pounds, the newspapers, particularly The Times and Sunday Times, never missed an issue. The papers were written, printed and distributed from new offices in Wapping.
Consider also how the T&Cs of well established and apparently aspirational airlines, Cathay Pacific, American, et al, have been eroded over the past several years. Consider the success of the LoCos, however distasteful that may be to dyed in the wool BA employees.
If you think that BA, or any other airline for that matter, is bigger and stronger than the Print Unions thought they were in 1982, think again.
The die has been cast already, with Gatwick T&Cs and Open Skies already established. The remainder of you will be on the new T&Cs before too long, either by seismic shift or Chinese water torture but in a few years, BA will have the airline they want. They will have an airline which can survive in the new era of tight control, restricted T&Cs, expensive fuel, and selective customers who have to watch their traveling budgets.
If you think that during a recession that pilots, cabin crew and engineers will not work under newly enforced conditions, think again. The need to pay your mortgage, school fees, petrol and food etc. will far outweigh any feelings of solidarity with colleagues who are holding out for the 'good times' of old.
Oil prices ($143.00), banking collapses, deflation/stagflation/inflation, negative equity, bankrupt Governments, weak political leadership along with many other calamities about to befall us, lead to the conclusion that any airline that survives will only do so by drastic and deep cuts and changes. BA will need to be foremost among those implementing these changes or it will be the first of many to cease operations.
History has a good purpose: study and learn and see the future. It is not rocket science, just simple observation and valid conclusion.
Sadly, the Ostriches, and you know who you are, still survive but then the real Ostriches are on the same T&C since they first trod the plains many millions of years ago!
Join the 21st Century, bled by Labour, (pun intended) along with the rest of us.

[GS-Alpha]

eagle21

I would be amazed if BA facilities are only capable of training a maximum of 50 new entrant cabin crew every 5 to 6 weeks, but I admit that I have no idea what the max-chat training rate would be. You also need to remember that they are not necessarily confined to the current facilities either.

BA crew were recently polled to see how many want part time. BA could easily allow everyone that wants it, part time. To cope with this, they would have to up recruitment. BASSA would likely agree that all recruitment could be on temp contract to cover the lost man-power units, because BA could argue that they need to have the flexibility to offload crew if the part-timers change their mind and want to come back full time.

Once all the expensive ones are part-time, BA's costs are reduced. At the same time, a strike by a load of 50% part timers will only do half the damage.

[HZ123]

Gosh calm down everyone it seems as if the 'managing conflict' has not worked as well as it should. At Cranebank it is easy to recruit and train 100 NECC a month and this figure could be replicated at LGW. Futhermore of the 5-6 weeks training it is realised that only 10 days are required to meet mandated CAA requirmernts. To supplement Line trainers it would be easy to utilise Customer Service trainers and airport operations trainers to work alongside CC line trainers an idea that has been looked at a number of times. To assist in this there would be any number of retired staff willing to return to take on temporary roles.

When we scoped for T5 associate trainers (contractors) we were inundated with applications. I doubt it is going to happen as even the drip feed of new joiners now is beset with problems. Uniform, CRO checks and general chaos that exists in a sixties building are more than enough to cope with.

On another point already mentioned WW did indeed want to convert ALingus to a LoCo and dress most staff in jeans and casual shirts/blouses. That did not come of either but i fear he has a still time to make some major changes at BA.

[Glamgirl]

Just a couple of things...

Eagle21 - You say we have 14000 cabin crew. That is more or less correct. However, we don't have 14000 full time cc. 38% of ww crew are part time, 40 something % of ef crew are part time and a large group of part time contracts at SFLGW. So, even though the head count is 14000, we don't need that amount of crew to operate.

There are possibilities of "fast track" training for experienced crew (like the exGB crew who came over). Also, there is the availability of operating flights with fewer crew members than in the t&c's, "due to operational requirements", which the company can throw in if a strike should happen.

Also, I think some unions (no names mentioned) and their members scream STRIKE! at the drop of a hat sometimes. What happened to good old negotiations? Instead of going to meetings with arms folded and "we're not doing this/that/the other" attitude and thinking strike if they don't get what they want, they should go to meetings with a fairly open mind and be willing to DISCUSS and negotiate with management. That is traditionally (in the real world) how problems are solved.

I'm getting tired of reading about what Ayling did, what happened in 92,97, last year and so on. That is all in the past, we need to look to the future.

Before I get my head virtually kicked in (as such), I'm not saying that I enjoy the Colombus issue one bit. I don't want my contract changed (not that it's worth much anyway), but I understand that with the fuel prices and the rise of the cost of living (fewer people able to fly for a start) the company must reduce costs somehow. Yes, management should take a hit too, no doubt about it, but they need to look at ALL departments. If they didn't, they would be even more stupid than most people think they are already.

We are easily replaced, as there are so many behind us in the queue. Yes, a lot of our crew are outstanding crew members who were born for the job and love it no matter how long they've been in the company (myself included), but there is unfortunately a too high a number of crew who are "trapped" in the job (as no other job in the outside world would pay that amount of money for the lifestyle), they're miserable, don't trust management and don't provide good/great service to our customers. Those are the crew who give us a bad name, and we need to get rid of those. Sounds harsh, maybe, but that's how I feel. (This also applies for other departments, just to keep that clear).

Gg

[411A]

Those are the crew who give us a bad name, and we need to get rid of those.

ALL airlines have these few, and they should be shown the door in an accelerated manner, for they give all the rest of well-serving CC a bad name and reputation.

Period.

[heli_port]

Unite, Britain’s biggest union, has written to the chief executive of British Airways to demand a meeting after the airline began a far-reaching review of its costs.

Rumours of severe cost-cutting at BA has caused concern among the airline’s 14,000 cabin crew and wild rumours have surfaced including the possible outsourcing of the entire inflight workforce to a third party


Unite on alert over threat to BA jobs amid fears of severe cost-cutting - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4222105.ece)

[Glamgirl]

Poof in Boots,

For the record, I've been flying with BA for 10 years. I'm not a manager, nor will I ever be one. I am a purser and happy with that.

You say about forward bookings for the next few months and winter. Yes, our flights may be full now, but most of these tickets were probably booked and paid for before the whole recession thing started kicking off (as in people and company actually realising it wasn't just a blip on the stock market).

If the oil price and recession doesn't slow down, our future bookings (next year etc) will look grim. Something for you to consider, I suppose, although I'm sure you will tell me (very shortly) how wrong I am and to wind my neck in.

Gg

[5tarbuck]

On another point already mentioned WW did indeed want to convert ALingus to a LoCo and dress most staff in jeans and casual shirts/blouses. That did not come of either but i fear he has a still time to make some major changes at BA.

Thats not quite true actually. It later emerged (by admission to the media from senior managers after his departure) that part of Walsh's agenda was to decrease employee numbers by using what was termed 'Environmental Push Factors' to persuade people to leave of their own accord. EPF was used in many ways, according to the area/department, but for Cabin Crew the rumour (and thats all it ever was - a rumour!) was put out by management that they were planning to dress up the Cabin Crew in jeans and t-shirts.

I guess some people actually have sufficient belief in what management tell them, to take everything they hear as absolute truth. Even just a rumour. No doubt such people believe that management never lie, and wouldn't stoop to such infantile behaviour as deliberate rumour mongering.

But the fact is - they do. HE does.
Keep it in mind.;)

[Poof in Boots]

Gg, every few years we get a new CEO and crop of managers who think they have reinvented the wheel. I can remember all the stupid things our senior managers have done over the years, some of them forgotten like putting secondhand ex Eastern Airlines engines on our new 757's when Eastern upgraded to E4's. Shortermism to make the bottom line look better for their bonuses.

Many here will agree that the airline business is cyclical. Sometimes completely unexpected events like 9/11 will shock the industry. A well managed airline will have something put away for a rainy day to overcome the fallout and subsequent drop in bookings. BA at the moment is awash with cash; it has huge reserves. It has not gone on a ridiculous spending spree for new aircraft, although there are a few are in the pipeline like nice economical 777's. VIRGIN will fail before us, lumbered with his "Four Engines For Longhaul" A340-600's.

Another point to remember is that as other airlines go bust, we will pick up some of the business. I wonder how many ex-OASIS, Silverjet, EOS and MaxJet passengers are now travelling with BA? So it is not all doom and gloom for BA and the industry.

You are obviously quite prepared to sacrifice your T&C's to help Mr Walsh and his team enhance the profitability of BA and their bonuses. Why don't you criticise BA management over the £350m that has been wasted on fuel surcharge fines, plus the damage to our reputation. What about the T5 debacle? Already brushed under the carpet in your mind.

Apparently Walsh is trying to sue BALPA over damage to reputation caused by the Opensewer row.This is the sort of person we are dealing with and people like you give him succour when they read your comments. Most of the staff of BA only got .8 of a weeks bonus pay, whilst Walsh and other Directors get 100%. They are motivated by greed. It is a very profitable airline even in the current climate and present T&C's of employees. Why accept less? Walsh's pay has already gone up £35,000 and he wants you to take less. Why don't we tell him where to stick his Project Columbus?

We have already had a post here about Walsh at Aer Lingus attempting a management buy out. He is all for himself, hence a union rep one moment and management the next.

You will still be in the job long after Walsh is gone. Please don't try and make his job too easy for him and let your colleagues down in the process, as if this is all inevitable. Try and put up a little bit of opposition. You will feel much better for it.

[st nicholas]

As a passenger contemplating a long haul flight and living outside the greater London area I would not even consider flying with BA. The reasons are as follows

1. Airport Comfort. One cannot compare the likes of LHR to AMS etc.

2. Service ethic. Airport employees on the continent are much more polite and helpfull than those at LHR.

3. Tax. Why pay 2 sets of airport tax.

4. I have not lost my bags using the likes of KLM/Air France whereas both times I have used BA recently I have.

5. Reliability. I was delayed on my return last time when BA cancelled the Domestic leg of my journey.

6. In flight service vrs cost. The complementary sandwich and coffee does not offset the price benefits of flying LCC to a European hub and then onwards.

7. In flight experience. Regardless of the views of BA cabin crew. I have found them no better than their LCC counterparts. If anything LCC cabin crew are not as condesending in their treatment of passengers.

I believe there are 1000,s of people in the UK like me who have woken up to the fact that we do have a choice of carrier and more often than not BA does not feature. There goes your market.How else can you increase/maintain profit ? by reducing costs.

[L337]

I believe there are 1000,s of people in the UK like me who have woken up to the fact that we do have a choice of carrier and more often than not BA does not feature.

If you are correct BA will be bust by the end of the month. I am not holding my breath.

[Andy_S]

That's a distortion of what St Nicholas said.

The actual comment made was more often than not BA does not feature. And I think that's very true.

As you say, BA aren't going to disappear down the plughole any time soon. But they operate in a competitive environment, and further strike action will just drive their passengers to other airlines. And they won't necessarily come back afterwards.

[VAFFPAX]

You know St Nicholas, as a business person who used to have a no-BA policy after an incident in the nineties involving BA that left me with a very sour taste in my mouth, I have found that thanks to what I've learned on PPRuNe, I have yet to have a bad flight with BA.

I have found the c/c and the f/o to be very friendly and appreciative when I leave the a/c and thank them for a good flight, and I will continue to fly BA where it makes sense.

Unfortunately, these days with my specific situation, the entire experience counts, from booking to getting there to check-in to the flight, not just on-a/c experience, and FR and EZY fall down on the booking and check-in front (although EZY less so than FR). This is not a reflection on the c/c or f/o of either carrier, but rather management policies that IMO cost the airlines.

To date, because of my location, I am still better off flying from LGW or LHR with BA, TAP, Iberia, SAS, KLM/AF than having to travel either to LTN or STN just to save a few quid, only to be 'abused' by already harrassed g/c because my luggage is anything but standard.

Granted, BA, FR and EZY are not responsible for security (BAA is, excepting LTN), so to lay the claims of a bad airport experience on their doorstep is unfair, but after recent experiences, I find that the airlines have done (or could do) more to make that experience less off-putting.

I still don't fly BA long-haul because I use the competition (who IMO have provided me with a consistent flying experience ever since I used them the first time), but that might just change... currently I'm not affected by the perks that Upper Class et al used to be provided with and are no longer, but who knows.

S.

[JulietNovemberPapa]

I try to fly as many different airlines as possible (assuming I have a choice). Yesterday I flew BA: LHR-FRA on #902 on the 763. I enjoyed it: it was comfortable; professional; arrived early into FRA; and the food was all right. I paid around £52 for the one-way flight including taxes, which represented excellent value. Overall I'd probably rate BA 7 out of 10. I'm certainly looking forward to using Terminal 5 again.

[Poof in Boots]

Yes Juliet, T5 is brilliant. Such bad luck that our customers and the employees of BA, were so badly let down by management incompetence. Now it is running well and anyone not using BA like St Nick, is cutting his nose.....

and the French have a better service ethic? Now that can't be true.

[Glamgirl]

PiB,

You obviously think I'm a silly little girl who doesn't remember the past nor do I think for myself.

I'll keep this short. I've said on several occasions (not just in this thread) that I'm not agreeing with reducing our t&c's. However, I understand why management are looking at cutting costs. My last sentence doesn't mean I agree or welcome changes to my t&c's.

Of course I remember the mess from the past from management, but that was not part of this discussion, and therefore I did not want to discuss it, all I said was that we need to look to the future.

I'll think my thoughts and you can think yours.

Gg

[VAFFPAX]

T5 is nice... except the Arrivals part that lets you down a little...

Granted, Arrivals is not a place many people hang around in, but I was a tad disappointed that the ground floor (Arrivals) didn't mirror the upper floor (Departures):

While sunny and attempts were made to brighten up the place (nice trees and nice fountains), the depth of Arrivals makes the place very narrow and prone to overcrowding (especially when you have 600 passengers streaming out of baggage and into the waiting mass of people, chauffeurs and 'party X' placard holders).

I know, I know... Costa is there to allow people to sit and wait, but they don't really do hot food, something that I would like to at least have before I make the journey home (especially when you have to sit on a bus).

Just a minor grump. I'm impressed with the way check-in and bag drop went (although I would like to recommend that BA make it clearer that people have to check in at a booth before proceeding to bag drop - the ground staff sounded very exasperated that pax 'didn't get it yet'). I'm impressed with security (although I got pulled for secondary inspection because I forgot a can of Red Bull in my bag - bad me, bad, bad).

:-)

S.

[highflyin]

I think 'Clarkson' put if perfectly when he mentioned that 'General Motors' was a 'pensions & healthcare' company that also made cars.

BA is going down the same road.

Time are changing and benefits are not what they used to be. If we still want a 'national' carrier we have to accept change otherwise carry-on....... and put the company out of business.

[Poof in Boots]

Here we go again HighFlyin.....not another management clone. Have you met Gg?

Just last year it was said tha BA was a pension fund with wings. Well we got screwed on that. So much for 'militant' unions! I am now working another five years for the same pension.

I suppose I should take a pay cut as well, or maybe pay BA for allowing me to come to work? Just remember the more the airlines cut costs, the more safety is impacted. You pay peanuts you get monkeys. All the passengers on the 777 that crashed walked away with barely an injury. Luck, or was it down to the calibre of the Flight and Cabin Crews?

Yes times are changing, but not for the better.

[Mick Stability]

According to the BA on line fact book, BA employs 49,957 people at a cost of £1,971M.

There are 282 aircraft.

That's nearly 180 people for every aircraft in the fleet.

Before we embark on a bonfire of the vanities, and the wholesale destruction of the (lives) of hard working crew - what the hell do the rest of these people do?

One day BA will have one A318 with 4 crew, and a staff of 60,000 to administer them.

[Poof in Boots]

Thanks Mick,

There was a cartoon a few years ago depicting BA managers in a rowing boat. There were ten manager/cox's and one person rowing.

When Marshall and King took over, BA was in its heyday. They employed a guy called Mike Levine, a New York Jew who had been involved with People Express. He did a big hatchet job on the management at BA. People came back to their offices on a Monday morning and found the key no longer worked the door lock. All their personal possesions were on the floor outside! And you never guess what? Aircraft still took off and landed. The loss of all these managers didn't make a blind bit of difference to the operation. So what were they all doing?

It was only after this clear out that BA made the huge profits that it as taken twenty years to reciprocate. Rod Eddington called BA management "permafrost".

Now we have managers managing Pursers, who try to justify their position by stating that they have reduced sickness. The problem now is BA is so short of cabin crew, they are having to cancel services. They have reduced the headline number of crew so that there are not enough to cover the operation at certain times of the month, due to part time contracts.

Unfortunately for our customers, it is always the front line staff that are squeezed and cut to the bone. I have often heard that we do not have enough engineers, pilots, check in staff, cabin crew, but we have never been short of managers!

[PJ2]

Unfortunately for our customers, it is always the front line staff that are squeezed and cut to the bone.
To the point where every hiccup be it weather somewhere or ATC, is an IRROP and passengers and staff suffer alike.

When cut to the bone and pushed everyday to get flights out, how on earth is SMS supposed to work? Do we really think staff are going to be looking for the risk-points when they know they'll be on the carpet for delays?

[FlyingTom]

but we have never been short of managers!

:D

There is a bit of a purge going on as we speak though, it just highlights how disconnected Waterworld is from operations that no one has noticed.

There are redundancies in HR, IM(IT!), BAPIML and the dust is just settling from the last manager purge.

[SR71]

PiB says...

It seems that most people criticising the T & C's of BA employees appear to work for other less attractive employers. Sorry you didn't make the grade lads. BA only get the best.

then says...

I can remember all the stupid things our senior managers have done over the years, some of them forgotten like putting secondhand ex Eastern Airlines engines on our new 757's when Eastern upgraded to E4's. Shortermism to make the bottom line look better for their bonuses.

But BA only get the best...

Surely, stupidity can only recruit stupidity as its ally?

You can't have it both ways...

:ok:

[positionand hold]

411A might be a cynical old f**t ("40 years in the business", etc.), but try to ignore this trait and you may find he speaks some valid points.

Good fun reading him and even more fun reading the reactions. I reckon he has a strong point with BA though (even though T5 certainly DOES work pretty good now).

Oh, and I see you are in located in AZ, 411A - just where I am right now (but I am on vacation from UK), so maybe we should meet for a beer and sort all this out?? PM me.

[st nicholas]

VAFFPAX as luck would have it see the following link

yours sincerely Nic

Travellers back no-frills airlines over British Airways - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/2202640/Travellers-back-no-frills-airlines-over-British-Airways.html)

[jetset lady]

Just because a cabin crew union is strong, protects its members interests and ensures they have good pay and conditions, the Flight Crew here say that it is "militant". It's about time that they did a better job of standing up to predatory management.

So where the hell was this "strong cabin crew union that protects it's members interests" when they were coming up with the LGW T&C's then? Oh yes, sorry, they were busy trying to sell our breakfast allowance down the river! The only reason BASSA have suddenly taken an interest in LGW is because it's suddenly dawned on them that these T&C's may just be arriving at an airport near them very soon! Welcome to reality! It didn't seem to bother anyone when it happened to us, so a small part of me wants to say, why the hell should I care now it's happening to you. Unfortunately, I'm not like that and I do care. I would, however, like to have the full details rather than assumptions, so I at least know exactly what we are up against.

Jsl

P.S. Why is it, that as soon as someone dares to disagree with you, you call them a management clone? Not very original, is it? Highflyer, I'm jetset lady. I'll introduce myself, to save PiB having to do it!

[rubik101]

Poof in boots, it's very difficult to see quite what points you are trying to make. In one post you are extremely critical of the the lack of effective management, hence inertia, and in the next you are suggesting that things will not change for you because you have a strong union. Is it the lack of management which keeps things the same or the strength of your unions?
You suggest that reduction in T&Cs will never happen because you and your fellow aircrew run the airline.
When reality hits you, as it eventually will, you will see, as previously pointed out to you but conveniently ignored, that unions count for nothing when progress demands changes. Whether the changes are in technology, machinery, working practices, benefits or pensions, all fall by the wayside in the face of the inevitable weight of the demands of the company management.
You might survive the changes if you agree to the new T&Cs, if you are senior enough. You might choose to leave in the face of the degradation of your T&Cs and reduction in salary and allowances or you can stay and pay your bilss, like so many others will be forced to do.
And I am not management of any airline, simply a realist.
Welcome to the new era!

[demomonkey]

Just as an aside, there is a £250 prize (payable in £1 off coupons for trips on now defunct airlines - ok I'm cheap get over it) for anyone who can name either a company or an industry that has had militant / intransigent / piss-poor industrial relations and has then gone on to be successful?

[VAFFPAX]

VAFFPAX as luck would have it see the following link
yours sincerely Nic
Travellers back no-frills airlines over British Airways - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/2202640/Travellers-back-no-frills-airlines-over-British-Airways.html)
Yet RyanAir, the UK's favourite no-frills airline, scored less than British Airways. Oh dear.

S.

[demomonkey]

Ryanair (47 per cent) was considered the least desirable of the low-cost airlines. A spokesman for the airline dismissed the report, adding that the "annual member survey is about as useful as a baggage tag in Terminal 5".

Apparently FR's management believe fuel hedging is also quite as useless. I see profits heading south all summer!

BTW: Ryanair must have a very good PR agency (or a PR agency that buys hacks very good bottles of whiskey) as they always manage to appear towards the end of a story if indeed the story even appears in the press (i.e. several runway overshoot 'non-incident' incidents).

[PJ2]

positionand hold;
411A might be a cynical old f**t ("40 years in the business", etc.), but try to ignore this trait and you may find he speaks some valid points.
Perhaps in spots, but I think most here tend to eschew polarized thinking in favour of at least some subtlety. The universal solution 411a offers regardless of transgression, afaics, is showing "recalcitrant" (read, they disagree with his views) and otherwise "troublesome" (read unionized) or merely "whining" employees, the door.

While I agree there are cases in which firings are deserved and most airlines have adopted similar safety reporting policies which clearly exclude intentional or criminal acts, most screw-ups are cases of helmet-fires, or possibly the absence of a robust safety culture (which, under SMS, is the sole responsibility of the CEO and his/her executive) or a lack of clarity in SOPs. People do not set out to make mistakes in aviation, (although there are some pretty hairy intentional acts committed in the name of "watch this...")*. but 411a's clearly expressed attitude towards underlings has shown that there are no excuses and that summary firing is the only solution. For a lot of good reasons, I and likely many, disagree.

Flight safety and a robust safety culture are not created by threats or cajoling of employees and is instead an immature response, (not personal immaturity, but in terms of what is known today vice 40 years ago) about flight safety. As well, a manager who has the attitude which 411a has consistently expressed as showing people who have made mistakes or who have expressed contrarian opinions "the door" is really poor management because, if actually carried out, (and we have no reason to believe the expressed attitude has actually been put into practise at his company), it is an extremely expensive solution not only in terms of settlements, (and I have seen my share of these situations) but also in terms of the experience and training lost and which must be replaced.

Perhaps in better times they did, but today's corporations do not deserve employee loyalty but nor do they deserve continuously unrequited employee wrath. Corporations are not (and never were) "caregivers which cater to employee welfare" nor do most employees expect such today. That is not "the bargain" and, with almost no exception, working for an organization is a free individual choice - if one doesn't like what's going on, then they should fight for change or leave. However, the practicalities of leaving, especially within a seniority system, are such that staying and fighting for solutions is almost universally the only opportunity. I understand that hatred for anything "union" is automatic

Fourty years in the business grants anyone significant benefit of doubt. Such experience gives anyone the right to comment and to be given, initially anyway, wide and respectful acceptance but such "time in" does not automatically make one right or even wise.

The key here is flight safety and SMS. Whacking flight crew with a rolled management newspaper across the nose and calling for firings rather than intelligently determining the source of the problems through various flight data/safety reporting programs as contemplated under SMS or in more serious cases through employee assistance programs, does not resolve the original problem and heightens risk thereby. There are plenty of ignorant, short-sighted, parsimonious operators still out there who prove this point every day, in some cases tragically.

That the repartee between 411a and many responders is entertaining, there is no doubt; this is an anonymous forum and people may say anything for a miriad of personal reasons including pretense, attention or entertaining oneself, and do. But if the representations made by someone in management authority are the reality at least at one person's organization, then the undercurrents and implications in such attitudes towards employees in terms of building a constructive safety culture which also gets business done, are serious and that problem is, after all, our only interest in aviation.

[overstress]

Then shut the Arline down and start again And you will notice the difference on boad.

And which UK/EU employment legislation will cover that? :}

[ShortfinalFred]

Ah, the sound of 411a calling for everyone to accept another paycut whilst he enjoys the fruits of years of offshore living. Got those Tristars flying yet? Still hate unions? Of course, the way to make yours work is to set up in Mexico and pay wages that would make a Guadalajara Mill Owner blush, perhaps in credits at the Company Store like those mining towns of old? Change the record mate - no amount of wage cuts will compensate for oil at $150 and up - as Anatole Kaletsky says in The Times, Western economies as a whole are finished at these levels, let alone airlines.

Go out and play golf and enjoy your retirement mate and leave those of us stupid enough to go on working for the self serving greedy shower who call themselves airline management (certainly the BA lot anyway - $850 million fine anyone?) alone for once!

I have to admit one thing -any wannabe mad enough to come in now to fly is wasting their life - what point in a flying career 411a, who should take it up, do you think? Fly for food anyone - what a waste of space.

[Dezso]

I have to say I read the posts from BA crew and I really laugh. I do admire you for wanting to hang onto to your terms and conditions. However if it is really true that your senior flight attendants are getting paid £50-60k then something needs to change. The cost of oil is going to really damage your business moving forward and everyone is going to have to take a little bit of pain.

People can stick their head in the sand all they want but the cost of oil will catch up with everyone soon and only the strongest will survive, there are no guarantees who that will be.

[ShortfinalFred]

And what do you do perchance? How long before your job is "offshored" by some bright spark? Lawyer - try Bangalore, accountant, ditto, computer software, try Mumbai, small business owner in manufacturing? Try Shanghai.

BA pilots are not overpaid in relation to either productivity - at legal limits in long and short haul, or for the responsibility inherent in the job either. There are those who will always bemoan BA for being on a par in pilot pay with the European National Carriers, yet that is the benchmark and even that is not, in my view and in comparison with similar professional occupations in the South East, that much. Laugh all you like at BA. I'll be laughing at you when your job goes too.:yuk:

[HZ123]

If you think that is bad I can assure you that some of BA ramp staff take £40000 - £59999 and they are industrial staff. WW has problems whatever way he looks and it has all been orchestrated by the unions and years of mis-managemnet including LK & LM's tenure. Diversions into the EU and LCY will not address the root problems. How can we blame staff because in the UK even are governmental reps take full advantage of every fiddle going.

[Human Factor]

try to ignore this trait

Unfortunately, my Ignore List isn't that selective.:p

[Dezso]

Shortfinal fred, my previous post was in relation to Cabin Crew NOT the Flight Crew, I understand the BA Flight Crew to be paid market rate in line with all the other big carriers.

My point is how can you pay Senior Flight Attendants in excess of £50-60k per year when your competitors pay far less. Something has to give somewhere and I am sure WW will want to strip it down so BA crew are paid market rate in line with the competitors.

[Hotel Mode]

Its not the 7-800 on 50k its the 7-8000 on 30k Willy will be after.

[Joetom]

Any company can compare its own and market pay rates(T+C's also)

I would expect any company looking to save cash by getting their staff to accept less cash due to so called market rates will be picking on the big staff numbers.

Cabin Crew are a big number in any airline(not cargo)

Good luck to the Cabin Crew, you will need it I'm afraid.

[ShortfinalFred]

Thank you Deszo, then I withdraw the intemperate elements of my previous post. I have to agree that BA's CC, who in my view do a excellent job in trying circumstances, are likely to face very significant wage pressure, and that BA's staff to hull ratio, which has always been absurd, MUST change.

[directX]

This is my first post in this forum and I am just a simple SLF - the guy that ultimately provides your pay cheque at the end of the month. In response to Poof in Boots various posts I would offer this advice. I have travelled over many years now with BA and other airlines in all classes. What BA did have in its favour in the past (a reputation for reliability, safety, good customer service) has long been lost in the perception of most passenger's.

PIB still seems to be clinging on to that old superior and supercilious attitude that we Brits have had in the past and has been prevalent in SOME BA cabin crew (not all). The idea that only a certain type of people fly with LOCO's is not a reality. Poof in Boots you would probably I guess be one of the people using LOCO's if you didn't already work for your superior and far better airline. I might fly business class one week if long haul and low cost another if within Europe. Now that my tickets are not bought by someone else I look for value for money. BA cabin crew (and I have a few as friends) do not usually have any experience of flying with other airlines due to their staff perks. If you did, it might wake you up a bit to the competion out there. BA business class to Asia or Australia when you can get much better service on most of the Far East airlines at a lessor cost - I think not. And although I am not a Ryanair fan, easyJet provides strong competion to BA - I flew last week to Berlin with them at half the cost of BA (on full planes) and will be going to Amsterdam with them next week for £50 return all in.

I never thought I would say this but even the Luton experience now is better the using a BAA facility, including T5. Well managed security queues and no need to use check in usuing easyJets on line facility.

PIB - you say that all your flights to the US are full - but BA reported today a drop in load factors of around 3-4% the US being one of the losers. Basically all BA planes on average are flying with 25% empty seats.

Also I couldn't let your snide comment against the French go unanswered. I flew bus class on Air France's new LHR to LAX in May and it was a first class experience - food, seating, customer service on the ground and in the air was better than BA and for alot less dosh.

Be warned - times are going to be very hard in the next 18 months or so and we don't all have limitless pockets to continue paying BA's fuel surcharges.

Sorry to have ranted on a bit. :O

[HZ123]

It seems that what DirectX states wins the arguement. PIB you really need to look around you and rid youraelf of our BA smugness, futhermore not only have we lost % pax we are also losing revenue on those that are flying with us. If you are LGW crew then the state of their shorthaul a/c are crap and the 77 are little better. Not that we can boast about the LHR stuff other than being newer therefore less worn.

[747-436]

Usually through the various website forums that crew access, someone would have started a topic about light loads, but on the contrary the comments are how busy we are. I guess the figures must be true, but where are the empty aircraft?

No empty aircraft but load factors this week have been around 85-90%.

Funny how with all this bad data about loads dropping off, that Willie Walsh sees it fit to start a new airline and go on a spending spree acquiring another. Surely BA cannot be so splashed with cash that they can spend tens of millions setting up OS to fly empty aircraft from Orly to JFK? There must be another reason?

While BA does need to cut some things back it still has to be proactive, which it is doing with Open Skies and also with Tie ups with AA and IB.

Cabin crew will have to make some sacrifices, and so will other areas at BA.

[Dezso]

I think everyone in Virgin, BA etc will all have to make big sacrifices. The tough times are already here and some people need to open their eyes to this fact.

The Flight Attendants at BA will scream and shout desperate to hold on to their huge pay packets. I do not doubt the Flight Attendants union will call for action, but unless airlines act now it will be nothing but a slow painful death. I am not surprised that WW is looking to save money, I bet Virgin do not pay their onboard managers £60k a year, they can probably hire two for that pot of money.

I also read with a smile how so many crew at BA think with much smugness that they are far superior to all other airlines. I guess the managers tell you this day in day out, but to be honest you are not the best. I have seen crew sweet talk passengers then give them a questionnaire to complete, probably hoping the customer will stroke their ego, I bet the questionnaires that do not reflect well for crew end up in the bin. Seriously please don't believe the hype there are other carriers out there with really good crew who go the extra mile day in day out.

That said I have had some good flights with BA but I have had some superb flights with Qantas and Singapore.

PS How much do BA pay their Supervisors?

[monkeybusiness2]

Not 60k thats for sure.

[PAXboy]

Another Pax speaking ...
This recession is going to squeeze a LOT of people. Here is the experience of a friend of mine from the 90/92 recession. He was working in I.T. (still is) and on contracts. He was doing very well and getting £300 a day gross self-employed (so that is before tax and paying yourself to be on holiday etc.)

In 91, he suddenly found work cut by 50% and then his contract (and others on the same project) was cut short and he was turfed out. He was on the dole. He had to use all his savings to pay the mortgage.

When he got back into work many months later, he was glad to accept much less for low level work and he took a job he hated, just to earn something. Eventually, he got back to the £300 a day - but not for seven years and by that time, inflation had taken a chunk out of it.

Now, he was self-employed and you are employed with clever contracts but, today, ALL staff at ALL companies are at risk of the same crash landing. It is horrible and you have my sympathies but the UK public has decided that they want cheap air fares. Since fuel costs are rising - something else has to give. By the way, it's not just BA staff that can SOMETIMES be too superior for their own good - other mainline carriers on both sides of the Atlantic can do that too.

[chrisbl]

As SLF I understand what BA are trying to do and that is fight for the survival of the airline and its business. The alternative is to lose and have no business. If there is no business there are no jobs.

Few jobs these days, come with the T & Cs enjoyed by the BA old hands. That is just a reflection of where we are. It is also a job which is not considered particularily special either. Gone are the days when someone would be in awe of an airline pilot. The same is true of doctors. We all work to live rather than live to work.

As someone who regluarily flies business class on long haul, I have stopped going BA prefering to take a European carrier to go to the far east at less than half the cost. Finnair do a great job and changing at Helsinki airport is not an issue.

Shaving a couple of hours of the trip by going direct is just not worth the cost.

Even so, I anticipate my organisations' travel costs will reduce considerably as we introduce better IT and Comms facilities and reduce the travelling to only those occasions where a personal visit will do.
The pressure on us to reduce our carbon footprint is really intense so in addition to saving costs we will also hit our CO2 targets. (We dont go in for buying offsets).

So I think things will change and strike action to protect outdated T & C will just accelerate the end of the T & Cs. If services get disrupted in protest, it will give me an excuse not to fly one I will take with pleasure.

[747-436]

If our load factors are so bad to the 'States, perhaps someone would explain why our three 747 flights a day to LAX are sold out and BA are now thinking of adding a 777 as well. Go to the BA website and try and book on a flight.

What is very noticeable is the number of Americans who are travelling with us. Quite often around 70% or more are US passengers. As I have said before, bad luck for other carriers will mean BA picking up market share.

But that doesn't mean BA shouldn't be proactive in trying to reduce costs. The other option is to do nothing and then in a few years still have an excessivly high cost base and then there is no BA as others will have taken its place.

I am sure that BA will act very soon and it could hurt!!

[411A]

That is the future, I won't be part of it.

I'm quite sure you won't be missed.
Goodbye.

For others still interested in a flying career, for experienced pilots, there are jobs all over the place.
CC...forget about it.
Your time has come and gone, unless you are prepared to work for much less.
Them's the facts, like it or lump it...and for many I'm quite sure it will be the latter.

[747-436]

747-436. By the way, (4)36 is the designation that BOEING gives to BA aircraft. ie 747-136, 747-236. So of course this person must be Flight Deck, pontificating from his ivory tower with the benefit of a large Captains pension no doubt of £80,000 per annum plus the AVC pot of around £250,000.

Er no, I wish I was!!!!

I do not fly in any capacity and probably earn less than most cabin crew!

Back to the topic....

[Glamgirl]

PiB,

You must be very tired by now, staying angry for so long, especially as it seems you've been angry since 1973...

Seriously, I'm surprised that you can't see the picture. You have kind of explained it yourself, but still refusing to believe that cutting costs has anything to do with the survival of the airline. Let me write it more clearly this time:

Oil prices go up + cost of living goes up = less money available to spend

Less money available to spend = fewer people flying

Fewer people flying = less income for the airline

Less income for the airline = job cuts

Job cuts = no work and no money

That's the score, simple as that. We unfortunately HAVE to look into cutting costs (as I've said before, within ALL departments). Colombus is still a project (unless you know something we don't) and no decicions have been made.

Please do our reputation a favour and stop posting some of the tosh that you write. Claiming we have the best crew in the world (not in those words) and that we're far superior to anyone else is not doing us any favours. It comes across as arrogant, and who wants to fly with an airline with arrogant crew? We are supposed to be friendly, professional, knowledgeable, flexible, respectful and happy. Let's just keep to that, shall we? Sometimes you have to fake it to make it, but please remember, it is not our passenger's problem, whatever is going on in our lives. They want to get from A to B safely with a smile and professional service.

Gg (still not a manager)

[411A]

411A. Are you sure there are all these jobs for Flight Crew? The job is so boring these days being locked away in the cockpit with SESME breathing down your neck. Not the job it was.


We don't have SESME where I work, PiB, and the nice thick door keeps the malcontent CC firmly out of the way, so us pilots can enjoy our Havana cigars in peace and quiet....and no, you are not invited.

[L337]

All organisations must change to survive. If BA does not adapt and move with the very latest changes in the geopolitical and economic landscape it will not continue to trade. Managing change is the key in almost all things in life.

BA has survived. Not only has it survived it has prospered. The latest crisis is just another in a very long list.

BA has survived because it has done the very things that many people on this thread say it cannot and will not do. It is an organisation that has changed. It has adapted. And I cannot see any reason for it not to continue to adapt and change and survive.

As a pilot for BA I have seen huge changes within the organisation. Indeed the changes are so huge and fundamental that the unions are having to fight tooth and nail to try and stem the tide. The changes to my working conditions have rendered my job to be unrecognisably different from the day I joined. Suffice to say that I work harder now than at any time in a 30 year flying career. My terms and conditions bear no relation to those that PiB allude to. We have a few "A" scale pilots left. The bulk of us are on the "B" scale. ie NAPS. The newest pilot recruits are effectively on a "C" scale. A BA pilot now works flat out. We are rostered right up to the legal limits. Literally hundreds are pushing the 900 hour limit. Cabin Crew terms and conditions for new recruits have changed immeasurably. The old BOAC type terms and conditions are the stuff of history, legend, and the posters of PPRuNe. Management are doing the job. Change has been continual, and continues to be so.

Much, if not all, of the industrial unrest is as a direct result of these very changes that so many people on this thread say BA are not doing.

So to the bitter, ignorant and twisted who cannot wait for the demise of BA. You might just have to wait a little longer.

[rubik101]

Surely, the title of this thread could be equally, in some cases even more appropriately, applied to just about any airline in the world.
Times have changed, as indicated above, and the 'good old days' are over for the whole industry, not just BA.
The likes of Ryanair and easyJet have been there for some years, the rest will follow or perish. Management of all airlines naturally look to the successful competitors and will try to emulate that success. On a cost per pax mile or any other measure you care to use, the Locos are winning the fight against rising costs and milking the maximum return from the least input.
That is the way to survive in this increasingly strained and competitive times. All of us need to get used to the idea of 900 hours and minimum rest, sadly, that is the reality of modern airline operations.

[411A]

All of us need to get used to the idea of 900 hours and minimum rest, sadly, that is the reality of modern airline operations.

Look for that 900 to change, and it ain't going lower...'tis been 1000 in FAA-land for a very long time.

The base problem is (for many older employees), when they knocked on the HR door and asked for a job, many have long forgotten that now you are actually expected to work for the salary, and that salary is not going to improve.
In fact, for many of the less skilled (and this certainly includes the CC) will simply find that their salaries will head in the opposite direction, and there is nothing they can do about it.
Except find another job.

[Ray D'Avecta]

PiB,

My brother is Dealer Principle at a Mercedes dealership. New car sales are down by 22%. Do you think he expects everyone there to take a pay cut?

Absolutely!!! Their salaries are part based on commission. Sales down = less commission = less take home pay = pay cut!!! :ugh:

[Capot]

Lovely comment in today's Times about how Willie Walsh claims to receive, sorry, receives emails, calls and comments daily from people praising T5.

Funny isn't it; I have been trying for ages to find out his email address or phone number so that I could make just such a comment.

I think I must be looking in the wrong places on the BA website; can anyone help, please? Willie says he welcomes these emails and calls, so it cannot be a secret.

The lady in Reception, by the way, has not been told what his email address or phone number is. So she couldn't pass it on, much as she wished to. Perhaps Willy should address this obvious training issue; he wouldn't want to be thought of as raising barriers against the public, would he?

[Ray D'Avecta]

Ray, the mechanics do not sell cars

Yes, you are right. But it is also now obvious why it is your brother, and not you who run the dealership ;)

The sales people and all front line staff directly affected by the decrease in new car sales suffer a pay cut immediately from the commission element of their pay. If the dealerships car servicing or whatever arm is also suffering a decline, then the mechanics also end up with a negotiated pay cut.

I wonder how you would choose to run a hotel with an ever decreasing number of bookings?........keep everyone on the same pay they were on when you were booked solid each day?

...............anyway, we digress. Back to the topic............

[Dezso]

PIB, if your brother was paying his employees twice as much as a similar dealership down the road, and his costs were going up and at the same time his income from sales was dropping, then he would be a fool to just sit back and do nothing.

Before long he would be out of business and all his employees would be unemployed!

Stick you head in the sand all you want, changes will need to be made or BA will be gone and do not believe for one sec that the Government will take you over and bail you out.

[PAXboy]

Pax here, who has read the entire thread.
PiB, whilst I agree with your view It is the management that British Airways cannot afford, not pilots and cabin crew.as that can be said of many, MANY companies - it is the mgmt that are in charge and even if they cut mgmt salaries and posts, everyone is going to feel the pinch.

Knowing what you know now, and on current Ts&C's, would you choose this career again?Again, I think that is true of many, MANY careers. People make a choice in their early 20s and change their mind 10/20 years later and do something else (as you appear to be about to do). Also, whilst you might not choose to be CC again, or recommend it to young people - many of them will take it now at the offered Ts&Cs and enjoy it. That is because they are in a different 'place' than you.

It is always sad to see something that was enjoyable and financially rewarding go by the board - but that is the constant experience of human kind. It may well be that you are sufficiently advanced in your career and circumstances (mortgage paid off??) that you can afford to buy a new car and choose not to take a new contract. Others are not. If your circumstances compel you to keep working, then I hope you find enjoyable work, rather than having to keep on doing something in circumstances that you no longer enjoy. I have had to do that and it eats away at you.

[SR71]

"The poof" seems like a reasonably intelligent, if not belligerent, individual who fails to understand that yield can be sacrificed for load factor...

You could have 2 people in each seat but if your cost per seat exceeds your revenue per seat....well King Canute springs to mind...

Your margin was, what, 10% last year?

All other things being equal, what has the fuel price done this year compared to what it was for the purposes of the books last year?

And therein lies the problem....

SLK?

How predictable.

:rolleyes:

[ExSp33db1rd]

Capot - try [email protected], works for everyone else in BA Mgmt. so worth a go ( if that bounces try [email protected] ) but .......... he won't reply. I wrote a real letter, and paid for a stamp from New Zealand, asking him why he is removing my Staff Travel just 'cos I'm a pensioner and he can and I can't fight back, and I got an insipid reply from a grovelling accolyte. Man's a 4 letter word beginning with C. Serving staff take note, you will retire one day too. Kick the bast..d into touch - fast.

[M.Mouse]

As I have said in an earlier post, many BA cabin crew are on new contracts already and are in the majority.

And have failed to point out that the new pay scales/contracts converge with the old.

In your post where you are offensive about Budapest you also mention your new SLK. Being able to afford a new SLK when doing a job which requires a few weeks training and no particular skills other than an ability to talk to people rather proves the point that you are grossly overpaid.

[SR71]

And Freddie Laker. How low was his cost base?


Not low enough!

Laker Airways went bust owing huge amounts of money (although there were extenuating circumstances).

I have to say, it is my contention, that whilst Laker was a maverick (The Henry Ford of air travel?), he was somewhat instrumental in destroying any residual pricing power in the industry.

Whenever you decouple the price of a service from its intrinsic cost, you're complicating your business model...

I hazard a guess most reasonable individuals would quite willingly take a less militant view on the protection of their T&C's in a climate where their very job was threatened.

Thankfully this thread shows you're a minority voice....

:ok:

[charliecc]

M.Mouse, what do you mean about new and old pay scales converging? I'm new contract, and when I reach the top of the main crew pay scale, will be earning signigicantly less than somebody at the top of the old contract main crew pay scale. Just wanted to point that out.

I think it's fairly clear that WW was brought in with a remit to slash costs and increase profits. As IFS must be the biggest department, it seems pretty logical to start there (although I don't know if IFS headcount costs more than say flight crew headcount?). Personally, I think there's a game being played out here. I think Columbus was leaked on purpose to send cabin crew into a tail spin. And it worked!

[eagle21]

M.Mouse doing a job which requires a few weeks training and no particular skills other than an ability to talk to people rather proves the point that you are grossly overpaid

It just shows that you don't fully understand the cabin crew job, in the same way that many cabin crew don't understand what pilots do.

I have experience both and I always remember that is the skill of the cabin crew to work as a competent team, communicate effectively and fight a fire that may one day save my life should a fire break inflight in the cabin. ( This is just one many examples)

[M.Mouse]

...cabin crew to work as a competent team, communicate effectively and fight a fire that may one day save my life should a fire break inflight in the cabin. ( This is just one many examples)

Does that mean that the LGW BA CC earning a fraction of the salaries of those employed at LHR are likely to be less effective?

That is a worry.

[eagle21]

M.MouseDoes that mean that the LGW BA CC earning a fraction of the salaries of those employed at LHR are likely to be less effective?

That is a worry.

You hit the nail!

In fact yes it is less effective, this is why the fire fighting procedure had to be changed when 3 crew where introduced on the A319s at LGW, it had always had involved 4 people.

So it already shows how on the name of cost cutting, safety procedures had to be ammended,...

Saving measures sometimes cut corners, and this is not good.

What i was referring to anyway is at the lack of awareness that you displayed with your comment of what skills the cabin crew role require.


Whe are going from Safety, Efficiency, Economy to Economy, Efficiency and last safety in our industry, and this will show on the statistics sooner than what we think.

[SR71]

eagle21,

I've done both roles too in the airline context....

The CAA mandate minimum crew complements...presumably on the basis of some fairly rigorous risk analyses...

I suggest the statistics show no appreciable increase in risk when operating aircraft with less than 150 seats using 3 CC members...

I also agree with M.Mouse and suggest that an airline paying CC members up to 2-3 times what an A&E Nurse might make is, frankly, ludicrous...

Still it's your airline....

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if offered the choice, in the near future, of a significant pay-cut or redundancy...

[pacplyer]

I have just waded through this tumultuous thread.

My observations: Valid positions from both sides of the argument. In my lifetime experience in Aviation, here is what will happen:

Management's not stupid. They see the combination of environmental pressures and Oil company greed converging which will likely wipe out most of the world's airlines at $200/barrel. They are already packing their golden parachutes (getting ready to raid pension funds,) just in case, so they can join 411A (a most interesting individual who adds a lot to this debate) on the golf course in Arizona, or so they can rub elbows with Dick Cheney at the Ballroom in Dubai.

Worse case scenario: They will use this crisis to completely gut all pay and benefits all sides of the cockpit door. Only an SOS (industry-wide Suspension of Service) has any chance of bringing government to it's senses and excluding the ruinous taxes that hamper the industry. Both management and Labor could join together to halt this erosion of Airline fortunes and erosion of airline safety for passengers. Even if this very necessary public transportation sector is made tax-free, many airlines are still going down anyway as credit is drying up with the 2/3 bank defaults to go in that distressed deregulated industry.

Yep: The Texas Chimp has screwed us all big time. Rather than bickering over the few slim bananas left, we need to realize this is part of a bigger global war against the middle class. We must make friends in government in short order, or we will go the way of the transatlantic Ocean steamers: Made Obsolete by plummeting world fortunes and better ways of getting your business done across the ocean (cheap virtual conference perhaps.)

How could this be done? Get your management to approve for the first time in it's history, a Union message on the PA to your captive audience, that they should consider signing a total airline tax exemption petition in order to guarantee adequate maintenance and crew rest for their safety's sake.

Soliciting Safety is bound to meet with success, and be a winner for everybody until (if ever) oil prices stabilize.

All comments welcome. What do you think?

pac

[411A]

Get your management to approve for the first time in it's history, a Union message on the PA to your captive audience...

Fat chance that's likely to happen, in todays contentious management/employee diatribe.

What is needed (in the USA especially) is realistic ticket prices, to reflect the cost of doing business.

Will less folks fly?
More than likely.

However, this will have a side benefit...less air traffic, less need for more runways/ATC controllers, etc.

The downside?
Junior folks out the door on furlough, and for the ones that remain, slower advancement to the LHS, especially now that the max retirement age has risen to 65.

[HZ123]

'and excluding the ruinous taxes that hamper the industry'

pacplayer;Some very good points but for the above as in the UK the industry has been short changing the government and the tax payer for decades, time to face upp to the hard facts and why is it middle classes issues?

[rubik101]

As mentioned above, less traffic is a silver lining for all, in many ways, not least, BAA who will not need all these new runways they want in the SE of UK. Fewer and less attractive jobs in aviation will mean a downturn for training schools, agencies, outsource and ancillary companies, caterers, engineering and so on and so on. The loss of jobs in all these places will be considerable, leading to further drains on the Social Security budget, and all this at a time of falling revenues for the treasury. The rise in fuel tax will soon be offset by the reduction in consumption as people tighten their belts. Less, spending, less tax revenue, more borrowing, low growth, inflation due to rising prices....result..well you don't need a crystal ball to see where we are going.
If anyone thinks that life will be the same or even only slightly worse in the 2010s, they are living on another planet.
Airlines will be among the first to reduce capacity, reduce costs and retrench in an effort to survive. Some are better able to adapt than others. I would suggest that airlines that are already lean and mean, the bottom feeders, will be the survivors while the dinosaurs become extinct.
Luxury or gas guzzling cars, SLKs perhaps, holidays to beautiful, clean civilised Budapest, eating out and the kids trips to Alton Towers will be the first to suffer, among others.
Individuals, including PIB, might want to look long into the future and plan accordingly. It ain't going to get any better in the near or distant future.
Thread drift rather alters the thrust of the original title with regard to WW and BA because it will affect the whole aviation industry.

[Glamgirl]

PiB,

You suggested that Jetsetlady and myself is the same person. Not true at all. We can prove it.

You are doing yourself no favours here at all.

Claiming that your son did a PPL at 17 but decided on a different career. How old were you when he was born? 4? 8? 11? I'm saying this, because you age is showing as 34...

Your offensive remark about Budapest being in a third world country shows that you're living on a different planet than the rest of us.

You seem to accuse anyone who works for BA who don't agree with you to be management.

Your head seems either too far up in the clouds or up your own backside, I can't quite figure out which one it is.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Cuts are going to happen (they've been happening for years). It does not mean I agree with it, I'm just looking at it from a survival aspect.

Yes, I could go and work in the City or wherever I pretty much like (I do have a degree or two) for better money than I earn now. However, I would rather have job satisfaction and be happy within myself, as long as I can earn enough to house, feed and clothe myself, instead of earning plenty more money and not be happy. Money isn't everything for everyone.

As has been mentioned on this thread before, where were the unions when SFLGW t&c's were agreed? Did you contact management when Alpha Catering Scotland had to cut 600 jobs because BA decided to do return catering on Domestics? Did you give any support to LGW when we were cut to the bone? We've had most of our European night stops taken away. We lost most of our DF routes. We operate with 3 crew on most short haul flights. We earn less than LHR folks (didn't you mention something about a EU law preventing this from happening?). Have you been involved in the cuts at other departments in BA? They are being scaled down in a way we've never imagined. Some of our ground staff (check-in, drivers, ops etc) have had to apply for a flying job or leave altogether. I can't see you defending these colleagues who've been with the company for probably a lot longer than you.

Now, if you could maybe grow up a bit, and stop throwing your toys out of the pram and learn to not be so arrogant, the world will be a happier place, I reckon.

Gg

(apologies to everyone else for another long post)

[rubik101]

Methinks the clock is confused! I was asleep when I made my last post!

[Sick Squid]

This thread has been hijacked, once again, by attention-whores and ego-massagers. Their input has now largely gone. Had they demonstrated sufficient maturity of debate, their input would be welcome, however.... well, they didn't, so rather than close a sensible thread, their little gems can disappear into the ether. Problem with that, then other site go towards. Please.

What part of "play the ball, not the player" is too hard for some of you to grasp? In the future, myself and the other moderators won't bother wasting the 2 minutes of our lives it takes to write notices like this, it'll just be done, to keep the site on track editorially.

Debate the topic, leave the personal attacks and ego-massaging to one side and we'll all get along.

[pacplyer]

HZ123,

I intended to answer how I feel that Labor statues in the U.S. have been largely ignored by the courts, and that Aviation's only hope, imho, is to have a solution develop where labor law is still strong.... Like at BA.

[VAFFPAX]

If you are LGW crew then the state of their shorthaul a/c are crap and the 77 are little better. Not that we can boast about the LHR stuff other than being newer therefore less worn.
From a pax perspective, the 73x at LGW are in not a bad condition at all.

S.

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

This is my first post! I have read the whole thread and I was at the BASSA meeting last Monday at Bedfont.

Having been someone who volunteered to help on the changeover to T5, I feel very let down by British Airways over their proposals with Operation Columbus. It is a stab in the back.

Although PiB has an 'abrasive' style, I do agree with a lot of what he says. We must stand up and be counted. I do not agree with Gg and Jet Set Girl that all of this is inevitable. They have nothing to give up anyway at Gatwick.

Wilie Walsh has been very lucky to hang onto his job after T5. Why?

I would support industrial action and it would be a fight to the death.

[Hotel Mode]

I feel very let down by British Airways over their proposals

Where are the proposals? As far as i can see nothing has been proposed by anyone but BASSA.

[overstress]

T C or Me

Good luck, you sound intelligent, welcome to PPRuNe

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

I want to pick up on a point mentioned earlier in this thread about British Airways announcing cuts to this winter season, whilst at the same time expanding Openskies.

Are British Airways shareholders aware of the resources that are being used to support Openskies, when cut backs are expected at BA Mainline out of LHR? OS I am told will be a loss making operation for years in the current climate. Other airlines are trying to save money, yet BA are spending many millions supporting this new venture.

I have just got back from JFK/JFK back to back trip. Whilst our load factors on the 747-400 were almost 100%, groundstaff at JFK said that the OS 757 only at best has loads of up to 30 passengers. With the winter approaching, will this be sustainable? How much shareholder money is BA prepared to lose on Openskies?

[PAXboy]

Tea Coffee Or MeWilie Walsh has been very lucky to hang onto his job after T5. Why?This was covered earlier in the thread, methinks.

Looking (briefly) at the way corporates behave when there is an almighty clanx up, the Board tend to react in one of three ways.
Immediately fire the person at the top.
Pretend that everything in the garden is actually just fine but, behind the scenes, hand out some punishment.
Apologise for disruption and state that everything is under control. However, the person at the top will realise that the skids are under them. This usually results in the person leaving a few years later with a small bonus and a big laurel wreath saying what a fabulous job has been done.I suspect that Willie is in for the third BUT if he pulls them through the recession OK - then he will be safe.

The main reason for not going for option one is that it confirms to shareholders and the world that they (the main board) made a mistake. That would put the individual members of the Board at risk of being unseated by the shareholders and the Board do not want to lose their lovely jobs.

Time will tell if my thoughts are too cynical ...

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

Already there are instances where passengers who would have booked BA from JFK to CDG via LHR, are being encouraged to fly Openskies to Orly.

Allegedly upgrades are being offered as a sweetener. If this is true, not only is BA Mainline paying and subsidising OS, we are losing customers to the operation as well.

[Seat62K]

Good point. I think that the official BA line is that OS is not competing with/taking business from Mainline. Given the congestion at LHR I can see the sense of having fewer Continental pax transiting through this airport. There's probably nothing new in BA thinking this way: I seem to remember that one of the reasons why a merger with KLM looked so attractive to BA was the idea that UK regional pax could be routed via AMS rather than LHR.

[d71146]

Personally I believe you are spot on.

[King Halibut]

My mate told some BA blokes the other day who he worked for (OS) and they started booing him and that's the sort of attitude you expect from high living BA dandies now!
If your BA loads are 100% etc blah blah and OS not filling them then you've got nothing to worry about have you?
I expect OS is there to take the market away from the yank airlines.

[Flying Grasshopper]

100% load factors mean diddly squat.......it is all about yield, you can always fill an aeroplane.
I notice that you have just done a "back to back" forgive me but I thought this network is for Professional Pilots!:=

[VAFFPAX]

I seem to remember that one of the reasons why a merger with KLM looked so attractive to BA was the idea that UK regional pax could be routed via AMS rather than LHR.
That's already the case anyway - I know of several frequent flyers who transit via AMS from airports in the north and east of the country, because it's less hassle than to even try LHR.

S.

[900]

On 1st July PIB posted
"Apparently Walsh is trying to sue BALPA over damage to reputation caused by the Opensewer row.This is the sort of person we are dealing with and people like you give him succour when they read your comments. Most of the staff of BA only got .8 of a weeks bonus pay, whilst Walsh and other Directors get 100%."
1. WW did not sue BALPA. BALPA sued BA and ended up withdrawing their suit and paying costs.
2. You say that BA directors got 100% bonus. 100% of what? A week? A month? A year's salary? Easy to write, not easy to substantiate. BASSA behaviour writ large. Chuck around some garbage, if it lands, it'll smell.
3. I understood WW refused his bonus.
4. Will you turn yours down?
Oh, and since it was mentioned, if BA wants to increase it's capacity to recruit CC or reduce it's recruitment needs, it can do so without drawing breath.
Keep howling at the moon!

[Joetom]

Excuse the drift on to OS, but.

In the future we will see passengers flying LON-PAR-NYC on BA.

In the future we will see passengers flying PAR-LON-NYC/LAX on AF

This list will grow and grow.

This may not be a very Green way to go.

Most Airlines will be in for a bumpy ride the next 3 years, some will fair better than others, it will be interesting to see how AZ fair.

[900]

Coffee says
"Already there are instances where passengers who would have booked BA from JFK to CDG via LHR, are being encouraged to fly Openskies to Orly.

Allegedly upgrades are being offered as a sweetener. If this is true, not only is BA Mainline paying and subsidising OS, we are losing customers to the operation as well."

More BASSA "news management" I fear.

Fuel at $145+ a barrel and you're worried about a 6 or 7 hull airline?

Yikes!!

[King Halibut]

Openskies ROCKS, but not as much as BA mainline. You BA clowns should try working for some of the ****house airlines we have to fly for!!

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

Willie Walsh did not turn down his bonus, but deferred it. You need to get your facts right 900. He has also had a £35,000 pay rise this year.

On a recent trip, the junior two ringer First Officer was an ex RyanAir Captain. He gave up to come to BA because he said his prevous job was "killing him".

Unfortunately 900, todays 5 or 7 hull airline will become much larger, based on the pay and conditions that the ex RyanAir Captain has joined BA to avoid. Also this "airline" is flying very fuel inefficient 757's at oil at U$145 a barrel as you point out.

BA profit share was less than a weeks salary for the majority of employees. Directors were entitled to a years pay as a bonus, which is 100% by the way 900. Do you really fly airplanes?

Of course, you would like to see pay and conditions for your pilot colleagues reduced to that of RyanAir. What an achievement that would be!

[HZ123]

BA Mainline paying and subsidising OS, we are losing customers to the operation as well."

This is exactly what happened with GO so why does it seem to be a suprise. Any start up will always offer upgrades and perks to gain a customer base asap. Its business?

[Carnage Matey!]

1. WW did not sue BALPA. BALPA sued BA and ended up withdrawing their suit and paying costs.

BALPA didn't sue BA at all. They went to court for a ruling on whether Article 43 of the Treaty of Rome applied to a dispute. That is not the same as suing BA.

3. I understood WW refused his bonus.

According to the Chief Financial Officer he didn't qualify for one and was not offered one.

[M.Mouse]

1. WW did not sue BALPA. BALPA sued BA and ended up withdrawing their suit and paying costs.

As Carnage points out BALPA didn't 'sue BA' but BA did sue BALPA for damages in a counter suit.

[L337]

You BA clowns should try working for some of the ****house airlines we have to fly for!!

Fishhead: I might be a clown, but at least I was not stupid enough to stay flying for the ****house airlines that you still do.

[Shaka Zulu]

@ King Halibut,

stop sniping away, it's obvious you failed the BA interview (25th June) after flying for Jet2 (which you refer to as one of your ****house airlines). We're only trying to keep what we've got. Stop calling me a BA clown just because I am now BA 'mainline'. I used to fly for a ****house airline, but actually did something about it and tried to improve T&C's.
We have enough sad snipers who think other people will solve their issues.

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

THe same can be said for BA cabin crew, many of whom came from "****house" airlines. PiB took a lot of stick on this forum, but he is right about defending T&C's at BA.

No Cabin Crew have ever left BA to go fly for VIRGIN, it is all one way traffic. As PiB said earlier in the thread, it is only people who didn't make the grade who are so vocal about BA employees having their T&C's cut.

[Slim20]

It's amusing listening to the quaint views of the BA blow-hards that BA is "the best" and T&C's "must be defended at all costs if it is to remain so".

The outrageous T&C's that BA enjoy are there because 1) they were industry standard when they were introduced and 2) no-one in management ever had the stomach for the fight that would ensue bringing them back to "normal" standards 20 years later.

For 20 years flight and cabin crew unions haven't had to "fight" anyone for retaining these unbelieveably generous T&C's, they've just had to grumble a few threats and the management cave in for an easy life. Only now that the company is facing real long-term problems has anyone in senior management pulled their finger out of their @$$es to "fight" and look what happens? They won without a fight. What message has that sent throughout the company? More is to come no doubt.

So now we get a bunch of hand-wringing about "big" BA vs. "little" BALPA and how it's an unfair fight, uneven playing field etc etc. It's taken this long for the management to realise this, and now they WILL win regardless.

We can all lose sleep and reduce flight safety by moaning and whingeing about it all the working day, but it's time to face the facts - BA is a dinosaur, flying crew are grossly pampered and overpaid for what we do, and LGW/OS is the future of mainline.

The current management team have realised that the best way to survive and grow in the current climate is to reduce highly-paid employee longevity by reducing the starting conditions for new joiners (eg BARP pension, LGW/LHR new joiners contracts) and to pi$$ off the middle order of the current serving employees and drive some of them out the door. From the stuff in this thread, that strategy is working well!

[King Halibut]

Shaka Zulu, seem to remember he got shafted in the end by his own people. You are a **** dinosaur.
I'll go for BA again next year just because it has the best T&Cs in the market and that's my motivation for getting in, nothing else!
You're the spiteful sort of cabbage that has been recently been refusing OS pilots jumpseats.

[ShortfinalFred]

Hi Slim20. Who do you fly for please? How long in the industry and what entry point. I'll start: BA 20 years, longhaul command, rated on every jet in the company except one, joined as a direct entry pilot with my own CPL-IR, (after 2 years on a university air squadron). Also qualifed as a professional in another field. I'm interested as I think this will give a perspective on the views expressed here.

What do you think is a fair reward for flying a longhaul jet, or indeed a shorthaul one? What is the "bottom line" for you in salary terms and will you be willing to work for it - if so, how and why? I am interested in what motivates people in an industry where salaries terms and conditions only go backwards and where ostensibly "fellow professionals" call for this process to deepen and accelerate.

[411A]

****The outrageous T&C's that BA enjoy are there because 1) they were industry standard when they were introduced and 2) no-one in management ever had the stomach for the fight that would ensue bringing them back to "normal" standards 20 years later.

For 20 years flight and cabin crew unions haven't had to "fight" anyone for retaining these unbelieveably generous T&C's, they've just had to grumble a few threats and the management cave in for an easy life. Only now that the company is facing real long-term problems has anyone in senior management pulled their finger out of their @$$es to "fight" and look what happens? They won without a fight. What message has that sent throughout the company? More is to come no doubt.

So now we get a bunch of hand-wringing about "big" BA vs. "little" BALPA and how it's an unfair fight, uneven playing field etc etc. It's taken this long for the management to realise this, and now they WILL win regardless.

We can all lose sleep and reduce flight safety by moaning and whingeing about it all the working day, but it's time to face the facts - BA is a dinosaur, flying crew are grossly pampered and overpaid for what we do, and LGW/OS is the future of mainline.

The current management team have realised that the best way to survive and grow in the current climate is to reduce highly-paid employee longevity by reducing the starting conditions for new joiners (eg BARP pension, LGW/LHR new joiners contracts) and to pi$$ off the middle order of the current serving employees and drive some of them out the door. From the stuff in this thread, that strategy is working well!****

Summed up quite nicely, I think...this is the reality now.
Those who have their heads in the sand, will lose out, big time.

[PAXboy]

pax speaking
ShortfinalFred... in an industry where salaries terms and conditions only go backwards ...The reason for that is - the greatest majority of manufacturing industry in the Western world had their Ts&Cs realigned (or terminated) in the late 1980s. For the greatest majority of clerical and other folks, that realignment came in the early 1990s after the recession of 1989/92. e.g. a friend of mine in IT enjoyed high rates in 1990 but which then dropped by 50%.

The airlines had some corrections post 9/11 and the acceleration of LCCs was part of it - but the BIG correction to current day market value is going to happen in this recession.

... and where ostensibly "fellow professionals" call for this process to deepen and accelerate.Perhaps they are just being realistic? They have looked at commercial operations of all types around the globe; they have looked at the crisis in housing, finance and oil; they have decided that a job on reduced conditions is better than no job.

Whatever their reasons are and whatever our views are - the truth is that Ts&Cs are going to be realigned. That will happen by negotiation, instruction, merger, company failure. Take your pick.

Yes, it's horrible and I've been through redundancy and having to take other jobs that were not even my third choice just to pay the mortgage.

[SR71]

ShortfinalFred,

What do you think is a fair reward for flying a longhaul jet, or indeed a shorthaul one? What is the "bottom line" for you in salary terms and will you be willing to work for it - if so, how and why?

You only have to look at this thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/terms-endearment/271434-what-your-take-home-pay-end-month.html to see what most pilots are making...

Far be it from me to presume on our friend slim20 shady, but I imagine he might say something like halfway between OS T&C's and your Mainline T&C's?

No-one in their right mind ought to sit back and let their T&C's be eroded without a fight, and I'd be surprised if many paypoint 20+ BA flightdeck weren't the most vociferous opponents of such erosion, but a legacy carrier is a legacy carrier for a reason....

Many pilots are prepared to work for a lot less than BA are offering...unfortunately what you think ought to be the bottom line doesn't really matter as the CoG of the industry has shifted since the 80's....

The only potential upside protecting T&C's I can see at the moment (and its a longshot) is the effect EASA re-jigging JAR-FCL flightcrew licensing might have on the supply side if it means JAR training cannot be conducted in the USA...

But if the industry is shrinking anyway...

[spider_man]

No doubt high yield traffic is less influenced by fuel price than economy/low cost traffic. OS is well placed in this respect. OS also reduces BA's exposure to the UK economy and approaching recession. The BA cash cow of LHR is up for the slaughter over the next three years with all the industry changes we are seeing and OS seems a good risk spreading strategy.

I'm sure the breakeven LF is much lower for an OS 757 than it is for a mainline 747. If they filled the biz cabin alone at full fare (28 seats) I would imagine most direct operating costs are covered.

Lastly, we see BA shuttles leaving London with less than 30 pax on board (737/757) all the time. A mate of mine flew LGW-MAN B737 at the weekend with six (6!) passengers on board, all economy. That wouldnt even pay for the catering!

[hunterboy]

What a shame that many of our colleagues undervalue themselves. Ironic , given that just about every other profession is talking themselves and their T&C's up. I guess market forces has nothing to do with the price of jet fuel or aeroplanes going up, rather that there are people willing to undercut present employees to get their foot in the door. Taken to the extreme, everybody in Europe had better start quaking as we get swamped by the East outsourcing everybodies work on the grounds that it is "market forces" at work. There will come a point where it is not worth doing the job (for me). For me, that equates to about 130K a year. It isn't about physically doing the job, but the bull**** that comes with it. Having had 20 years of airline flying, it is mainly the money that keeps me going to work. Sadly, I'm in a job that many would do for free, at least initially. And there is the rub. Give it a few years and most of these people eventually realise that they also need to pay the bills. They also look around and see their neighbours getting at least the same money or more for seemingly inane jobs.
What is the answer? Relying on airline management to "do the right thing" and pay what you are worth would lead to big bonuses being trousered all round in such places as Waterside. We are forced to rely on the unions. Many of us feel uncomfortable at this,however, we have little choice.
Sadly, there are many people such as 411A (for example) ready to take advantage and ratchet down any real or perceived benefits that a particular job/profession may have. One wonders whether they ratchet
their own package down, or whether that is just "pour las autres"?

[Carnage Matey!]

I'll go for BA again next year just because it has the best T&Cs in the market and that's my motivation for getting in, nothing else!

Then I suspect you will be disappointed again.

You're the spiteful sort of cabbage that has been recently been refusing OS pilots jumpseats.

Would those be the same OS pilots who are trying to pass themselves off as BA pilots to try to get a flight deck jumpseat that they are not authorised to use?

[411A]

Sadly, there are many people such as 411A (for example) ready to take advantage and ratchet down any real or perceived benefits that a particular job/profession may have. One wonders whether they ratchet
their own package down, or whether that is just "pour las autres"?



Actually, hunterboy, you would be quite mistaken.
Quite nice salaries are paid, however one is expected to work for these renumerations, not sit at home for fifteen days per month, clipping coupons.
Management?
In a small complany where I am presently, 18 hour days are not uncommon and, we have the responsibility of raising the original investment funding in the first place...not an easy task, especially today.
One thing we most definitely do not do, is go up against the big boys, who have quite deep pockets...as the BA pilots found out, no doubt to their complete dismay.

[HZ123]

Like so many threads I fear this one has been hyjacked, as often gone completely off the point. Much of that is due to the fact that we at BA are so far up are own backsides. Should some of us feel that this not the case then I apologise, I accept that a small number of BA staff are aware of the difficulties that the industry is in? It ill serves us to be trotting out our T & C issues ad nauseum.

[Ancient Observer]

HZ123 makes the only sensible comment in 8 pages of, er, "contributions".

[BusyB]

411A

"18 hour days are not uncommon "

Is this with a 2 or 3 man crew?:confused:

[Ancient Observer]

As we all know, there never was any justification for the 900 hour limit. Now the EU run this stuff, rather than the CAAs of this world, what are the chances of BA et al getting the EU to up the hours to help them keep up their profits? I imagine that EU airlines are better lobbyists as a collective than the Euro-Balpas?

[bermudatriangle]

just read a report from a leading group of economists who suggest that oil prices will fall to $70 per barrel within 6 months,due to increased production and slump in demand due to current unsustainable prices.if this is the case,which i tend to agree with,then any substantial changes to current terms and conditions will be of uncalculable benefit to the employers and prove disastrous for employees.now is not the time to cave in to management threats over the economic outlook.short term,things are very very bad,we will all agree,but as always with these extreme swings in any economic market,normality returns.concessions on pay and conditions are never,ever re-instated,as we all know only too well.

[411A]

411A

"18 hour days are not uncommon "

Is this with a 2 or 3 man crew?



Three man FD, in case you are wondering.
We value our professional Flight Engineers, Lockheed trained, without exception.
We also carry three maintenance engineers (also, all Lockheed trained)...and by doing so, are fully serviceable, all the time.
We simply don't know the meaning of a maintenace delay...everything fixed, full stop.
In ACMI ops, nothing else will do.

[HZ123]

'just read a report from a leading group of economists who suggest that oil prices will fall to $70 per barrel within 6 months'. This group must have a column in 'OK' magazine because they must surely be the only people that think like this. It is fair to say that there have been periods during which fuel per barrel has levelled out but the chance of it dropping 50%? No way!

[411A]

....out but the chance of it dropping 50%? No way!

Want to bet?
Those of us who have been around in the airline world for a long time...nothing surprises.:ooh:

[BusyB]

411A,

Safety, due fatigue, must obviously be a problem. How do you manage 18hr duties with current FTL's?:confused:

[bermudatriangle]

HZ123 are you an economist or a pilot ?? nobody can predict what will happen,however these guys spend all their time calculating many different influences on economic parameters.in general their long term forcasts tend to prove correct.i also believe their conclusions are based on current observations about the oil price and economies in general.lets be patient and just wait and see.chat to you again in 6 months time maybe.

[Carnage Matey!]

He's neither. He's a ramp instructor at Cranebank.

[Shaka Zulu]

@ King Halibut,

I wasn't going to post again because reasoning is sadly lacking.
The Reason for not allowing OS pilots on FD Jumpseats is quite simple: It's not allowed by our Ops Manual. I surely will not directly contravene it and risk losing my job.
We allow BA mainline and CitiExpress guys because that's the way it's written. If BA/BALPA decide to change it then you are more than welcome to join us up front if it's busy.
For OS pilots to pose like BA pilots and so blag themselves onto the FD and then cry wolf because they are denied access is beyond me....
You are welcome to our Cabin Jumpseats (in my aircraft anyway), the Captain will decide on the day, his decision.

As for the point of selection: please try again, it's not easy and sometimes involves a bit of luck. Right place right time...

I hope OS pilots and BA pilots can find mutual respect, we'll both need it with the way aviation is going.

And for anyone who STILL believes we are on sky high T&C's think again. The chestnut comes round and round again. I would have been much better off sticking it out with the previous company, I made a lifestyle choice and happy with it.
Our salaries are quite nicely benchmarked and if 411A was bothered to look he could see that the topscale salary at KLM with current exchange rates is about 25% higher than BA's paypoint 24. AND they get a 13th month/ Final Salary Pension thrown in.
All this bitterness and resentment is slowly forcing this job down the pipe hole, all because of our competitive nature to fly.. No wonder we are easily exploitable bunnies.

[Glamgirl]

Quote from TeaCoffee:

No Cabin Crew have ever left BA to go fly for VIRGIN, it is all one way traffic.

Unquote.


TeaCoffee, the above statement from you is not correct. I know plenty of BA crew who have joined Virgin, Qantas, JAL, Emirates, Etihad and Easyjet to name a few.

Now, back to topic...

Gg

[411A]

Safety, due fatigue, must obviously be a problem. How do you manage 18hr duties with current FTL's?

Not a problem at all, Busy B, we have extra crew available, called...augmented.
Paid accordingly, they smile all the way to the bank.

From some of the comments here, it would really appear that (more than) a few FD crew have truly forgotten how to actually work for a living.
I am truly sorry for these folks, for in these particular times, it is the effort of the employees, paid accordingly, that make the difference.

It is the smaller low cost airlines that will survive, all the rest will die on the vine.
Legacy airlines, unless they change accordingly, are in the same sinking boat.

Fact.

[Sunfish]

Whistling past the graveyard are we 411A?

[411A]

Whistling past the graveyard are we 411A?

Could be...but OTOH, we have just signed a sub-service contract with another carrier, and they provide the fuel.
Profits assured.

[Railgun]

Word has it that WW met with senior T&GWU officials and has stated that they should not worry, its not just crew he is after, its the whole airline.

[FlyingTom]

I'm with Bermudatriangle and the economists.

BA really think oil will peak at $190. Their wails of dispair are intended to cause stress and achieve concessions from employees and shareholders.

Remember weapons of mass distruction.

Remember global warning.

Remember the millenium bug.

All fear stories to obtain someones personal fantasy.

Be afraid, be very afraid. It always works when herding sheep.

[King Halibut]

I hate to sound reasonable but you make a fair point Shaka :}

[PAXboy]

BA chiefs fly into heavy flak at AGM

The Independent By Nick Clark Wednesday, 16 July 2008

British Airways endured a bumpy ride at its annual general meeting in London yesterday, after shareholders voiced a series of grievances [snip] and called for chief executive Willie Walsh's head over Terminal 5's troubled opening.

[snip]

One investor said Mr Walsh should have resigned over the Terminal 5 affair, which instead saw two directors depart. He said: "Why were two long-standing junior managers dismissed when he is still here?" The shareholder turned on Mr Broughton, saying: "The chief executive should be considered for replacement, and so, given your complacency, should you."

The chairman and the chief executive apologised for T5's opening, which another shareholder called a "disaster". Mr Walsh said: "We made mistakes and we let people down. Though the mistakes were by no means the sole preserve of BA, we held our hands up, we took responsibility and we apologised." The executives added that it was now working well, and that they received daily letters and emails praising the terminal.

Article continues
BA chiefs fly into heavy flak at AGM - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ba-chiefs-fly-into-heavy-flak-at-agm-868728.html)
This demonstrates that Main Board Directors are running SOPs:

Fire the juniors [Apply t/o thrust]
Apologise to prove that you are nice really [V1]
Protect the Board at all costs [Positive Rate, Gear up]
Keep apologising as you keep your job [Clear LTMA]

[jonsgym]

What I am finding hard to understand in this thread is why so many people think that it is wrong for a senior cabin crew member working for BA to earn 50 to 60k pa. I gave the BA example as it was quoted earlier in this thread. It could be pilots, engineers in any airline. Any one in fact who joined the company( BA) many years ago. During their long career is it wrong for them to progress up the ladder and achieve increases along the way? If after over 40 years their salary is higher than others who joined after them on different pay scales, so what. Everyone makes a choice when taking a job and the fact that others may be earning a lot more than you because of when they started the job should be considered if it if you find it so unpalatable.
I understand that some pilots do not earn 60k sterling pa and that their training is a lot tougher than cabin crews. But it is not the fault of the senior cabin crew member who is earning 60k. But simply the fact that 40+ years of service have played there part in accruing that wage. It seems that wages and conditions are getting worse for all flying personnel but I don't think it seems fair to say those sort of pay scales are unjustified when so many different factors contribute to them length of employment being a major factor.

[BusyB]

411A,

You didn't mention heavy crews in your first reply. Perhaps you've reconsidered the legality of what you had said!!!

As it happens it seems that some high end carriers and some low end carriers will do very well out of this cutback. I suspect its the mid-level ones that will struggle.:)

[Tiger]

Lets also add that tha UK isn`t the cheapest of places to live in the world.

As oil seems to be the current topic of the airline world, lets say that petrol in the north London area ranges from 117.9p-120.9p a litre.

UK house prices were erm high.. check out UK house estate agent websites, so renting? See the renting sites. Check out supermarket sites will give you a idea of our food prices. Car prices, check the UK sites especially vers the US ones.

Then convert those prices into US $ (yes I`m looking at those who live in the western US) or those who like to bang on regarding market rates.

[redfred]

If you think that is bad I can assure you that some of BA ramp staff take £40000 - £59999 and they are industrial staff.

have you heard of overtime?

[bmi330boy]

Having come over to ba from bmi...... THE MONEY IS NOT THAT MUCH MORE!!!! (Maybe a coulpe of hundred quid on a good month). Also other airlines cabin crew get promoted after no time at all. It still takes a number of years at ba. How many 19 yr old sccm's do you see on ba flights???? For us new contract crew who have done only a couple of years at ba we could be an sccm at most other airlines by now earning MORE money! Its not all the bed of roses its made out to be. Yes I love ba for the destinations, people etc but I dont earn any more money here than I would be on had I stayed with bmi and gone for sccm.

[rubik101]

I would like to see this report by so-called experts who think oil will be $70/bbl by 2009. I can only assume they have sold large quantities of oil for the last quarter of this year at prices well below $140/bbl and are desperately trying to talk the price down! Brokers are set to lose many $Billions in the next 12 months after having sold oil futures around $100/bbl.
Every forecast I have read in the recent past forecasts the price to remain stable at around $150/bbl and then to increase again to around$170/bbl by 2010. Not one report, of many I have read, forecasts a reduction below $130/bbl any time soon.
The era of cheap oil is long gone. (Unless you have an airline based above an oil well!)
Many years ago, the car producing countries around the world had numerous manufacturers churning out myriad models. Post war economies were tight and many manufacturers went under or were bought out by larger, stronger competitors. The airline industry is going through exactly the same process now.
It is no good trying to ignore the fact that there will be cutbacks, redundancies, takeovers and closures. Jobs will go and recovery will be slow and take many years, if it comes at all.
A few entrepreneurs have tried to start new car companies but almost all have failed in the past.
The airline industry will fare little better, I fear.

[CHINOOKER]

To all those having a pop at groundstaff and what they are currently earning,i will try and "enlighten" you as to the reasons why!
Within BA engineering,on the ramp side,we are currently short of,(depending on which manager you talk to), between 50 and 100 engineers,to successfully run the T4/T5 operation!. This is due to many factors ie retirements/people leaving for other careers etc. Initially management tried to "firefight this problem using TOIL,(time off in lieu),until they realised that many staff had "banked" so much time off, that it became a non viable solution!. Couple this with the problems encountered with the baggage operation, where cost cutting has left BA short of baggage handlers etc and the following scenario is now occuring on an almost daily basis......BA now has engineers working overtime carrying out baggage handling,(deemed essential as late/lost bags is bad PR) ...whilst other engineers are now doing overtime covering for the engineers doing baggage handling!!...crazy or what!
In the past this situation could have been alleviated somewhat by using hangar based staff to fill the shortfalls,but guess what,in another cost cutting move a few years ago the majority of hangar staff had thier HAL passes revoked in favour of a "less flexible" basic engineering pass.....HAL passes then costed about £100 each to set up plus the "Disclosure" element.
With regard to the hangar staff,overtime is a more or less long forgotten element of thier daily lives!....Here you get offered TOIL as a general re-imbursement and you have to dig your heels in to get offered paid overtime! Hence staff here,over the last few years, have become somewhat dissolusioned with the whole way the place is being operated and many have "jumped ship"
Nowadays it's not unusual to see an aircraft sit on a stand at base for long periods as there are simply no staff available to work it,nor is it strange to see two guys trying to change a GE90 on thier own!
BA corporately has simply cut back too far with regard to certain elements of it's staff and my personal fear is that this situation is only going to get worse!
Too few are now too stretched in order to run the operation and meltdown cannot be far away if the present trends continue!

[PAXboy]

CHINOOKER gives an admirable description of the self-inflicted 'death by a thousand small cuts'. The same process is being used on the National Health Service, stories of which I hear through my work every week but this example is from a friend in hospital last year: Staff numbers were so low that nursing staff were helping out in one ward for an hour, then helping out in the next and then the next - because no ward had a full complement of staff.

When an old company (such as BA) cuts back, the staff will expand their workload to try and keep the service as good as it was. This is old fashioned human pride in their work. BUT, when the mgmt then claim that the improved productivity proves that the staff were being lazy beforehand ...?

So the mgmt decide on some more cuts. Now it is usually the new and younger staff who do unpaid overtime to fill the gaps in the expectation of improving their career.

There are other steps in this path but you all know what happens - the company reaches the point at which failure arrives VERY suddenly because all the little cuts have reached the point where too much blood is being lost. I am NOT saying BA is at that point but let's just say they appear to be getting too close to the stall and it may not be too long before the stick starts to shake.

[Jet II]

Mr Walsh said: "We made mistakes and we let people down. Though the mistakes were by no means the sole preserve of BA, we held our hands up, we took responsibility and we apologised."


Takes 'responsiblity' to a whole new level :ooh:

In the old days if you 'took responsibility' for some thing i came down on your head if it went wrong.

Now apparently it means sacking a couple of minions... :sad:

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

Chinooker: You are so right about the lack of important staff in BA that affects the operation.

Every weekend and Bank Holiday, BA management prove that the operation can survive without most of them. And with the run-up to whatever is in store with Operation Columbus, it is noticeable how many managers there are with Australian accents being recruited.

As for Gg comments on ex-BA crew flying for the host of airlines she mentions, that is simply not true. In fact it is complete rubbish; te odd one maybe but not many. Most ex-Mainline BA crew went to the SFG after having to RETIRE from BA because they were 55. I can't think'of any other reason why Gg would be there other than that.

[Carnage Matey!]

Is it untrue? I've known cabin crew leave BA for both Virgin and Cathay Pacific, not to mention the corporate sector. Now how do we explain the shortage of cabin crew every weekend and bank holiday?

[SR71]

rubik101,

Oil prices come down? Impossible!

What? You mean like it was impossible for UK house prices to come down?

Every single economists report you might have read for the last 10 years would have backed you up on that right?

:rolleyes:

[rubik101]

Every Autumn since 1997 I have read, according to most reputable building societies and so called 'city analysts', that house prices will soon fall to become more 'realistic' or 'adjusted' or 'in-line with inflation' but not once, in eleven years have we seen a drop of any substantial amount. They have all been wrong, all of them, consistently and regularly, wrong.
We could argue that my surveys are better than your surveys until house prices rise or fuel prices fall.
I am not saying that the current crop of surveys and analysis of the oil situation are any more accurate than the previously mentioned 'experts'.
However, all the economic indicators, fueled by ever increasing Chinese and Asian demand coupled with ever more expensive extraction costs lead all analysts, economists and soothsayers to the conclusion that oil prices will not reduce by any substantial amount and are much more likely to increase.
Time will tell, but any clever brokers who bought oil futures in August 2007 when the price was below $70/bbl with a view to making a killing by selling at perhaps $100/bbl in August 2008 will be liable for losses in the billions.
Having to buy at today's prices and sell at $100/bbl will hurt, a lot.
Stand by for the coming blood bath.

[stormin norman]

Bit like the weather really.A few years ago we had a 'drought' and the experts were saying were all doomed to long hot summers-its hasn't stopped raining since !

[rmac]

And if you haven't noticed its come down nearly 20 bucks in the last three days !! a little volatile I think

[rubik101]

You know rmac, yours is the sort of post that should have a self deleting facility for downright lies.
Below is the price of Brent - Europe, in dollars, for the last 6 days. Taken from the Energy Information Administration of the US Gov't. website.

134.15 133.91 135.81 143.68 142.43 136.02

Now tell me where the $20 drop has occurred?

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

I don't know - rmac is pretty accurate in that oil is down $18 in just the last three days - $129 tonight.

[rubik101]

When we quote oil prices we all need to use the same oil! Brent Crude, the most often used price here in EU land, is $136.24 at 0900 today.
Price for delivery in August is $131.07. Highest price for one day this year was $147 so just where is this $20 fall? Anyway, who cares? If anyone really believes that sub $100 oil is around the corner is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[L337]

rubik, you may be right, then again you might be wrong. Time will tell.

A quick Google on "oil price forecast". 2nd result down.These people think you are wrong.

$102 (http://www.forecasts.org/oil.htm)

[one post only!]

I'm with stormin norman. We need to wheel out self proclaimed experts to announce that oil will go up to $500 a barrel and never drop and then wait fro it to plummet to $40 a barrel and stay there!!

Anyway, I'm off out into the rain again.................

[13Alpha]

As the oil price rises, demand will inevitably slacken. Airlines will go bust, or ground aircraft and scrap marginal routes. People will drive less. Companies and indviduals will economise in their use of energy. The pace of development in emerging countries will slow. We see signs of this already.

When that starts to look like a concerted trend, oil producers will have more incentive to pump more oil out of the ground today, rather than wait for a higher price tomorrow (as they are doing at present).

That increased supply will result in a short-term decline in the oil price. Probably quite a steep decline.

I think we are rather closer to that situation than many people think.

13Alpha

[rubik101]

By the way, just what is Operation Columbus, which kicked this whole discussion off in the first place?

[silverstreak]

Project Columbus is Wee Willies way of SHREDDING whats left of the already Free-Falling BA... (Starting with Cabin Crew...)

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

I think it is the pilots who should be fearful of Operation Columbus. BALPA are in disarray after being outmanoeuvred by Willie over OS, and now they will pay the price.

[Hotel Mode]

Nice try TC or M but the one good thing out of the openskies case is that all BAs assurances have ended up in our scope clause making it pretty cast iron in the UK. Operation Columbus is an IFS invention anyway. BASSA have spent the last 10 years feathering the nest of Golden runways whilst utterly missing the fact that OC has been operating 40 miles away round the M25.

[Glamgirl]

Can I just point out that I'm not a liar. The insinuation that I've retired and come back is laughable as I've still got over 30 years to go before retirement.

Tea/Coffee, if you want to have another swipe at me, feel free to pm me, as I'm sure this kind of behaviour is boring for others to read.

I know what I know and you know what you know.

Gg

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

British Airways has started low cost operations before Hotel: remember GO? AML? BA Connect? Where are they now?

Of course whilst BA recruited cheap cabin crew to man the 3 AML 777's, the pilots were Mainline with their big fat salaries. Not much cost cutting there by the pilots. And of course you now have your generous hourly rate and have consolidated pay. No lectures please from flight deck on CC T&C's.

Gg: thirty years to go on SFG T&C's? Phew!

[Carnage Matey!]

Generous hourly rate? So why were BASSA so vehemently opposed to an hourly rate for the cabin crew? Seems strange they'd turn down yet another hosing down with cash! The AML flights were indeed flown by mainline pilots, with their big, fat, benchmarked, industry standard salaries, and crewed by cabin crew on industry standard salaries. Without a CSD and 3 Pursers on double the industry standard wage.

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

NO Carnage. you wouldn't have RyanAir Captains giving it all up to be a two ringer on a 747, if things were not much better at BA. You BA Flight Deck are all pampered pussycats who still live in a time warp of First Class food served on china.

What BA were in denial about when the hourly rate was offered to cabin crew, was that the deal was nowhere near as good as the rate the pilots have. That is why they jumped at their deal. Give us the same rate and we'll take it.

[Carnage Matey!]

You BA Flight Deck are all pampered pussycats who still live in a time warp of First Class food served on china.

So much envy in such a short post. At least you've revealed your true motivation.

What BA were in denial about when the hourly rate was offered to cabin crew, was that the deal was nowhere near as good as the rate the pilots have. That is why they jumped at their deal. Give us the same rate and we'll take it.

Yet again an incorrect statement. What was the hourly rate BA offered you? Do you remember? No, of course you don't, because you didn't even get as far as an offer from BA. The BASSA hysteria kicked in and you all stuck your fingers in your ears and said "la la la we're not listening". I bet you don't even know what the pilots hourly rate is. Now go and get me some first class soup woman and it better not be tepid.

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

Sorry Carnage. You are wrong again. You need to get your facts right before you pontificate.

BA ran "In Touch" courses for all employees at Waterside a few years ago. However Cabin Crew were "invited" to stay for an afternoons 'brainwashing' session on the hourly rate, where we were informed by various management that Christmas really is a good idea for turkeys.

BA pilots sold their souls over the hourly rate and pay consolidation/restructuring. As you are aware, a few very senior guys at the top took a small pay cut, but many others did much better.

Please do not challenge me over what your hourly rate is, otherwise I might put it up here for all to see. Then all your jealous "bottom feeder, sh1thouse airlines" friends can make their own minds up whether your T&C's are "benchmarked, market rate".

Please dont think I am anti-Flight Deck either. My last boyfriend was a Captain. I know exactly what you all earn.

[Carnage Matey!]

My facts are all fine thank you.

'In touch' courses for all employees? Not for pilots!

'Brainwashing on the hourly rate?' Then you'll remember what that hourly rate was. Please share that with us. You do remember, don't you? What figure, approximately, did they offer?

'Pilots sold their soul over the hourly rate'. Did we? In what way? We didn't agree to do any more work or change our rostering system. I think the hourly rate was the best thing we've done in terms of making our remuneration system fairer in years. Senior guys at the top taking a pay cut? Really? Who? How senior?

'Please do not challenge me over what your hourly rate is, otherwise I might put it up here for all to see'. I challenge you. I dare you. I double dare you. Please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, post our hourly rate here. The guys in the '****house' airlines already know what we get, let's see if you really do.

Your posts could have been cut and pasted direct from the BASSA forum. In true BASSA style they are long on rhetoric and short on fact. Lets see some facts next time please.

[M.Mouse]

Flight Deck = the place where the pilots sit and fly the aeroplane.

Flight Crew = the collective name for pilots.

T, C or M, should I refer to you as 'passenger cabin'?

[Flap33]

T C & M,

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into your "I don't hate pilots" statement. As a BA pilot I feel I get a fair salary for a fair days work. We are bench-marked against other major European carriers. As for our new colleague from Ryanair you make a bold assumption that he/she is chasing the money. Could it be that they want a lifestyle change? Oh no,no, no..... must be the cash!

As for the hourly rate, I am sure everyone knows that we get £10 per flying hour and £2.78 (I think) per duty hour (check-in to check-out). My pay varies by +/- £300 per month regardless of destination. CC on the other hand have a meal allowance system and BOX payments ranging to £100s of pounds for long-range sectors. No wonder CC are frightened of the hourly rate....My box payments, my box payments!

Be under no illusion, I forsee the next few months as very difficult times. I don't feel fire-proof myself and nor should our CC. The days of £50-60K for CSDs or £30K for main-crew are over otherwise we'll all be looking for a new job.

Rather than bury your heads in the sand negotiate the best dal possible for yourselves, otherwise it will simply be imposed.

For what it's worth, I have a lot of respect for our CC but also respect that we are not immune from the Credit Crunch.

[stev]

Flap 33

here here im an RYR pilot and although i think i've missed the deadline i was thinkin of making the switch to BA for the long haul rec they were doing. And its not the money its the security and the fact of a proper long haul network that an ordinary irish man like myself would like to try i think your very right that the cc should fight their own corner and get the best deal they can besides making enemy's of their work collegues. Look you all work for a nice airline that i believe will look after you in these bad oil times and ye have a good future (allthough i think we'll be all right too) best of luck to all BA crew FC &CC i believe that in WW you have the best man fore the job. Look what an airline that WAS run by the govt an got rid of him has turned into??? From a proud Irish man unfortunately AerLingus is a joke.......more power to you all.

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

Hey guys. Loosen up.x

Oil is down U$16 this week and will be U$70 a barrel by Spring next year. All this talk of cutting T&C's might become a self fulfilling prophecy. What's the market rate for pilots in Poland and Bulgaria? Is that where you want to go on pay? Look what a GP earns? How much less are you worth for all that responsibilty? A rep for Cannon selling photocopiers earns more than most F/O's in BA. Why? Market rate Carnage old bean.

Last year we had the T4 security scare, floods, baggage mountains, then the T5 debacle. Does BA really want to destroy its best asset? If they go to war with their cabin crew, well, I and many of my colleagues have a months salary already sitting in a deposit account.

Unlike the pilots, we wont blink first.

[411A]

Unlike the pilots, we wont blink first.

And will likely be the first to depart the property.
Goodbye, in advance.

[Glamgirl]

Being who I am, I've got 5 month's worth of salary in my bank account...Buys me time if the what's-it hits the fan, and also reduces general stress in life (in regards to how to pay bills etc)

Gg

[Tiger]

flaps 33 i like your posting. But remember eurofleet no box payments! Also the salaries quoted aren`t eurofleet money or new contract salaries.

Also the hourly rate. CC weren`t offered a higher basic to go with the hour rate like the pilots. Which is pensionable?

There was/is a manager who was "got rid of" re fuel surchange fixing who was being paid 2 years after being sacked because "they" couldn`t get another job. £215K pa was a quoted figure for that.

Personally I don`t listen to those who voice any opinion from other than the UK as they don`t understand the UK cost of living and clearly base their opinions (which of course they are allowed, although the UK and the EU have greater freedoms than the USA) on their own country.

[Human Factor]

TCM,

Of course whilst BA recruited cheap cabin crew to man the 3 AML 777's, the pilots were Mainline with their big fat salaries. Not much cost cutting there by the pilots.

The cost cutting was given by alleviations to a number of agreements. For example, had the AML trips been operated according to Bidline, many of them would have required three flight crew. In order for BA to agree to them being operated by mainline pilots, alleviations were granted by BALPA for them to be operated with two. I'd say that's quite considerable cost-cutting on our behalf.;)

[M.Mouse]

Does BA really want to destroy its best asset?

And with that statement you illustrate a staggering level of mis-placed self belief which epitomises so much of what is wrong with IFS within BA.

The pilots didn't blink first, they realised that the legal case would probably have bankrupted the union. Unlike the short sighted dinosaurs running BASSA BALPA do have the intelligence to notice when they are fighting a losing battle (eventually).

It is my feeling that BA CC are about to learn some hard facts of life.

Not often I smile at the statements by 411A.

[bermudatriangle]

M Mouse,i don't think anyone should look forward to our cabin crew colleagues facing the prospect of worse pay and conditions than they currently enjoy.the training BA provide to cabin crew is second to none,their ability to fight onboard fires,deal with medical emergencies,take care of the customers needs and look after the flight crew is taken for granted.if their pay is reduced,do we really think the calibre of staff we currently enjoy will continue ? i very much doubt it.remember,we operate intercontinental services,flying ,sometimes,hours from the nearest diversion option,relying on our cabin crew team to take care of the passengers and the cabin enviroment.do not for one minute,think our jobs will be any easier with a demotivated,badly paid team in the cabin.BA is a sucessful airline and will continue to be so with a motivated and well rewarded team,cabin crew and pilots alike.it's at times like these,we should work together and appreciate the contribution each group make to the overall operation.division,jealousy and point scoring does nothing for crm and plays right into he hands of the cost cutters,who have no appreciation of what happens after pushback.i for one value the cabin crew and expect them to enjoy the benefits of working for a very sucessful and profitable airline. team work...it really does generate success.

[Carnage Matey!]

the training BA provide to cabin crew is next to none,their ability to fight onboard fires,deal with medical emergencies,take care of the customers needs and look after the flight crew is taken for granted.if their pay is reduced,do we really think the calibre of staff we currently enjoy will continue ? i very much doubt it.remember,we operate intercontinental services,flying ,sometimes,hours from the nearest diversion option,relying on our cabin crew team to take care of the passengers and the cabin enviroment.do not for one minute,think our jobs will be any easier with a demotivated,badly paid team in the cabin

I suspect you mean the cabin crew training is second to none, but even then I don't think many people who've flown for other airlines will agree with you. We've all been to SEP and seen some appalling performances by cabin crew. I just hope that on the day it all goes wrong I have some of the good ones on board and not the barely competent ones. I don't even agree that you can link the quality of crew to the pay. Are new contract crew less safe than old contract crew despite earning less? Are Eurofleet crew less safe than Worldwide crew despite earning less? Are Gatwick crew less safe than Heathrow crew despite earning less? The reaon we have some of the useless staff we currently have is because BA pay so well. They won't leave even when they hate the job and don't care anymore.

Last year we had the T4 security scare, floods, baggage mountains, then the T5 debacle. Does BA really want to destroy its best asset? If they go to war with their cabin crew, well, I and many of my colleagues have a months salary already sitting in a deposit account.

Not sure how BA will destroy all those LHR slots, which are most surely their best asset. You may well have a months salary sitting in the bank but barely two years ago on the brink of a CC strike the rest of your colleagues were ringing BASSA in droves saying they couldn't afford to strike and they didn't really think they'd have to go through with it. Thats why BASSA cancelled the strike and have now had to ballot again on the same things.

[411A]

M Mouse,i don't think anyone should look forward to our cabin crew colleagues facing the prospect of worse pay and conditions than they currently enjoy.the training BA provide to cabin crew is next to none,their ability to fight onboard fires,deal with medical emergencies,take care of the customers needs and look after the flight crew is taken for granted.if their pay is reduced,do we really think the calibre of staff we currently enjoy will continue ? i very much doubt it.remember,we operate intercontinental services,flying ,sometimes,hours from the nearest diversion option,relying on our cabin crew team to take care of the passengers and the cabin enviroment.

Other airlines don't do this?
Gosh, what a surprise.

Next thing you know, these CC will want pilot pay.:eek:

[Flap33]

I should have been more specific in my previous post, I was of course referrring to LHR WW "Old Contract" CC, of which there are several thousand. The "New Contract" and LGW CC are being rewarded to a more realistic, if not (in the case of LGW) sub-standard industry going rate for the jobs they do.

I feel that TC & M must have rose-tinted glasses. On a recet JFK flight thse service was wrapped up inside 2 hours out of LHR, afternoon tea started at 1:45 prior to landing. For nearly 3 hours our passengers were treated to a full half cabin crew complement while breaks were being taken. And before you say it, no I'm not jealous about your "20 mins" in flight rest. We have our own arrangements for in-flight rest.

As for blinking first, the court case was, from the first day in court going to result in a very lengthy, expensive process and probable defeat for BALPA. BA have learnt some very interesting loop-holes and I bet they have more for BASSA, so don't be too confident - would BASSA go all the way to court like BALPA? Secondly, BA Pilots have a SCOPE agreement, CC don't. If AA lay-off 1000s of staff, and BA/AA get their Anti-trust immunity then potentially there are a lot of unemlpoyed crew who could be deployed to a BA/AA partnership. For the record Open Skies CC are US based on US contracts. Do you think BA wouldn't do this for mainline CC.

Instead of being the smug, fire-proof CC that you have been told you are perhaps a moment of reality is required. I don't wish to be malicious or vindictive, just stating where I think this is going. I have a vested interest in the future survival of BA, they pay my mortgage too.

[OzzieO]

Secondly, BA Pilots have a SCOPE agreement, CC don't.....


Can you please expand on that?

[goerring]

BA Pilots have a SCOPE agreement

FLAP 33,

Is this the SCOPE agreement that protected BAR jobs, protected mainline flying from Openskies , and prevents Cityflyer basing FD in London. (got news for you on the last point).
SCOPE is protecting nothing and is damaging Cityfliers ability to compete with stiff competition at LCY . ( Which in turn damages the future for my wife and kids )

[WeLieInTheShadows]

Wow this thread has got interesting!

Nice to see someone take on Carnage (bet your lovin it old bean!). More power to you TCM.

We've all been to SEP and seen some appalling performances by cabin crew. I just hope that on the day it all goes wrong I have some of the good ones on board and not the barely competent ones.

Right back at you on that one Carnage. I've seen some appauling performances but pilots too, both at SEP and on line. There but for the grace of god go any of us eh?

BA's idea of the hourly rate is indeed the LGW hourly rate £2.38 I think it is now. I believe the system the pilots have is a good one and very fair. A two tier system, one for flying, one for being one duty. Would certainly iron out a lot of the unfairness we have at LGW with relation to trips.

I'm not sure if a figure was ever put to the unions with relation to an hourly rate for LHR. I am pretty sure that BA was not going to add up all the allowances and for the year and divide them by hours etc etc etc. They wanted a saving. So can you blame the unions for protecting their members? After all isn't that what their members pay unions to do?, protect their pay, their T&C's and their jobs. Wouldn't you expect BALPA to do the same for you? I guess after BALPA decided to shaft their own employees over their pensions, maybe not.

BA may have industry leading pay scales at LHR for CC. Someones got to be the best. If Virgin pilots had better payscales and T&C's than BA pilots surely you would urge your unions to benchmark yours against theirs and improve your lot. Would you really shout from the rooftops that it is outrageous they get paid so much and should come down a few notches?

As for TCM's comments about pilots. A bit unfair maybe in my experience. There is a marked difference in culture on long haul as opposed to short haul. As I'm sure pilots find a culture difference at BA LHR as opposed to LGW. Yes longhaul is a "lifestyle". I do however feel the minority which sometimes give the majority a bad name have been living that "lifestyle" a bit too long. A quick year at LGW on the 737 I think would knock that straight our of them:ok::eek:.

Lastly...(and this is a general plea) I think it's great that we're all allowed to debate on a topic, no matter the job, company, etc etc. I do think it's a shame when it gets down to "I'm more educated than you are thicko" by pointing out spelling errors and terms of refference etc etc, to make someone look small or stupid.

Yes maybe they have made a few errors or said a few things in haste, but I think shooting holes in the argument is far more adult and cutting (Carnage is very good at it) and something I would expect from the people who frequent this forum.

(I noow aweight simone 2 pint oot al mi spelin miscakes:E)

Not posted for a long time...feel better now.:}

[Carnage Matey!]

Right back at you on that one Carnage. I've seen some appauling performances but pilots too, both at SEP and on line. There but for the grace of god go any of us eh?

Appalling performances by pilots at SEP? In what way? All we do is open a couple of doors and put a smoke hood and a lifejacket on. Not exactly rocket science. However I can assure you that if any pilot performs appallingly in the simulator they don't get back in the flight deck until their performance is satisfactory. Thats not the case with cabin crew SEP, where poor performances have been tolerated for too long. I suspect you won't remember the time a few years ago when the CAA became so alarmed at the lax standard of SEP they gave BA two weeks to make a noticeable improvement and made the company hand over responsibility for SEP to Flight Ops from IFS. Standards are now slowly creeping up, but trying to change the culture is like pushing water uphill.

I am pretty sure that BA was not going to add up all the allowances and for the year and divide them by hours etc etc etcThey wanted a saving.

Why not? The savings come from not having to administer the highly complex allowance system. BA made big savings when we changed yet didn't reduce the overall allowances budget.

So can you blame the unions for protecting their members? After all isn't that what their members pay unions to do?, protect their pay, their T&C's and their jobs. Wouldn't you expect BALPA to do the same for you?

Is 'just say no' protecting their members? What about actually engaging with your employer? BASSA remain trapped in a 'zero sum' mentality in which anything which is good for BA must be bad for BASSA.

I guess after BALPA decided to shaft their own employees over their pensions, maybe not.

Did they shaft them? Perhaps you'd like to explain how rather than just fling cheap accusations? Does BALPAs pension scheme operate in a different financial world to every other pension scheme in the land?

If Virgin pilots had better payscales and T&C's than BA pilots surely you would urge your unions to benchmark yours against theirs and improve your lot. Would you really shout from the rooftops that it is outrageous they get paid so much and should come down a few notches?

Virgins pay per hour is almost directly comparable to ours, although we fly more hours than they do. Thats how I can defend my pay.:ok:

Is this the SCOPE agreement that protected BAR jobs, protected mainline flying from Openskies , and prevents Cityflyer basing FD in London. (got news for you on the last point).

SCOPE was introduced after BAR in no small part as a response to that. SCOPE would have prevented Open Skies if the company hadn't managed to use an EU law to block it. It's thanks to SCOPE that Open Skies isn't operating out of the UK.

SCOPE is protecting nothing and is damaging Cityfliers ability to compete with stiff competition at LCY . ( Which in turn damages the future for my wife and kids )

SCOPE is protecting my livelihood and my future. If you join an airline with well known and well publicised restrictions on it's operation you can't really turn around and say you weren't warned. BA can base as many pilots as they want at LCY and fly as many aircraft of whatever type they choose there. All they've got to do is agree to put the pilots on the mainline seniority list. Perhaps you should ask them why they are so reluctant to do that?

[Flap33]

Firstly to goerring, I have the greatest sympathy for the BAR guys - promised so much and ultimately stuffed by BA. I was flying the RJ for the original Cityflyer so have a fair understanding of the SCOPE deal (I was doing 5/6 days at BHXwhile it got banged out). Now Cityflyer is set to rise again in a big way. I am presuming an imminent order of someting with less than 100 seats... I am guessing BALPA couldn't object too much to that, even for LCY based pilots. A common factor here though is that these changes and the percieved battoning down of the hatches occur whilst the industry is in turmoil (BAR's demise came post 9/11).

Debate on these issues is good, I don't pretend that anyone is going to come out of this unscathed. The point about Virgin Pilots (they earn roughly the same money for 750 hours/year, I am currently on 880+) is fair, but I am happy with my lot.

To clarify, the SCOPE clause prevents BA from employing pilots to fly aircraft with more than 100 seats from the London Airports. The LCY-JFK (if it ever happens) will be flown by mainline pilots because the A318 is certified to have more than 100 seats although its actual configuration will be less. Our CC, as far as I am aware, could be replaced by employees of another company (lets call it Columbus) that's based in say, Paris. Instantly, BA have set up a subsiduary based in the EU and making use of Clause 43 of the Treaty of Rome to prevent BASSA from striking over Columbus's formation. If this doesn't sound familiar ask a BALPA member about Clause 43. It was used against BALPA successfully and paves the way for BA to use it again in the future. For the record I felt that BA's tactic was extremely clever, and disgraceful as that legislation wasn't intended for this kind of abuse.

So back to the original thread title, BA will experience turbulence in the coming months as the company goes after those groups of employees where savings CANand MUST be made. But, unless this is done BA will be in a bad way this time next year, asuuming we're still in business.

[WeLieInTheShadows]

LOL Carnage you never let me down.

Appalling performances by pilots at SEP? In what way? All we do is open a couple of doors and put a smoke hood and a lifejacket on. Not exactly rocket science

CRM wise, and door wise. I agree with you, not exactly rocket science is it?

Why not? The savings come from not having to administer the highly complex allowance system. BA made big savings when we changed yet didn't reduce the overall allowances budget.

Then why didn't they just come out with "x figure" and say "here you go this is how we came to it". Didn't happen. No one agrees to buy something or "buy into" something without knowing the cost. Why didn't BA just combat the questions with straight answers and facts and figures?

Is 'just say no' protecting their members? What about actually engaging with your employer? BASSA remain trapped in a 'zero sum' mentality in which anything which is good for BA must be bad for BASSA.


I said BASSA are paid to protect their members and their T&C's, that is their role a a union. I didn't say I agreed with their methods.

Did they shaft them? Perhaps you'd like to explain how rather than just fling cheap accusations? Does BALPAs pension scheme operate in a different financial world to every other pension scheme in the land?


Oh the drama! I don't know, I'm no expert. It does however smack of double standards or the "pot calling the kettle black". Does it not even raise questions in your mind as to where they are coming from? If you need refreshing, review the thread.

Quote:
If Virgin pilots had better payscales and T&C's than BA pilots surely you would urge your unions to benchmark yours against theirs and improve your lot. Would you really shout from the rooftops that it is outrageous they get paid so much and should come down a few notches?

Virgins pay per hour is almost directly comparable to ours, although we fly more hours than they do. Thats how I can defend my pay.


Read again old chap. I'm not questioning your pay or Virgins. It was a hypothetical question to illustrate how you might act if Virgin pilots had a better deal than you, not one pretaining to the way things really are. If that is the way things are, maybe you SHOULD act.

Always a pleasure.

[silverstreak]

... Stop your moaning - the lot of you...

Jobs are never safe. The changes ahead - whatever they may be - are brought in to safeguard the business in general, in accordance to surrounding economic prevailing conditions AND your jobs...

Heres how it works... Hard times = big changes = take it or leave it

Businesses must change or dissappear (in any industry). Its not great, but hey you will more than likely still have a job. There are airlines in other parts of the world - The USA in particular - who are paying staff off in their 1000s.

Its happening, so get on with it... :ugh:

PS - Just a quick reminder that just over a year ago, BA decided to contract out the complete ground handling side of things in the UK regions - maybe the initial stages of openskies, Project Columbus etc etc - in a fashion. (lower costs all round for the same work load). Who the :mad: stood up for the staff that faced having NO JOB at all...

I rest my case...

[Carnage Matey!]

LOL Carnage you never let me down.

I aim to please!

CRM wise, and door wise. I agree with you, not exactly rocket science is it?

Still mystified by this one. The extent of the interaction between FD and CC is us sitting in the front of a pretend aircraft reading from a script prepared by the SEP instructors. As far as I can see the SEP day involves no opportunity to utilise CRM skills in their true form, as opposed to the cabin crew 'CRM means you must be nice to me form'. As for doors, well some people may find them tricky but as we only open them once a year at SEP it's hardly surprising now is it. Describing that as 'appalling' is pushing it a bit don't you think?

Then why didn't they just come out with "x figure" and say "here you go this is how we came to it". Didn't happen. No one agrees to buy something or "buy into" something without knowing the cost. Why didn't BA just combat the questions with straight answers and facts and figures?

Because you know as well as I do thats not the way negotiations work. There may well have been a win-win scenario available. You'll never know because BASSA didn't negotiate. They could have walked away at the end if they didn't like what was on offer, but it was easier to just say no from the start.


I said BASSA are paid to protect their members and their T&C's, that is their role a a union. I didn't say I agreed with their methods.

How do you know they are protecting their members if you don't question their methods? If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. Perhaps you'd be better protected if they acted smarter?


Oh the drama! I don't know, I'm no expert. It does however smack of double standards or the "pot calling the kettle black". Does it not even raise questions in your mind as to where they are coming from?

Then don't level expert criticism then fall back on the line 'I'm no expert'. Everyone else in the industry has had to take a hammering on their pensions because the numbers don't add up. I don't wish the cut on them but if the pension fund can't be funded somethings got to change. FYI I voted for the change in pension in BA because I'm a realist.

[WeLieInTheShadows]

Still mystified by this one. The extent of the interaction between FD and CC is us sitting in the front of a pretend aircraft reading from a script prepared by the SEP instructors. As far as I can see the SEP day involves no opportunity to utilise CRM skills in their true form, as opposed to the cabin crew 'CRM means you must be nice to me form'. As for doors, well some people may find them tricky but as we only open them once a year at SEP it's hardly surprising now is it. Describing that as 'appalling' is pushing it a bit don't you think?

I think you used the word appalling in your post first matey (and it's a fairly strong term), do you feel you were pushing it a bit? I'd be quite happy to back my claims up with evidence. I did also say it was both at SEP and online. You were the one who said opening a door wasn't "rocket science" but it's great to see you defending your colleagues. It is possible for cabin crew to only open a door once a year if they only work in certain positions all year round. So I guess you'll defend these individuals as well?

Because you know as well as I do thats not the way negotiations work. There may well have been a win-win scenario available. You'll never know because BASSA didn't negotiate. They could have walked away at the end if they didn't like what was on offer, but it was easier to just say no from the start

Of course I do. I would say that BA knew this was going to be a tough sell, so another approach could have been tried. If adding it all up and then dividing = big savings on admin costs then why not just be transparent and sell it like that? A win/win scenario is the best deal all round, and it could have been pretty painless. What it would have showed is the disparity between the LHR and LGW hourly rate. Then the unions would have nailed BA down to raising the LGW rate to match. Not such a win for BA after all:{. we'll never know now will we?

How do you know they are protecting their members if you don't question their methods? If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. Perhaps you'd be better protected if they acted smarter?


I agree, that's why I belong to AMICUS my friend.

Then don't level expert criticism then fall back on the line 'I'm no expert'. Everyone else in the industry has had to take a hammering on their pensions because the numbers don't add up. I don't wish the cut on them but if the pension fund can't be funded somethings got to change. FYI I voted for the change in pension in BA because I'm a realist.

I don't think saying BALPA shafted it's employees makes me an "expert", just a casual observer with an opinion (to which I'm entitled). Would you say BA "shafted" it's employees by changing the pension scheme? If not what word would you use? FYI I also voted for the change in the pension scheme as I am also a realist. What I find hard to understand (as I'm sure BALPA's employees do) is BALPA's initial stance on the BA person was "no change" (wasn't it NO WAY BA?). You'd think that after having to give ground to BA that they'd at least look after their own? Were BALPA (the sensible, educated, and respected union they are) really in the dark to how bad the whole pension crisis bubble was before BA came along and told them? Or is it a case of everyone else is doing it now, so we'd better jump on the bandwagon and do it too? I guess as a member you've seen the figures so you know better than I.

Wow, never used the quote button so much.

[FlyingTom]

Just to clarify NO WAY BA was to counter BA's proposed average salary pension. That would have had a big effect on a 24 pay point scale like the pilots'.

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

Before Carnage comments on the performance of cabin crew it is worth noting that on this forum, he spends nearly all his time discussing the "appalling mistakes" of his colleagues, which usually amount to a huge loss of life and millions of $'s worth of damage.

I don't recall any cabin crew being so destructive?

As far as being a 'divine occupation', prospective pilots with elementary co-ordination and aptitude can buy themselves a career for around U$50,000 and have an ATPL within a year. It takes three years to qualify as an electrician in the UK.

Just imagine, I could pack up my career with BA tomorrow and be flying for "bottom feeders and ****house airlines" in a little over a year!

Flap33. YOu must be careful when you bring into the arena comments about cabin crew rest on a JFK flight, when your colleagues regularly take "controlled rest", even with a three man crew and bunk rest at the same time.

[Megaton]

TC or M,

Having qualified as an electrical engineer and pilot, I think you're on extremely thin ice trying to compare the difficulties of either profession unless you've trodden both paths!

And I can promise you that if takes more than $50k and "elementary co-ordination and aptitude" to become an airline pilot. Spend some time hanging around a flying school and you'll see any number of people for whom an IR is an extremely challenging accomplishment.

[Hotel Mode]

Flap33. YOu must be careful when you bring into the arena comments about cabin crew rest on a JFK flight, when your colleagues regularly take "controlled rest", even with a three man crew and bunk rest at the same time.

Why? controlled rest is specifically allowed in FCOs or the new ops manual. No requirement for cabin crew rest is discussed until it is needed for duty extension (which is way further than you think, ie not required to JNB, GRU etc)

[Hotel Mode]

You just really bring home to me the utter lack of conception that many BA crew have of what goes on behind the door. Every senior cabin crew member should have spent a sim check with us at least once. It would be eye opening. I took my wife (cabin crew training management for a charter airline) and father in law (ex BA CSD/ Cranebank SEP trainer) in a Sim recently and they both gained an insight into what actually goes on.

[Hubbly]

Hotel Mode

You comments are valid, however just reading through the body of this thread, it seems the contempt/lack of conception lies on both sides of said door!

The real fact is that in times of crises(I believe that as a company British Airways views the economic downturn as such) drastic changes can and will be made.

Holding onto that thought for a moment, it is pertinent for us ALL to realise that none of us are untouchable. As a CC member for BA, I do realise that there is a lot that can change in relation to my job and even the pay structure. I am not blinkered, change is necessary and it will happen.

CC form the largest division of the workforce for BA, so that is only logical.

It smacks of complete arrogance to think that because you have attained a particular level that you are subject to less scrutiny than others.

What may currently be the Industry benchmark, can be reduced to being an Industry norm(or worse if you look at SFLGW), for both sides of the flying community. There is always scope for more change, be it enforced, or negotiated.

We all work for a slippery employer, who is constantly seeking ways in which to enlarge its' profits, whilst curtailing costs. Unfortunately for us ALL, we fall under the cost category. To think because some of us have already made a change means that we will not be touched is naive to say the least.

It is logical for BA to look at the cost of it's Cabin crew, but don't for an instant think that this is where it will end. This Industry has too many examples of where BA may be heading, so before we all get too 'assured' of our positions, let's touch base with reality. This goes for both sides of the said door.

It is great to mull over things past, but the simple fact is, the past does not make the future.

[HZ123]

Is it not time to draw this to a close. It ill suits us all as always to be critical of others when most at BA do the minimum required, thus our T & C's. I fail to see why all these good people wish to be regaled daily with dross. What has this to with WW hard landing, whatever the outcome he will depart as we all do but he with a six figure pay off and a nice job elsewhere, there are not many reading this that can or will.

[Carnage Matey!]

I think you used the word appalling in your post first matey (and it's a fairly strong term), do you feel you were pushing it a bit?

Not really. When a group of crew cannot between them construct an adequate LRBL, conduct a thorough cabin search, secure a cabin adequately for a ditching or numerous other safety critical tasks I think appalling is an appropriate description.

You were the one who said opening a door wasn't "rocket science" but it's great to see you defending your colleagues. It is possible for cabin crew to only open a door once a year if they only work in certain positions all year round. So I guess you'll defend these individuals as well?

But they sit next to a door on most flights and one should reasonably expect they'd know what to do if they were required to do it, especially in a controlled environment such as SEP where they have plenty of time to plan and prepare. I won't see an engine failure from one sim to the next, or a bomb threat for example, but I'm expected to be able to handle it as well as I would in the air. Is that too much to ask of our crew?

I agree that's why I belong to AMICUS my friend.

It shows (that's a compliment!).


I don't think saying BALPA shafted it's employees makes me an "expert", just a casual observer with an opinion (to which I'm entitled). Would you say BA "shafted" it's employees by changing the pension scheme? If not what word would you use? FYI I also voted for the change in the pension scheme as I am also a realist.

I'm not sure I'd use the word shafted. If the numbers no longer add up then it's no good stamping our feet and complaining. If people have been doing some shafting then it's been successive governments. We are not alone in out pension predicaments.

What I find hard to understand (as I'm sure BALPA's employees do) is BALPA's initial stance on the BA person was "no change" (wasn't it NO WAY BA?). You'd think that after having to give ground to BA that they'd at least look after their own?

HM has already mentioned I don't think no change was ever a position of BALPA on the pensions front. The reality was that the pension was underfunded and something had to change. In an ideal world the BALPA staff would have kept their pensions the same but we live in the real world. Their deficit was 50% of BALPAs resources and growing. How do you make provision to fund an open-ended and growing commitment like that in an organisation with a modest income?

Were BALPA (the sensible, educated, and respected union they are) really in the dark to how bad the whole pension crisis bubble was before BA came along and told them?

BA didn't tell us, the pension fund actuaries did the auditing. Then we got our own actuaries to check the figures and our own accountants to check BAs figures so we could see whether BA's claims were realistic.Thats why BAs position moved so far from their original start point. It also helps that one of our reps is also a NAPS trustee, so he gets exactly the same information as BAs management trustees get.

Before Carnage comments on the performance of cabin crew it is worth noting that on this forum, he spends nearly all his time discussing the "appalling mistakes" of his colleagues, which usually amount to a huge loss of life and millions of $'s worth of damage.

Nearly all my time? I've not commented on any major accidents for some time, and I am always careful to avoid levelling accusations against crews, so the idea that I am discussing their 'appalling mistakes' seems to be another of your fabrications. The reason you don't recall cabin crew being destructive is because their mistakes get caught by the professionals at the front end. I can think of two incidents within our own airline that could have caused a hull loss (one nearly did) which were attributable to the poor standards of the cabin crew on the day and were mitigated by the performance of the flight crew. Can you remember what they were?

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

No Carnage, but let's remind you of some Flight Crew mistakes:

G-AWNC 747-136 mistook the outer marker for the inner. Flew down the side of a hill through a rubber plantation at KL. Flight engineer saved the day. Remember that?

Capt "Wonder Boy" Gibson. Did a "touch and go" with a 747-136 in the game park near NBO.

G-AWNO nearly hit the Penta Hotel.

The Lillongwe bouncer? 747-436.

People make mistakes.

[Carnage Matey!]

Did any of those happen in the last ten years? Why don't you quote the 707 that broke up over Mt Fuji, or the Comet accidents, or the Lancastrian that crashed in the Andes in '49? Do try to use examples which are relevant. You're going to have to try harder than a bounced landing and subsequent go around in 1997, which is the only one of your examples in the last 20 years.

[Megaton]

No mention of the numerous incidents where lives were saved by the pilots....

[marlowe]

Or the lives saved by cabin crew faced with heart attacks and other medical dramas on the other side of the door .

[Hotel Mode]

Or the lives saved by cabin crew faced with heart attacks and other medical dramas on the other side of the door

You seem to forget that we do SEP and Avmed too.

[411A]

Looks like this is an us versus them discussion.

Simple fact.
The cabin crew works in the cabin.
The FD crew works at the pointy end.
The Commander is responsible for both.

What works best?
Well, for myself personally, as the Commander, I tell the cabin chief that they are in charge in the back, and if they need my assistance, just ask.
Result?
Total co-operation is assured.

[Max Tow]

Isn't this correspondence more suited to "Jet Blast" or the playground outside Waterside? It hardly constitutes either "Rumour" or "News"!

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

Yes Max, this thread has gone slightly off topic, but Carnage wanted to know about Flight Crew mistakes. I have given him a few as a little hors-d'ouevre. There are more, but I am not going to put them up.

Back on topic. Agree very much with WLITS.

There is now a petrol price war in the UK. Oil is on the way down. This experience with high oil prices will have a lasting effect. For instance my neighbour has just ordered a Mondeo with a FlexiFuel E85 engine.

There is no need to sell ourselves short during this short oil spike. Once you give up T&C's, you will never get them back. Stand firm lads. x

[Andy_S]

There is no need to sell ourselves short during this short oil spike.

Since you can apparently see into the future, I wonder why you're so vexed about T&C's? With abilities like yours, you could make more money trading stocks and shares then you ever could as cabin crew.

[Carnage Matey!]

Yes Max, this thread has gone slightly off topic, but Carnage wanted to know about Flight Crew mistakes. I have given him a few as a little hors-d'ouevre. There are more, but I am not going to put them up.

I most certainly did not. You simply indulged yourself in a bit of mud-slinging when you realised your arguments were full of holes and presumably are stopping now that you've realised your smoke screen doesn't work.

[Ancient Observer]

Reading this recent series of exchanges reminds me that BA managers and staff clearly deserve each other. Will BA die like the dinosaurs or the dodos?

[wobble2plank]

It always amazes me how people have the fabulous ability to judge a huge company employing thousands of pilots and cabin crew by the somewhat delinquent ramblings of less than a dozen anonymous posters on a fully public forum :ugh:

Good luck on the stock exchange :rolleyes:

[Ancient Observer]

Once upon a time BA was a huge Co. It is slowly becoming smaller and smaller. Remember ICI? During the 70's and 80's it was the UK's buggest Company. It no longer exists.
So, will BA die like a dinosaur or a dodo?

[wobble2plank]

You mean the company that spun off its core businesses to form two very successful sub companies after hostile take over bids in the early 1990's? The two businesses being the pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals businesses Zeneca and Syngenta? Sadly the brand ICI died this year but the core businesses still exist within the two above companies. This is why the pilots were so opposed to Open Skies.

Hostile takeover bids for BA? In the current market? Sorry, very unlikely. Also the ability of the company, despite its seemingly sloth like management, to adapt it's core business is quite an asset. Whilst most airlines have been crawling out from under the bankruptcy rock, BA has been cleaning its debt and recovering a stable financial footing.

I doubt we will see BA die like a dinosaur or a dodo but I do see a bit of 'personnel restructuring' coming. The running of a small operation with a limited route structure ala 'Silverjet' is somewhat different to the LH operation run by BA.

[SR71]

rubik101,

...Anyway, who cares? If anyone really believes that sub $100 oil is around the corner is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Ummm....

Oil price is reaching tipping point, says Lehman - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/23/bcnoil123.xml)

:ok:

[4468]

Mmmm...

Humble pie, anyone? :)

[Tea Coffee Or Me]

IN my post ofthe 20th July, I predicted oil would be down to U$70 by spring next year.

Not so wide of the mark Andy S?

[Andy_S]

I never said you were wrong.

I suggested that someone sufficiently clever to know what the price of oil, or indeed any other commodity would be in 6 months time could be making a far better living than they do as cabin crew.

Personally I hope you're right.

[bermudatriangle]

i also pointed to an economists report on 15th july,that oil prices will fall sharply and was ridiculed by hz123.........perhaps he or she should take more notice of people who know what they are talking about.

[rubik101]

Let me know when the price drops below $100/bbl and I'll review my predictions then. Until then...................