FIRST on WW LGW was notoriously short of trained crew, particularly after the 747 and 767 went to LHR, taking a lot of trained crew with them. I got it because I was on the bottom of the seniority list and no one else wanted to do it that day.
When I finally did my FIRST course, all of us in the group had being doing it unofficially for about a year.
VS and Matt, I stand corrected. Thanks for the info, appreciate it.
Marlowe, you obviously think that I'm being patronising, but I can assure you I'm not. I'm genuinely trying to help. The reason I explained about unions was that you've posted several times about the lack of union etc at LCY, and therefore thought I could help with giving some tips. I did not for one second think you're country bumpkins (if you were, you wouldn't have the job for a start). I did not say that CW is a specialized field either, just that training is required. I've said on several occasions that I firmly believe that with that training CF crew are more than capable of providing the CW service. And finally, I got the impression that you wanted LCY crew to do the LCY-NYC route and that's why you're on this thread saying what you say.
I've never meant any harm, malice or any other negative word you can think of. I firmly believe we're all colleagues at the end of the day, and I wish everyone could have the same t&c's within the same company.
I get the feeling I've done something to upset you, which was never intended from my side. So apologies if I have.
Glamgirl i did take the post from you as a little patronising to cityflyer crew ,but as a gentleman i will apologise if my retort was taken as a personal slight against you . Also since posting on here funnily enough, Amicus and the TGWU under the unite banner has suddenly taken great interest in Cityflyer.
I can't speak for the others but in my case, it's not that I missed it, it's that I prefer to wait for an official announcement rather than believing in any "my mate said" type stuff. Been there, got the teeshirt. So far, the only official announcement is that the route will be operated by LGW crew.
I think you'll find that the subsequent discussions that have taken place have been more of a theoretical debate.
You are indeed correct. At the moment, it is planned that the LGW crew will operate this route, but lets face it, with things the way they are in the industry at the moment, nothing is certain for any one of us!
I suppose the question now is how much change if any, are you LGW crew prepared to accept on this route? For example on the this forum there is talk of nightstopping in LCY the night before, then again in SNN before heading onwards to JFK, W patterns etc etc. I think that they will want to operate this as simply as possible report on the day, 2 sectors across to JFK Minimum legal down time in JFK before heading back to LCY. I gather from these threads that may be a bit simplistic regarding any agreements that you may have in place at the moment, so are you willing to allow change in your agreements to operate this trip? bearing in mind that any changes could affect the way other trips are crewed and operated in the future from LGW or would you be looking to make this trip an exception to any agreements in place?
Unfortunately, our agreements aren't exactly what you'd call restrictive anyway. When they were written, there was such excitement at the thought of longhaul that we ended up with a pretty lousy set of MOAs, with more loopholes than a fishing net. However, the new MOA talks are taking place at the moment, so I would assume, they will be taking into account the LCY route within these talks. To be honest, at LGW, we are often our own worst enemy!
Correct BA staff in all departments delude themselves into thinking that they beat management most times when faced with T & C changes. All too often the staff are the losers because much protection and account is given to the weak, lame and lazy that make up an unhealthy percentage of BA staff in most areas. Usually the staff side negitiators do us few favours, many of seem to be working for another company and seem sometimes to be as bright as the managers we criticise.
If any training is required, be it LGW or citiflyer, then welcome to the world of 'Columbus'. This company is promoting a route that has been requested by a couple of premium companies. They won't want to mess it up, they are operating with two aircraft that 'cant go wrong'.
If a mainline crew is not 'available' then they won't re train citiflyer crews onto the aircraft, they will train ab-initio crews or plug in main line crews.
Citi Flyer, your days are numbered, the agreements with the company come up for re-assessment in 2010 when the scope agreement for flying the aircraft outside of scope comes up for re-appraisal? New RJ's with more than 100 seats???
Keep dreaming
Oddly enough, I do know what the scope verses CC agreement carries.
Though its essentially a fait acompli the E190 isn't supposed to get certification for the steep approach into LCY until December - also the range on the E170 from LCY is 750nm so somewhat limiting to new routes.
Also the 190 is designed to hold 106 passengers (in dual class though up to 122 is possible) - which would present a problem in that only Mainline flight crew are able to operate it under the BA livery in the UK (SCOPE)
Are you sure that's the replacement plan for your fleet? I'm not attempting to be difficult just curious!
I tend to agree with JSL, mixing crews up introduces an amount of complexity into an operation...what if the crew aren't airbus trained....what if the hours aren't compatable.....what if our agreement doesn't cover this type of flying...what if....what if.....?
I presume "the mate" has access to the flights timings even though the slots haven't been decided on in NYC yet, and I presume he has taken into account that the LGW-JFK won't change timings, and I presume he knows the whole winter 09 programme already, and I presume he knows the crewing levels that will be needed for that season....?
It's all rumour and conjecture at the moment, wait until it's on CARMEN.
As Matt101 has pointed out the introduction of the Embraer 190 into the fleet is going to cause some scope headaches.
Marlowe, personally I don't care who operates behind the door, as long as they can follow orders and evacuate the cabin in an ordered and timely fashion, I'm happy.
What you fail to grasp, but then again what do I know, is that the new RJ's and the E190 are all aircraft 'designed' to carry in excess of 100 pax. BALPA gave Citi Flyer a local 'Scope exemption' for the RJ's which is due to expire in 2010. After the debacle of Open Skies the mainline fleet pilots will not allow BALPA to miss this opportunity and they will not allow concessions again. From now ALL aircraft operating in BA livery and designed to carry in excess of 100 pax will have mainline pilots. That is what is written into schedule K of SCOPE and that is what will happen. And how many seats does the 190 have?
Quote:
98 to 114 seats
So, as I said before, expect changes at Citi Flyer, coming soon.
So wobble, BALPA gonna back you all the way are they just like openskies? We all know how that started and ended . I have no doubt that change is ahead for Cityflyer, that is to be expected, still doesnt change the fact we are all gonna get a Brazilian!!!!!!!!
well they are getting the aircraft from Jetblue taking over their order from Embraer so how set in stone is that? Also the seat config on the 170 is 70-80 pax and on the 190 its 98-114 so the 170 is within the scope agreement and the 190 can be configed to be within the scope agreement, as the agreement stands at the moment. All information from Embraers website.
Last edited by marlowe : 9th September 2008 at 20:17.
Linear Mode
