A Very British Airline?

[Capetonian]

and all the problems that passengers bring

It has often been said that the airline industry would be perfect if it weren't for passengers.

[FullTanks]

Passengers = Walk-on freight

"All the problems that passengers bring......."
For all of us who have had years of experience, that is a comment born of pragmatic realism. Over 35 years many of the operational problems with which I had to deal involved passengers......late, missing, drunk, smoking in toilets, scared, or even bypassing Special Branch when late for the last Belfast etc, etc.
Oh, and how about the sectioned mental patient who escaped from hospital and managed to board the aircraft...........an actual event on a command route check I was conducting. Rather naughtily I told the captain under check that she was also sitting next to a nun with a guitar, ('Airplane' reference, in case you are too young to have seen the film).
From the age of 20 I was served my flightdeck lunch over the Atlantic by BOAC 'A' ladies - they were wonderful......I should know, I married one. Those on the programme, selected for filming, were a completely different type for what is now a completely different airline, operating in a different World. I'm sure that if BA had wanted to recruit similar CC to those it chose 40 to 50 years ago they could have done so; the pay back then wasn't that good either, although the pound went a little further and overseas allowances were generous. The quality of staff is in the hands of the recruiting team; if senior management are not completely happy with the end product perhaps they should start by replacing the recruiters. It was very obvious that some CC hopefuls had managed to 'slip under the wire', only to be humiliated by the programme makers.
The cadet pilots in the last programme deserve all due credit for succeeding in their chosen careers. For me, they were as obviously pleased, proud and 'chuffed' as I once was as a 19 year old on a BOAC 707 course. I wish them all good luck.

[G-F0RC3]

Am I correct with my hearing that those guys are bonded for 84000 quid and will earn 30000 quid once qualified. Wowsers

On top of their £30k+ BA are paying them £1000 per month (tax free) for the first seven years of employment to cover the £84k. Besides, £30k+ is only the starting salary; it goes up quite significantly in subsequent years.

[G-F0RC3]

All the problems that passengers bring...

I wouldn't take this comment out of context. They were talking about what to expect from the course and Andy was saying why it's different to what they'd done until then. Perhaps it would have been better to talk about the additional challenges passengers bring, but that's clearly the sentiment in what he did say and no disrespect was intended. I'm sure the vast bulk of people watching are clever enough to recognise this.

[kirungi1]

G-FORC3

I'm with you on this one but would add the context of predicting. I think Andy sets his mind condition beautifully by expecting grit behind the deck and now is in the mood of developing his resilience

[Pull what]

Was amazed by the comment of the male trainee after his mate on the course had been sacked for his 4th snapshot. Apparantly his 4th snapshot was for being 2 minutes late to the classroom, this guy moans to the camera, it's not fair he was sacked for 2 minutes, isn't that what airlines have airport standby for?!!
Priceless, suspect next weeks episode there may be a second sacking!

I remember being at an airline meeting chaired by a director on punctuality. The director turned up two minutes late to talk about on time departures! Thankfully both the airline and that director are no longer around. Airlines sell 'time' , customers travel on aircraft primarily to save time, not much else. Cabin crew (and flight deck) need to be reminded of this from time to time.

[kirungi1]

Pull What, #86 is such a great post. Time is of the essence. That said, I believe poor management of it at every level is one of the airlines' biggest problems and, of course, other variables.
I was on this flight yesterday which pushed back early leaving behind passengers then flying real fast to arrive almost 30 minutes before ETA. Without any doubt they were burning more fuel only to wait for an open gate. This is why I have my choice over certain airlines.

[FullTanks]

G-F0RC3
I totally agree with your view regarding Andy's comment about encountering passengers, and their associated problems, for the first time and shared my own in my previous post. I do think that Dirty Sanchez had rather misinterpreted the statement.
Perhaps he also needs to appreciate that the BA FPP scheme is just about the best opportunity out there in the current employment market. It may be expensive, but the eventual contract, offered only upon successful completion of the course, is for a permanent, pensionable position on a modern jet. With many now considering that, with airlines requiring not only a valid type rating, but also experience on that particular type, the opportunities to transfer between type and airline have become seriously limited, and possibly even a cul de sac if on a turbo prop.
I have met many of the initial intake and they have not entered into this training lightly, but in a seriously considered manner. All respect to them for having the courage of their convictions and the demonstrated ambition to succeed.

[FullTanks]

Apology

Apologies to all cabin crew reading this.
Although this thread started a commentary on the recent TV programme, and in fact most comments are still related to the views and situations depicted there, I do feel that a slight thread drift may mean that some of us should perhaps be commenting elsewhere.
I rest my case.

[cessnapete]

It was noticeable in the programmes the Instructors did not give out a great impression.
All the candidates were trim well turned out and "height proportional to weight" (not fat!)
The Instructors were all tubby ladies/queens!!

[PPRuNeUser0172]

I totally agree with your view regarding Andy's comment about encountering passengers, and their associated problems, for the first time and shared my own in my previous post. I do think that Dirty Sanchez had rather misinterpreted the statement.

No I didn't. My point was what a fantastic soundbyte, which I am sure did not sit well with the 'customer first' management. I am sure that it was edited out of context for that very purpose. I am clever enough to deduce that the FO who said it probably did so without meaning to infer that passengers are problematic, which brings me back to my original point that these fly on the wall docu-soaps are very good at polarising their content.

Perhaps he also needs to appreciate that the BA FPP scheme is just about the best opportunity out there in the current employment market. It may be expensive, but the eventual contract, offered only upon successful completion of the course, is for a permanent, pensionable position on a modern jet. With many now considering that, with airlines requiring not only a valid type rating, but also experience on that particular type, the opportunities to transfer between type and airline have become seriously limited, and possibly even a cul de sac if on a turbo prop.
I have met many of the initial intake and they have not entered into this training lightly, but in a seriously considered manner. All respect to them for having the courage of their convictions and the demonstrated ambition to succeed.

Couldn't agree more. Fair play to all the FPP candidates, hugely competitve and a credit to them for being selected - that was not my point. I do think it is disgusting how much financial risk is placed on the individual but sadly indicative of the wider industry.

Although in the CC forum, the topic title is about the whole series which doesn't just focus on the CC.

[FullTanks]

Thanks for clarifying that, Dirty Sanchez. Apologies if I misinterpreted your comments. As always, in any fly on the wall documentary, participants are at the mercy of the programme makers. I wholly agree with your remarks about the financial commitments demanded in order to enter this industry, one only hopes that it is money well spent. At least in the case of the BA FPP scheme the outlay is recoverable, albeit over a 7 year period, which effectively bonds the successful candidate until it can be repaid. Of course, when interest rates start to rise the non-recoverable element over and above the £84k, will take on an even greater significance as the interest owed accrues over effectively a 9 year period.

[G-F0RC3]

I do think it is disgusting how much financial risk is placed on the individual but sadly indicative of the wider industry.

To be fair I think the BA FPP is one of few programmes out there which can genuinely be excluded from the above comment. British Airways can act as guarantor for the cadet loan (instead of a relative's house acting as guarantor), and on top of that the bond is repaid by BA when employed. So BA are taking much of the weight of the otherwise monumental financial barrier. Without such an opportunity there's no way I'd have ever been able to feasibly afford to start training for an ATPL+TR, which surely exemplifies the inclusivity of the programme compared with others.

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Well glad we are all in agreement! My initial question was out of ignorance of the FPP and the TV program implied individuals would owe 84 grand and earn 30 grand - I was unaware, never having been in a position to need to know, what the arrangement was for repaying the dosh. So providing they stay in BA's employ for 7 years they recover all the outlay? Any cadet would be foolish to want to leave BA, despite the banter of many on here, it surely must be one of the best aviation jobs going when the whole package is considered.

[G-F0RC3]

If you intend to spend the rest of your career working for BA then being bonded to them for seven years isn't a negative point - it simply doesn't make a difference.

Not that cadets have a huge choice in today's industry, but I still believe most UK-based cadets would rather fly for BA than any other airline. And I do think other airlines should take BA's example with their recruitment programmes and shoulder some of the financial burden - even if it doesn't seem pragmatic from a purely business perspective. But as to not deviate far off topic I won't delve deeper into it than that.

On the whole I thought "A Very British Airline" was quite good - and certainly interesting. Clearly some of it has been dramatised for television purposes - particularly the cabin crew recruitment where I believe things were made to appear tougher than they actually were (only two failed after all).

[kirungi1]

Apparently 'Jodie' failed, so a small part of my faith in BA (and perhaps the BBC) has been restored. That she even got beyond the initial filtering worries me though.

I think praise goes to both Recruitment and Jodie for trying that hard to align their expectations and objectives. It just shows how far reaching in depth recruitment would go to unlock one's potential if there is genuine interest and passion for the role.
I have to say, but I stand to be corrected, that pitching attitude with aptitude to raise the profile of a crew member to an acceptable altitude of BA is by far the biggest handicap for recruitment and training and you could see this well even with the BA FPP trainees.
I think management has done well in recruitment and training with the challenges / variables of this age and they deserve credit for embracing change which might just be enough to sustain the business.

[G-F0RC3]

Well do we really know how hard Jodie worked actually? For sure she said she worked hard, but anyone could say that. I'm not sure she even understood what she was really trying to align herself with. She moaned about getting up early (which is an important part of the job); she couldn't serve passengers food and drink without giggling like a schoolgirl; she pretended to speak French to a "French" passenger even though she couldn't speak a word of it. On top of all that her story about finding a message in a bottle which inspired her to the role seems highly contrived. The above points - and many others besides - suggest to me that Jodie was out of her depth from start to finish. It's a pity this wasn't recognised earlier in the recruitment process for Jodie's sake as well as everyone else; it was never going to end well for her.

I have to say, but I stand to be corrected, that pitching attitude with aptitude to raise the profile of a crew member to an acceptable altitude of BA is by far the biggest handicap for recruitment and training and you could see this well even with the BA FPP trainees.

Not sure what you mean by this? In my view attitude and aptitude are inextricably linked to the role of a pilot. You could have the best hand-eye co-ordination in the world but it's irrelevant if you do not care about the company and its objectives. Likewise, you could be the most passionate person in the world, but if you can't fly straight and level then you're never going to make a good pilot. It's unsurprising that recruitment looks to obtain candidates who demonstrate both.

[kirungi1]

Not sure what you mean by this?

Recruitment will identify potential which is then exposed to state-of-the-art training facilities. So growth is attained in attitude and aptitude to acceptable values.
I doubt that Jodie got to that level without demonstrating potential, no! BA has so many sieves in recruitment to come through; Some might have good and first hand knowledge of this but IMVHO it's a question of genuine interest and passion or attitude that gave way.

[Noobyflewby]

I can vouch for Lord King as he once sat next to me down the back after vacating his seat in First and finding there was no seat in Business either.













His mantra was "if someone is paying to travel they must have my seat."







I asked other CSDs about this afterwards over the years and several had moved him out of First or Business at his insistence on busy flights.

[TightSlot]

It's been a while since I've posted and this seems as good a place to start as any!

I thought that what was done to Jodie (Jody?) was cruel. Three days before the end of the six week training course and they fired her?

My issue was that I didn't believe that she should have been there in the first place: She should have been screened out at interview and failing that, she should have been let go much earlier in the course once it became apparent that she wasn't going to fit. She seemed a nice enough person, well-meaning and pleasant, if rather un-worldly, it's just that she wasn't right for the job.

So what was she doing there in the first place?

I think that letting somebody get through virtually the entire training course only to fire them on a technical breach just before graduation is cruel and smacks of an arrogance that is unappealing.

I watched all three episodes: I disliked BA before and have not been influenced to change my position. I recall one of the Trainers complaining that a trainee had offered a customer a choice of Diet Coke or "Full Fat". This, apparently, was not at all the sort of thing that BA or their customers want. If that statement is accurate, then I don't really want to be trapped in a metal tube with people that think like that: If it is not accurate, then they have some real issues in the Training department.

As I look back on my flying career, I sometimes wonder what happened to the other way of working as a Flight Attendant that involved some, if not all, of these words - Calm, quiet, assured, adult, experienced, pleasant, open, friendly, competent, worldly, approachable, knowledgeable, professional. So much of the FA culture that I see today is conducted like a TV chat show, at a near hysterical pitch where almost everybody is either Alan Carr or Kerry Katona - apart from anything else, it is exhausting.