Hangarpilot,
Some of us may work for said airline, and I am interested to know why you think Rod's strategy is incorrect? You will see in the next six months or so, AF and LH in particular cutting back on their capacity, as in times of an economic downturn, you have to stimulate demand with decreases in price to get the same amount of pax aboard. If you cut too much...well you lose money. This is essentially what BA were having to do. This, combined with a product (club world) that was a little past its sell by date, with an erratic quality of service (I have not been here for long, and used to work for CO in the USA...and this was the major complaint of BA from all the people I met) and you have an unprofitable operation. Thus downsizing aircraft (most companies are doing this anyway....compare the number of new pax 747's odered with that of B777's) and updating the product, is the way forward in an increasingly competitive world. Why would you disagree?
With regard to LGW....well, what would you do? BA does not have enough slots, and indeed LGW is not big enough to be a full hub. If there was a second runway, and upgraded terminal...then it could be a good hub. But in the abscence of feed traffic from a hub operation, you have to rely on the O&D traffic. Unfortunately, most people wanting to fly to London for business, will go to LHR as this is more convenient than LGW for there business meetings. I would agree that the transport links are good, but how long does it take to get to LGW from central london by cab compared with LHR? A long time. Thus, the yeild's you get from a pax at LGW are much less than that of LHR, which ultimately mean that the operation is not going to be profitable (even though EOG/CityFlyer have lower cost bases!). If you suddenly said that all carriers that cannot operate from LGW due to bilateral reasons (DL, CO, NW etc) could move to LHR, they would all move tomorrow!!! There must be something in that!!
I can see two futures for LGw. If a second run was built, and BA could expand there, I would imagine that LGW could be turned into a good transfer hub, with LHR as the point to point airport. However, the ods of this happening in the next ten yeatrs are almost nil. Therefore, the other options would be to change the operation from a transfer/hub operation to a point to point operation, cncetrating on key routes at a higher frequency. This is what Rod is doing, and it is the correct move.
If you would disagree, what would you suggest that BA do. Remember, BA have a government that could not give a damn about aviation, and would rather see traffic go to LH/AF/KL rather than address the problem of under investment of our air traffic infrastructure. This is the opposite of France/Germany/and even Holland.
I am all for staff morale, and indeed I totally agree with the CO philiosphy with regard to how to keep staff happy. CO is extremely good at keeping staff informed, and explaining any desicisions; Something that BA is not good at!! This is bad, and urgently needs to be changed. But remember, Rod is employed by the shareholders, and not the staff. His job is to produce the greatest return for them! You need a good balance of staff morale (happy staff = good service to pax = happy pax = profit) and also careful cost control. If you compare BA's costs of operation, with that of, say the US majors (even after the pilot wage increases), BA still has a much higher cost base. This needs to be addressed, but NOT at the detrement of the business.
[This message has been edited by DPIT (edited 20 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by DPIT (edited 20 June 2001).]