BA still "Too Expensive to Run"5000 jobs to go ???
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA still "Too Expensive to Run"5000 jobs to go ???
BA staff fear 5,000 job cuts
by Juliette Jowit, transport editor
Sunday December 14, 2003
The Observer
Thousands of jobs are to be axed by British Airways amid growing fears about the company's finances.
The airline, which has debts of £4.8bn, is
to introduce the measures in the face of rising costs and falling income from ticket sales.
The company, which is struggling to cope with a world economic downturn and competition from low-cost airlines, will publish its plan in January, it was revealed last night.
The programme will include tough cost-cutting and thousands of job cuts. Last night a BA spokesman refused to comment on speculation that the job losses could be as high as 5,000.
However, another source said the 5,000 figure was credible. 'It [the figure] might be higher, it might be lower ... It's not an outlandish estimate,' he said.
Two years ago BA announced a drastic cost-cutting programme, including sacking 13,000 workers. Since then, revenue has dropped even further by £1.9bn.
To add to their problems, BA last month revealed a £1bn shortfall in its pension scheme, which will cost another £133m a year to put right.
And last night a senior company official admitted income has still not picked up as expected this year. 'It's looking a bit better now but I think everyone in the airline is so cautious because we have been there before,' he said.
Rod Eddington, chief executive, revealed that the early action plan would be published before the usual date in March in a letter to BA's 46,000 staff. He said that the airline was still suffering the impact of terrorism and war in Iraq, an economic downturn and competition from low-cost carriers - forcing BA to slash ticket prices to fill its planes.
Results for the first six months of the year, showing profits dropped from £310m last year to £60m, were 'disappointing', he said.
'In short our airline - despite everyone's best efforts in recent years - is still too expensive to run, particularly in these economic conditions.
by Juliette Jowit, transport editor
Sunday December 14, 2003
The Observer
Thousands of jobs are to be axed by British Airways amid growing fears about the company's finances.
The airline, which has debts of £4.8bn, is
to introduce the measures in the face of rising costs and falling income from ticket sales.
The company, which is struggling to cope with a world economic downturn and competition from low-cost airlines, will publish its plan in January, it was revealed last night.
The programme will include tough cost-cutting and thousands of job cuts. Last night a BA spokesman refused to comment on speculation that the job losses could be as high as 5,000.
However, another source said the 5,000 figure was credible. 'It [the figure] might be higher, it might be lower ... It's not an outlandish estimate,' he said.
Two years ago BA announced a drastic cost-cutting programme, including sacking 13,000 workers. Since then, revenue has dropped even further by £1.9bn.
To add to their problems, BA last month revealed a £1bn shortfall in its pension scheme, which will cost another £133m a year to put right.
And last night a senior company official admitted income has still not picked up as expected this year. 'It's looking a bit better now but I think everyone in the airline is so cautious because we have been there before,' he said.
Rod Eddington, chief executive, revealed that the early action plan would be published before the usual date in March in a letter to BA's 46,000 staff. He said that the airline was still suffering the impact of terrorism and war in Iraq, an economic downturn and competition from low-cost carriers - forcing BA to slash ticket prices to fill its planes.
Results for the first six months of the year, showing profits dropped from £310m last year to £60m, were 'disappointing', he said.
'In short our airline - despite everyone's best efforts in recent years - is still too expensive to run, particularly in these economic conditions.
5000 to go?
Start with the 'Dirty Tricksters'....... For until their lingering taint is expunged once and for all, ba will never have a decent image to many.
Good luck to all the flight crews and cabin crews who work so hard to provide a quality service despite jurassic mis-management from the Waterworks.
Start with the 'Dirty Tricksters'....... For until their lingering taint is expunged once and for all, ba will never have a decent image to many.
Good luck to all the flight crews and cabin crews who work so hard to provide a quality service despite jurassic mis-management from the Waterworks.
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Dec 2003 at 23:05.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Still "Too Expensive TO Run" 5000 jobs to go
What a load of excrement! I've been trying to get BA Gatwick/Palma tickets for January. Hardly a single seat left... £189 one-way too! Time for a re-name (BOAC maybe?) and surrender domestic and Europe before it's all lost. Have also tried many other destinations (international too)...it seems hardly a seat to be had. If they cant put bums on seats maybe they should be asked for proof! bm
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Not where Iwant to be anymore!!!!
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That'll be farewell to us at BA Citiexpress then.
Can't say the BA experience has been uplifting, great Flight Crews, and totally inept, useless, posturing, overborne, arrogant, patronising management. I have never ever worked for a more pathetic bunch of tossers!!!!!!!
See you all on the dole queue.
Can't say the BA experience has been uplifting, great Flight Crews, and totally inept, useless, posturing, overborne, arrogant, patronising management. I have never ever worked for a more pathetic bunch of tossers!!!!!!!
See you all on the dole queue.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hapzim
Disagree. Not underestimating the problems at BA at all, but a loss of let's say £200m to a company valued at about £2bn, is small fry compared to a loss of £900m for a company vaued at £60m.
I suspect that BA will be around longer than MYT (maybe not much longer, but longer nonetheless). Fancy a wager?
Disagree. Not underestimating the problems at BA at all, but a loss of let's say £200m to a company valued at about £2bn, is small fry compared to a loss of £900m for a company vaued at £60m.
I suspect that BA will be around longer than MYT (maybe not much longer, but longer nonetheless). Fancy a wager?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guess wrong Airway. BA haven't made anyone redundant in donkeys years because the more militant unions will go out on strike. Thats part of the problem. They need to shed thousands of jobs (and nobody will miss them in many of the admin roles), but the unions see BA as a job creation program, not a company.
BoeingMEL, Gatwick/Palma is a GB Airways route, not technically BA. I'm not sure what the rest of your post is trying to say. Everyone knows the loads are great. Its the fact that the yields are **** thats the problem.
BoeingMEL, Gatwick/Palma is a GB Airways route, not technically BA. I'm not sure what the rest of your post is trying to say. Everyone knows the loads are great. Its the fact that the yields are **** thats the problem.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Silas,
Couldn't agree more,
'Can't say the BA experience has been uplifting, great Flight Crews, and totally inept, useless, posturing, overborne, arrogant, patronising management. I have never ever worked for a more pathetic bunch of tossers!!!!!!!'
Sad thing is if they do get rid of the more inept they seem to turn up at GB Airways. Never seen a more clueless bunch anywhere and I have worked for some real losers in the last 25 years.
It seems that people want to fly, e.g. record passenger numbers on other carriers, for some reason they don't want, or can't or choose not, to fly BA.
Seems inconceivable that if some aircraft are full there is no price elasticity.
Maybe the reason is ipss poor marketing/sales compared to the low cost operators who have at least realised you can't sell if you keep it all a big secret. This is why GB's pricing is so out of kilter with the market.
You can bet if BA gets rid of people it will be front line staff, the management will be looking after themselves. Just more mayhem to piss the BA customers off even further.
Couldn't agree more,
'Can't say the BA experience has been uplifting, great Flight Crews, and totally inept, useless, posturing, overborne, arrogant, patronising management. I have never ever worked for a more pathetic bunch of tossers!!!!!!!'
Sad thing is if they do get rid of the more inept they seem to turn up at GB Airways. Never seen a more clueless bunch anywhere and I have worked for some real losers in the last 25 years.
It seems that people want to fly, e.g. record passenger numbers on other carriers, for some reason they don't want, or can't or choose not, to fly BA.
Seems inconceivable that if some aircraft are full there is no price elasticity.
Maybe the reason is ipss poor marketing/sales compared to the low cost operators who have at least realised you can't sell if you keep it all a big secret. This is why GB's pricing is so out of kilter with the market.
You can bet if BA gets rid of people it will be front line staff, the management will be looking after themselves. Just more mayhem to piss the BA customers off even further.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's got to the stage where if the unions say:
"We're not going to allow you to make 5000 redundant";
then the reply is likely to be:
"Tough! You go on strike and there'll be 50000 redundant."
May sound flippant but if they strike, we won't last long. If we lose 5000, we may survive.
"We're not going to allow you to make 5000 redundant";
then the reply is likely to be:
"Tough! You go on strike and there'll be 50000 redundant."
May sound flippant but if they strike, we won't last long. If we lose 5000, we may survive.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More than likely, a few more than 5000 need to hit the bricks.
Good place to start...20% pay cut for flight crews, 30% for cabin staff.
Get rid of the loafers, especially in the cabin.
Good place to start...20% pay cut for flight crews, 30% for cabin staff.
Get rid of the loafers, especially in the cabin.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Hang on, I'll check my roster...
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all your faults 411A I must acknowledge the fact that you do have a brain, you wouldn't be able to rile people quite so much without one.
A 20% pay cut for flight crew, well that may help but look at the flight crew to 'other' ratio for BA and I think you will find that a 1% pay cut elsewhere will have a similar effect. That, and it will leave front line passenger meeting staff with a will to live...
A 30% pay cut for cabin crew, well that means none of them can live within 2 hours of London so your standby measures must change. Your repeat custom will fall due to the enormous level of 'pissed-offness' amongst your front line team and the reflection of that on the punters.
Drink your appaling American "whiskey" and offend the other wonder beings in Sedona all you like but leave us alone would you.
A 20% pay cut for flight crew, well that may help but look at the flight crew to 'other' ratio for BA and I think you will find that a 1% pay cut elsewhere will have a similar effect. That, and it will leave front line passenger meeting staff with a will to live...
A 30% pay cut for cabin crew, well that means none of them can live within 2 hours of London so your standby measures must change. Your repeat custom will fall due to the enormous level of 'pissed-offness' amongst your front line team and the reflection of that on the punters.
Drink your appaling American "whiskey" and offend the other wonder beings in Sedona all you like but leave us alone would you.
Last edited by Hawk; 2nd Jan 2004 at 23:36.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to rile 'em up so much Spearing Britney, but mainline airlines just have to cut costs, to bring 'em in line with the likes of Ryanair and Easy.
If not done, the entire company will disappear, like it or not....and many won't.
Many live in a dream world where they believe that the 'large' can't fail.
These folks are sadly mistaken.
Bite the bullet now, or watch the entire show go down the drain.
Just the way it is.
If not done, the entire company will disappear, like it or not....and many won't.
Many live in a dream world where they believe that the 'large' can't fail.
These folks are sadly mistaken.
Bite the bullet now, or watch the entire show go down the drain.
Just the way it is.
Attempting to cut pay would certainly cause industrial action - and quite rightly too. But cutting back on the managers, overpaid and useless flesh-pressing suits at the Waterworks is overdue. As is firing the last of the Dirty Tricksters.
Turning to the question of cabin manning, if you run a cheap-as-chips set up like RyanAir or easyJet, with minimum levels of cabin service as a policy, then you probably don't need anything more than the legal minimum number of cabin crew.
But if you're offering a multi-class service, to feed and water all your punters on shortish sectors will be highly labour intensive. So you may need more than just the minimum.
Whilst there is a high demand for low-cost airlines, there is still a high demand for business flights with more leg room, higher quality food, higher levels of service than the LCAs need to offer. So there's bound to be some market polarisation; the trick for ba is to get its share of the top end revenue without losing economy class customers to the LCAs. How? That's down to marketing/branding/image and sales management.
But whilst the Dirty Tricksters are still around, you won't be getting my custom, Skippy.
Just the way it is
Turning to the question of cabin manning, if you run a cheap-as-chips set up like RyanAir or easyJet, with minimum levels of cabin service as a policy, then you probably don't need anything more than the legal minimum number of cabin crew.
But if you're offering a multi-class service, to feed and water all your punters on shortish sectors will be highly labour intensive. So you may need more than just the minimum.
Whilst there is a high demand for low-cost airlines, there is still a high demand for business flights with more leg room, higher quality food, higher levels of service than the LCAs need to offer. So there's bound to be some market polarisation; the trick for ba is to get its share of the top end revenue without losing economy class customers to the LCAs. How? That's down to marketing/branding/image and sales management.
But whilst the Dirty Tricksters are still around, you won't be getting my custom, Skippy.
Just the way it is
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I don't think pay cuts are going to be on the cards: industrial relations are too poor to stomach them. Nor do I think there are going to be cuts in front-line staff (C-in and CC) because the firm's currently recruiting for both those areas...
No, the cuts will come from elsewhere. Remember that the pensions mountain is insurmountable as it is, so reduced staff costs (ergo reduced company pensions contributions) are a pre-cursor to dealing with that.
The figure of 5,000 won't all be actual jobs - it'll be MPE. So no overtime, and redistributing existing jobs elsewhere. So if (say) Finance needs to lose 100 MPE then 50 people moving to Marketing could do the trick.
I think the question is rather... Why did Future Size and Shape (part 1) when we were promised "This'll be the end of the job cuts" turn out not to be true? It doesn't bode well for trust.
No, the cuts will come from elsewhere. Remember that the pensions mountain is insurmountable as it is, so reduced staff costs (ergo reduced company pensions contributions) are a pre-cursor to dealing with that.
The figure of 5,000 won't all be actual jobs - it'll be MPE. So no overtime, and redistributing existing jobs elsewhere. So if (say) Finance needs to lose 100 MPE then 50 people moving to Marketing could do the trick.
I think the question is rather... Why did Future Size and Shape (part 1) when we were promised "This'll be the end of the job cuts" turn out not to be true? It doesn't bode well for trust.