BA Franchise
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote: I quite agree that it should be done in house. However, far from TUPE, we should just get some freighters and cancel the contract with GSS. I'm afraid it wouldn't be your way in, as you so understandably desperately want.
says it all really
totally superior attitude!! and if you integrated the pilots into BA it would stop the "Ex BA Prostitutes" as they would be too old.
Simple really
Quote: I suppose we might as well give Easy Jet, Aer Lingus and every other Tom Dick and Harry a job while we're at it.
They are not doing, quote: "your work" they are competitors totally different, and if they wish to work for BA they should apply.
I agree with the principal that you do not wish to see your T and Cs erroded due to lower cost companies doing your work, but it needs to be addressed in a far more mature way to protect your future.
Wake up and smell the coffee!! the management are laughing at you big time by the dividing the pilot forces, by working together for a common cause you will be far stronger.
BTW why do you think BA are struggling so much to get pilots? its because the terms and conditions have been erroded to such an extent that people are just not interested anymore. I worry for you guys as you may find things becoming very uncomfortable in the future unless you pull together.
says it all really
totally superior attitude!! and if you integrated the pilots into BA it would stop the "Ex BA Prostitutes" as they would be too old.
Simple really
Quote: I suppose we might as well give Easy Jet, Aer Lingus and every other Tom Dick and Harry a job while we're at it.
They are not doing, quote: "your work" they are competitors totally different, and if they wish to work for BA they should apply.
I agree with the principal that you do not wish to see your T and Cs erroded due to lower cost companies doing your work, but it needs to be addressed in a far more mature way to protect your future.
Wake up and smell the coffee!! the management are laughing at you big time by the dividing the pilot forces, by working together for a common cause you will be far stronger.
BTW why do you think BA are struggling so much to get pilots? its because the terms and conditions have been erroded to such an extent that people are just not interested anymore. I worry for you guys as you may find things becoming very uncomfortable in the future unless you pull together.
Last edited by bluepilot; 26th Aug 2005 at 10:14.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: brighton
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW will not buy GB or BMED its not on the cards, however what is under the review is LGW which will change to become a Singlefleet (midfleet for EF LGW Cabin Crew).WW has said he likes LGW as it is lean and mean and can take on Easyjet. Both Man / BHX are under review as well as LHR , so who knows what he is going to do he may surprise us all !
Whats GSS?
Whats GSS?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Joe I disagree, however I am not an expert in corporate law. My take on it is that all we've got to do is cancel your contract or not renew one, then use our own freighters. We would be under no obligation to hire you guys unless it involved a merger or takeover.
The BACC's attitude is far from disgraceful. It is admirable that it seeks to protect BA work for BA pilots. I would expect a GSS CC to do the same. Have you got one?
Blue
Is that so. Last I heard there were no empty courses.
Thanks for your concern but don't worry. We'll be ok and thats without "pulling" together with a company that we have nothing to do with except give work to.
Serious question. Are you Dutch?
Memphis
No we're making no profit at all at the moment, are we?
As for a walk out, most of us would welcome it. Then we can sack these plebs and start again ready for T5. I think you'll find WW has rather a large war chest and he will use it.
Can some people at least visit the planet Earth before posting.
And I know some people on here have difficulty reading and processing information so I'll repeat.
My earlier post about the franchises was a wind up, you know, a bit of fishing.
The BACC's attitude is far from disgraceful. It is admirable that it seeks to protect BA work for BA pilots. I would expect a GSS CC to do the same. Have you got one?
Blue
BTW why do you think BA are struggling so much to get pilots
I worry for you guys as you may find things becoming very uncomfortable in the future unless you pull together.
Serious question. Are you Dutch?
Memphis
BA don't have two halfpennies to rub together. More like you will soon be a franchise of GB.
As for a walk out, most of us would welcome it. Then we can sack these plebs and start again ready for T5. I think you'll find WW has rather a large war chest and he will use it.
Can some people at least visit the planet Earth before posting.
And I know some people on here have difficulty reading and processing information so I'll repeat.
My earlier post about the franchises was a wind up, you know, a bit of fishing.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe
I think you should quit while you are ahead. You have just told us that GSS are TOTALLY reliant on the work given to them by BAWC.
With respect, this is PRECISELY the point that the BACC have made. GSS would not exist without BAWC.
Strange that we should be discussing GSS on a thread about franchises, since, as you say, GSS is not a franchise.
I think you should quit while you are ahead. You have just told us that GSS are TOTALLY reliant on the work given to them by BAWC.
With respect, this is PRECISELY the point that the BACC have made. GSS would not exist without BAWC.
Strange that we should be discussing GSS on a thread about franchises, since, as you say, GSS is not a franchise.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe
I understand that but
1. We don't employ you as contract workers. We give your company a contract of work. Is that different?
2. We wouldn't be using different contract workers, we would be bringing it "in house".
By your rationale if BA decided to now drop Gate Gourmet as it's catering supplier and bring it back in house we would then have to employ all GG employees?
I doubt it.
Also your theory would therefore determine that BA can never move its cargo business ever again without employing all the GSS people? Rubbish.
I understand that but
1. We don't employ you as contract workers. We give your company a contract of work. Is that different?
2. We wouldn't be using different contract workers, we would be bringing it "in house".
By your rationale if BA decided to now drop Gate Gourmet as it's catering supplier and bring it back in house we would then have to employ all GG employees?
I doubt it.
Also your theory would therefore determine that BA can never move its cargo business ever again without employing all the GSS people? Rubbish.
Last edited by normal_nigel; 26th Aug 2005 at 14:54.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel, may I suggest Va te fais enculer!
Speaking as a franchisee unfortunately bought by BA, thereby fulfilling most of the conditions you deny to GSS, we are all too well aware what BA are really like. Our successful Company was immediately told it was losing money, was packed with BA second-raters, had more management jobs created overnight than most of us had ever heard of, and its morale plummetted.
GSS - be very grateful indeed you are NOT a franchisee. You prove once again that you can make a healthy profit doing the same task which BA were unable to achieve successfully. BA as ever are jealous
and insist on trying to remove the laurels, to load you with their people, (who they interestingly enough admit are only there because they are greedy bar stewards 
). There's no winning is there. Be grateful they at least haven't sadled you with their managers or trainers - that is truly dire!
Joe, Nigel's sally regarding using their own frieghters or cancelling your contract is baloney. If BA were able to make money at it, they would not have outsourced the task in the first place. BA were pretty good at long haul pax ops when they were BOAC. They remain pretty good at it (if you can stomach the world's most arrogant cabin crew lol
). However, they have proved to be a signal failure at everything else they have attempted...er, London Eye excepted (although Ayling WAS involved in the Dome, whih kind cancels the Eye out I guess). So there you have it. Look on the bright side - you don't depend on any of their militant and useless ancillaries, from LHR checkin to er, dare I mention catering......
The woolly pully will be recruiting soon, and so will the other competition - just wait till lo-cost becomes long haul. BA is a dinosaur, and an inefficient one at that.
Good luck Joe, remember, never depend on the integrity of a BA manager, or the morality and ethics of a BA BALPA CC.
Apre moi le deluge!
Speaking as a franchisee unfortunately bought by BA, thereby fulfilling most of the conditions you deny to GSS, we are all too well aware what BA are really like. Our successful Company was immediately told it was losing money, was packed with BA second-raters, had more management jobs created overnight than most of us had ever heard of, and its morale plummetted.
GSS - be very grateful indeed you are NOT a franchisee. You prove once again that you can make a healthy profit doing the same task which BA were unable to achieve successfully. BA as ever are jealous
and insist on trying to remove the laurels, to load you with their people, (who they interestingly enough admit are only there because they are greedy bar stewards ). There's no winning is there. Be grateful they at least haven't sadled you with their managers or trainers - that is truly dire!Joe, Nigel's sally regarding using their own frieghters or cancelling your contract is baloney. If BA were able to make money at it, they would not have outsourced the task in the first place. BA were pretty good at long haul pax ops when they were BOAC. They remain pretty good at it (if you can stomach the world's most arrogant cabin crew lol
). However, they have proved to be a signal failure at everything else they have attempted...er, London Eye excepted (although Ayling WAS involved in the Dome, whih kind cancels the Eye out I guess). So there you have it. Look on the bright side - you don't depend on any of their militant and useless ancillaries, from LHR checkin to er, dare I mention catering......The woolly pully will be recruiting soon, and so will the other competition - just wait till lo-cost becomes long haul. BA is a dinosaur, and an inefficient one at that.
Good luck Joe, remember, never depend on the integrity of a BA manager, or the morality and ethics of a BA BALPA CC.
Apre moi le deluge!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You prove once again that you can make a healthy profit doing the same task which BA were unable to achieve successfully.
However, they have proved to be a signal failure at everything else they have attempted
Best get that straight jacket back on TLP.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The 51st State
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pilots are as expendable as catering workers or any other groups. The pilots do not own any work. If the management want to sub-charter the entire short haul operation to Easyjet and the long haul operation to Virgin then they are perfectly entitled to do so.
They could even do as they have in many other departments, sell the entire Flight Crew operation to some investment company and hire in the services on inferior terms and conditions. Pilots are no more important to BA's operation than catering workers.
Left to the market, BA could easily get rid of the expensive pilot fraternity and replace them with cheaper contract employees.
If I was left in charge I would set up a holding company and contract out the entire operation to the lowest bidder. Maybe WW has already thought of it.
What is important is what WW believes, and that is very much dependent on the latest theory from Harvard Business School.
Harry the expendable
They could even do as they have in many other departments, sell the entire Flight Crew operation to some investment company and hire in the services on inferior terms and conditions. Pilots are no more important to BA's operation than catering workers.
Left to the market, BA could easily get rid of the expensive pilot fraternity and replace them with cheaper contract employees.
If I was left in charge I would set up a holding company and contract out the entire operation to the lowest bidder. Maybe WW has already thought of it.
What is important is what WW believes, and that is very much dependent on the latest theory from Harvard Business School.
Harry the expendable
Harry Wragg:
"Pilots are no more important to BA's operation than catering workers".
How very, very, very true!
I am extremely grateful that my Company is not so vulnerable!
"Pilots are no more important to BA's operation than catering workers".
How very, very, very true!
I am extremely grateful that my Company is not so vulnerable!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left to the market, BA could easily get rid of the expensive pilot fraternity and replace them with cheaper contract employees.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Seem to remember Go did pretty well. LHR shorthaul is breaking even. BAWC makes a fortune. Worlds most profitable airline. The only part thats not doing well is, errrr, your part! Thats why you don't get any profit share."
Ummm, yes, we certainly don't, do we. Funny how the advent of BA managers instantly turned a yearly record profitablity, sustained on the same routes over the previous half decade into an instant loss? Odd how your own revenue allocation system disadvantages shorthaul, (not to mention the cost of all your effing managers...
However, I must admit to a sense of fun, when you throw the bread on the water, the same old sour faces always rise to the bait. Never fails.
Looking forward to Willie's first innovative poliy, and the departure of the rest of our sickly secondees - should reduce the MOR count anyway.....and think of the saving in replacing all those bent tails!
Ummm, yes, we certainly don't, do we. Funny how the advent of BA managers instantly turned a yearly record profitablity, sustained on the same routes over the previous half decade into an instant loss? Odd how your own revenue allocation system disadvantages shorthaul, (not to mention the cost of all your effing managers...
However, I must admit to a sense of fun, when you throw the bread on the water, the same old sour faces always rise to the bait. Never fails.
Looking forward to Willie's first innovative poliy, and the departure of the rest of our sickly secondees - should reduce the MOR count anyway.....and think of the saving in replacing all those bent tails!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sustained on the same routes over the previous half decade into an instant loss?
Don't think you'll save much money on bent tails by getting rid of the secondees. I refer you to this report which on page 7 mentions the commanders inexperience in the 20T aircraft category as a contributory factor.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny old thing HS boyo, but your report wouldn't open. May I refer YOU to the guy who bent the last one, er, mebbe we'll spare his embarrassment. Or should we discuss the mainline trainer...the one who mixed gear and flaps up??? Perhaps we should compare the BA cadet fiasco - er, how many of those got chopped on the humble ATP and had to be slid back in via the rear hangar door?
No, let's not go there eh?
As for the competition, yep, but we used to see all that off. Funny there's no stomach for it no more....perhaps you could review the routes we've been forced to abandon at the first hint of competition - policy from Waterside I understand, as you know all too well. Finally, I'm sure you're still enjoying the use of our LHR slots. We used to make a lot of money on those routes before they were asset stripped.
No, let's not go there eh?
As for the competition, yep, but we used to see all that off. Funny there's no stomach for it no more....perhaps you could review the routes we've been forced to abandon at the first hint of competition - policy from Waterside I understand, as you know all too well. Finally, I'm sure you're still enjoying the use of our LHR slots. We used to make a lot of money on those routes before they were asset stripped.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The link works fine for me, but if you seem to be having trouble then try this:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-CFAD.pdf
I don't think naming names is appropriate on this forum, suffice to say that your community are not entitled to cast stones on the subject of RJ damage. Fortunately you seem to be the only CX pilot here who doesn't share that wisdom. BA cadets chopped on the ATP? Not many. Perhaps you'll tell us the numbers instead of just alluding to it and providing no actual evidence, your usual modus operandi I note.
Still, as your views seem to have been disowned even by other CX pilots (on the TDLF thread) its hardly worth wasting the bandwidth on an extremist like you.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-CFAD.pdf
I don't think naming names is appropriate on this forum, suffice to say that your community are not entitled to cast stones on the subject of RJ damage. Fortunately you seem to be the only CX pilot here who doesn't share that wisdom. BA cadets chopped on the ATP? Not many. Perhaps you'll tell us the numbers instead of just alluding to it and providing no actual evidence, your usual modus operandi I note.
Still, as your views seem to have been disowned even by other CX pilots (on the TDLF thread) its hardly worth wasting the bandwidth on an extremist like you.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm - but you just can't resist it can you?
As for my colleagues, well, it's a shame there isn't a poll facility on here any longer. Then we could ask everyone from CX who REALLY thinks we have benefited at all from the BA takeover. Your methods, your characters (hah) your ethics, morals, you are all at least consistent, and well known for it throughout the industry.
Nope, there have to be a few like me around, going out on the edge to remind people what BA are really like. There's a whole generation of pilots who probably haven't heard of 'dirty tricks', or Dan-Air, but I'll make quite sure they remain aware of what BA are like behind the mask.
Good luck with Gate Gourmet!
As for my colleagues, well, it's a shame there isn't a poll facility on here any longer. Then we could ask everyone from CX who REALLY thinks we have benefited at all from the BA takeover. Your methods, your characters (hah) your ethics, morals, you are all at least consistent, and well known for it throughout the industry.
Nope, there have to be a few like me around, going out on the edge to remind people what BA are really like. There's a whole generation of pilots who probably haven't heard of 'dirty tricks', or Dan-Air, but I'll make quite sure they remain aware of what BA are like behind the mask.
Good luck with Gate Gourmet!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well known for it throughout the industry.
there have to be a few like me around, going out on the edge to remind people what BA are really like.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB PDF for G-CFAD (opened for me, obv). Incident occurred at LCY.
From the report (emphasis is mine, for HS benefit)
From the report (emphasis is mine, for HS benefit)
He had never before flown an aircraft in the 20 tonne category that had a tail strike risk and he believed he was following company advice to retard the throttles at 100 feet agl for a steep approach.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the emphasis, but the point you miss is that both the 737 and the A319 (the BA aircraft the RJ replaced) both had a tailstrike risk. As did the 767, 777 and 747-400. Ergo, the commander was not a BA mainline secondee or he would have flown an aircraft in excess of 20T with a tailstrike risk.