British Airways CityExpress
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since then, it's been RJ100s, E145s, and Dash 8s.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ElNino - I have to disagree on your comment that 'Unless the fares are lower, you won't tempt the punters off a 320/737 and onto these rather less than comfortable flying machines'.
On short-haul flights comfort is not nearly as much of an issue - but in any case what BACX are offering is a service to the business traveller. The key selling points are high frequency so you can get there and back in a day(which tends to smaller rather than larger aircraft), the availability of flexible ticketing, and then cost. Comfort ain't in it when you have to justify your fare on an expense claim.
As a practical example I was lucky enough flying MAN-SOU last week to have a BAe 146 replace the usual Dash8 (tech issues?). Lovely aircraft. But I wouldn't pay a premium because it's a sub 1-hour flight.
On short-haul flights comfort is not nearly as much of an issue - but in any case what BACX are offering is a service to the business traveller. The key selling points are high frequency so you can get there and back in a day(which tends to smaller rather than larger aircraft), the availability of flexible ticketing, and then cost. Comfort ain't in it when you have to justify your fare on an expense claim.
As a practical example I was lucky enough flying MAN-SOU last week to have a BAe 146 replace the usual Dash8 (tech issues?). Lovely aircraft. But I wouldn't pay a premium because it's a sub 1-hour flight.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect if it is to be crewed from LHR it will make even less monies, as costs will increase for allowances and hotac. The operation lacks direction and enovation. MAN BA / BACX wants some dynamic leadership and clear goals. If this does not happen then the whole thing might as well be closed or sold off.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A cynic might suggest that a cost increase from using all non-based crew would drag performance down sufficiently to render the route low enough down the profitability charts to allow its axing.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Know that the flight crew are London based as my friend was on the shuttle and the crew that bought the shuttle up were then doing the New York the next day and then doing the reverse on the way back so I would guess they could do the same with the cabin crew
or is that to logical
G-I-B
or is that to logical
G-I-B
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK Inverness has had no 'Mainline' ground occupants for many years but if true about GLA and EDI then perhaps it might be 'mainline' groundstaff which is going to take a hit in the provinces? Long overdue at Manchester I'm sure many would argue. Despite flying under the same flag, the CX/Mainline relationship there has never been ideal - always the 'them and us' mentality, 'them' not really taking on board that it was the 'us' which was providing 90% of 'their' work and probably paying handsomely for it. BACX flying-wise there is nothing left based at Glasgow save the phoenix-like Loganair.
Last edited by judge11; 23rd Nov 2005 at 12:56.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information just in is that a number of the Scottish BA airport operations have been transfered to BACX as of yesterday. INV being one of them GLA and EDI next.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK Inverness has had no 'Mainline' ground occupants for many years but if true about GLA and EDI then perhaps it might be 'mainline' groundstaff which is going to take a hit in the provinces? Long overdue at Manchester I'm sure many would argue. Despite flying under the same flag, the CX/Mainline relationship there has never been ideal - always the 'them and us' mentality, 'them' not really taking on board that it was the 'us' which was providing 90% of 'their' work and probably paying handsomely for it.
On the other hand GB airways are a far more profesional operation. I guess thats the difference between a airline who can run at a loss bailed out by mainline and a airline that has to make a profit.
Last edited by Railgun; 23rd Nov 2005 at 14:20.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: .
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainline profitable ????
Is that comment about being bailed out by mainline some sort of joke, Railgun?
The ‘parent’ company itself seems to find the word ‘profit’ difficult to grasp. As a BA shareholder the last dividend received from ‘mainline’ was in 2001!!!
The ‘parent’ company itself seems to find the word ‘profit’ difficult to grasp. As a BA shareholder the last dividend received from ‘mainline’ was in 2001!!!
Railgun,
you have to be joking, right? (In perfect John McEnroe voice... YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!)
Historical lesson time.
Pre-formation of BACX, BRAL/MANX made an annual profit of approx £10m, Brymon results were similar. BA hinted that BRAL's franchise may not be renewed if the buyout didn't go ahead.
BACX was 'created' and suddenly both companies experienced an almost threefold increase in management level positions. Two very lean companies became extremely top-heavy almost overnight, and it has actually got worse rather than better in the last couple of years.
Before the buyout, BRAL had a team looking at the FLA (Future Large Aircraft) project to decide the future expansion of the company. The newly formed BACX management team (parachuted in from Waterside) shelved that, and part of the reason was a scope clause which restricted the size of aircraft which BACX was allowed to operate!
The BACX fleet has been cut by 35 aircraft at least in the last 3 years, so there is NO flexibility left anymore to cover tech problems or delays and thus avoid cancellations. The geniuses have even got rid of the standby 146 which used to launch anywhere and everywhere at short notice to deal with such eventualities. We now pay extortionate sub-charter costs to Flightline and Titan and anyone else when things go wrong! I remember when we were occasionally asked to cover tech mainline flights in the BRAL days. Now we haemhorrage money left right and centre to third parties.
Our new management decided to close about half a dozen bases. We now nightstop several crews in those bases each day, plus the associated costs of taxies, duty pay, substantial disruption pay, risking operational difficulties due to no standby cover, etc, etc...
About 18 months ago the BACX bill for taxies was running at £250k per month due to the ill-conceived base closure programme meaning the crews were all in the wrong place at the wrong time. Simultaneously our bill to Flightline for a permanent standby aircraft was almost £200k per WEEK! I won't even go into the financial wastage incurred by our new management team on company credit cards and commuting costs.
You say that the BA brand is continually being dragged down by BACX... if that is true, then it is due to the incessant cutbacks imposed on us from a blatantly assett stripping parent company. But in defence of the accusation of us dragging down the BA brand... why is it that BACX are continually the best performance achiever throughout the BA network (including longhaul, shorthaul, and profesional (sic) franchise partners)?
I sincerely hope Willie Walsh reads these pages and realises that BACX has the potential to be a fantastic advertisement for the BA brand. This could be a profit-making subsidiary, but it needs to be allowed to compete with the low-costs in the regions. It should not be held back due to absurd internal politics. It needs INVESTMENT to nurture future growth. It desperately needs to have the top-heavy current shape pruned to give us a chance.
The current company is being run like a complete joke, with supposed leaders desperately trying to cover their own backs and seeking scapegoats for problems. Staff are being treated like dirt as the leaders seek to protect their own bonuses. It is no secret that we have had a huge exodus of pilots and cabin crew over the last 2 years... that actually costs us a huge amount of money and where is that most evident? In the bottom line! Stem the tide of resignations, improve morale, make BACX a company to be proud of and help us make money for you and our shareholders.
RM
you have to be joking, right? (In perfect John McEnroe voice... YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!)
Historical lesson time.
Pre-formation of BACX, BRAL/MANX made an annual profit of approx £10m, Brymon results were similar. BA hinted that BRAL's franchise may not be renewed if the buyout didn't go ahead.
BACX was 'created' and suddenly both companies experienced an almost threefold increase in management level positions. Two very lean companies became extremely top-heavy almost overnight, and it has actually got worse rather than better in the last couple of years.
Before the buyout, BRAL had a team looking at the FLA (Future Large Aircraft) project to decide the future expansion of the company. The newly formed BACX management team (parachuted in from Waterside) shelved that, and part of the reason was a scope clause which restricted the size of aircraft which BACX was allowed to operate!
Every day the BA name and brand is continually dragged through the mud by BACX and it is left for staff on the ground to dig them out of the latest problems and canx they have. But i guess you dont see that from your crew room do you.
Our new management decided to close about half a dozen bases. We now nightstop several crews in those bases each day, plus the associated costs of taxies, duty pay, substantial disruption pay, risking operational difficulties due to no standby cover, etc, etc...
About 18 months ago the BACX bill for taxies was running at £250k per month due to the ill-conceived base closure programme meaning the crews were all in the wrong place at the wrong time. Simultaneously our bill to Flightline for a permanent standby aircraft was almost £200k per WEEK! I won't even go into the financial wastage incurred by our new management team on company credit cards and commuting costs.
You say that the BA brand is continually being dragged down by BACX... if that is true, then it is due to the incessant cutbacks imposed on us from a blatantly assett stripping parent company. But in defence of the accusation of us dragging down the BA brand... why is it that BACX are continually the best performance achiever throughout the BA network (including longhaul, shorthaul, and profesional (sic) franchise partners)?
I sincerely hope Willie Walsh reads these pages and realises that BACX has the potential to be a fantastic advertisement for the BA brand. This could be a profit-making subsidiary, but it needs to be allowed to compete with the low-costs in the regions. It should not be held back due to absurd internal politics. It needs INVESTMENT to nurture future growth. It desperately needs to have the top-heavy current shape pruned to give us a chance.
The current company is being run like a complete joke, with supposed leaders desperately trying to cover their own backs and seeking scapegoats for problems. Staff are being treated like dirt as the leaders seek to protect their own bonuses. It is no secret that we have had a huge exodus of pilots and cabin crew over the last 2 years... that actually costs us a huge amount of money and where is that most evident? In the bottom line! Stem the tide of resignations, improve morale, make BACX a company to be proud of and help us make money for you and our shareholders.
RM
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Railgun
Along with RM, I too had to laugh at your suggestion that:
"BA ground staff in the regions believe it is long overdue that BACX were taken by the scruff of the neck and sorted out be it one way or another. Every day the BA name and brand is continually dragged through the mud by BACX and it is left for staff on the ground to dig them out "
I will accept that there is a difference in the quality of the product on offer from BACX to that offered by mainline. On the other hand there is a huge difference in salaries, and a/c investment!
Sadly however, because BACX is not allowed to compete with mainline, ticket costs are the same!! BACX needs a distinctly different brand, and different ticket pricing. That way, the customer can make an informed choice!
Without wishing to mudsling, I would suggest the two stations in the entire European network, with the most challenging ground staff issues are Manchester (where your profile seems to suggest you may have a connection) and one of our Scottish bases. And I should add, that has been the case for as long as I have worked in the BA group!
Along with RM, I too had to laugh at your suggestion that:
"BA ground staff in the regions believe it is long overdue that BACX were taken by the scruff of the neck and sorted out be it one way or another. Every day the BA name and brand is continually dragged through the mud by BACX and it is left for staff on the ground to dig them out "
I will accept that there is a difference in the quality of the product on offer from BACX to that offered by mainline. On the other hand there is a huge difference in salaries, and a/c investment!
Sadly however, because BACX is not allowed to compete with mainline, ticket costs are the same!! BACX needs a distinctly different brand, and different ticket pricing. That way, the customer can make an informed choice!
Without wishing to mudsling, I would suggest the two stations in the entire European network, with the most challenging ground staff issues are Manchester (where your profile seems to suggest you may have a connection) and one of our Scottish bases. And I should add, that has been the case for as long as I have worked in the BA group!
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 24th Nov 2005 at 11:14.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did indeed allude to ground operations. The other comment was the MAN-JFK being crewed from LHR which would be at some costs. Rightly the BACX needs leadership, innovation and direction. Without this the enterprise is doomed. It is of no consequence to refer to what was made in profit years ago the whole ball game has changed. The LOCOs have revolutionised the regions and BACX has sat on its hands. It cannot compete surely with BA as what would be the point. If the service is as bad as stated then surely the quicker it is disposed of the better. I have no wish to see this happen as staff involved have no control and a dodgy future. Mainline BA is TUPE ing a number of the mainline staff (ground) throughout the network such action could occur for BACX if anyone came in to buy them or BA has only to set up a new company and then get shot of them.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that comment about being bailed out by mainline some sort of joke, Railgun?
I feel sorry for the crews on BACX that get the ****ty end of the stick getting sent here there and everywhere. The real loosers though are the passengers who almost every day have the same flight delays etc due to crew shortage/crew rotation due to poor manning levels and a general lack of interest by BACX in the MAN base.
PS. Forgot to add if MAN staff are so miserable then why do the LHR and LGW crews say they are all so helpful and happy???
Last edited by Railgun; 24th Nov 2005 at 14:01.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgot to add if MAN staff are so miserable then why do the LHR and LGW crews say they are all so helpful and happy???
Apart from the fact that the thread is about to head off on a tangent...
I'm pleased to see that our mainline colleagues HZ and TR agree that the problems (as usual) are at 'management' level. Us idiots on the ground are doing all we can to keep the show on the road.. yes we can see from our crewroom
.
HZ, I don't think that BACX have sat on their hands, rather that our hands have been tied!
Tandem (you still stuck with us? I gave you more credit than that!!!), you and your mates (I think) now realise that we aren't that big a bunch of plonkers, but that is who has been directing our company! It is in all our collective interests to make this company work, but there is only so much that the crews can achieve... unless the business model is correct, and we are given the right machinery to do the job, then we are in a no-win situation.
Let's see what announcement number 629 (forthcoming) brings!
I'm pleased to see that our mainline colleagues HZ and TR agree that the problems (as usual) are at 'management' level. Us idiots on the ground are doing all we can to keep the show on the road.. yes we can see from our crewroom
.HZ, I don't think that BACX have sat on their hands, rather that our hands have been tied!
Tandem (you still stuck with us? I gave you more credit than that!!!), you and your mates (I think) now realise that we aren't that big a bunch of plonkers, but that is who has been directing our company! It is in all our collective interests to make this company work, but there is only so much that the crews can achieve... unless the business model is correct, and we are given the right machinery to do the job, then we are in a no-win situation.
Let's see what announcement number 629 (forthcoming) brings!
Last edited by rhythm method; 26th Nov 2005 at 13:16.