GB Rules - OK?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are the facts:
The GB Airbuses were NOT and never were intended for BA. They were ordered as part of the BA order so that both, note, both BA and GB Airways got a better rate on both the airframes and the engines this was beneficial to both, note again, both parties especially BA who take an extra cut.
GB Airways has existed since the 1930's it is a company with a long history.
Not all routes are ex-BA routes. Most are GB Airways own routes which they have built up through hard work and determination.
I.e. Gibraltar, Valencia, Alicante, Seville, Agadir, Marrakech, Malta, Nantes,Teneriffe, Las Palmas, Lanzarotte, and they have recently announced Almeria. Casablanca and Tunis were originally BCal (- dropped by BA)
Those routes which BA gave to GB they claimed they could not make pay. Montpellier for example was dropped by BA, (this was originally a Dan-Air route). It was NOT transferred to GB. GB saw an opportunity and grabbed it. Note Ryanair is now on this route, I suppose the Ryanair pilots are stealing the birthright of BA.
GB do not get subsidised handling. They pay slightly morethan market rate for BA handling ,for supposedly a premium product. To those in BA unfamilliar with the concept of market rate, this is what the rest of the world, including your competitors are prepared to pay. They do not pay for white-elephants like WaterWorld and its not-working part-time employees all on above market rate salaries. This is why BAs internal charges are so high.
Go, Ryanair, Easyjet etc. are the competition. They do not pay above market rate for anything why should GB Airways if it wishes to compete.
The employees and management of BA need to get out in the real world. Most believe they are still in BEA. GB has had its share of BA reject management who inevitably try to turn it into BA. This is why there have been 6 Managing Directors within the last 13 years (one, not a BA reject actually lasted 5 years).
The owners of GB Airways are no fools. They know they have one of the best most profitable airlines in the UK. I suspect they know BA are in very very deep trouble. As far as they are concerned it may only be a question of waiting...........
The GB Airbuses were NOT and never were intended for BA. They were ordered as part of the BA order so that both, note, both BA and GB Airways got a better rate on both the airframes and the engines this was beneficial to both, note again, both parties especially BA who take an extra cut.
GB Airways has existed since the 1930's it is a company with a long history.
Not all routes are ex-BA routes. Most are GB Airways own routes which they have built up through hard work and determination.
I.e. Gibraltar, Valencia, Alicante, Seville, Agadir, Marrakech, Malta, Nantes,Teneriffe, Las Palmas, Lanzarotte, and they have recently announced Almeria. Casablanca and Tunis were originally BCal (- dropped by BA)
Those routes which BA gave to GB they claimed they could not make pay. Montpellier for example was dropped by BA, (this was originally a Dan-Air route). It was NOT transferred to GB. GB saw an opportunity and grabbed it. Note Ryanair is now on this route, I suppose the Ryanair pilots are stealing the birthright of BA.
GB do not get subsidised handling. They pay slightly morethan market rate for BA handling ,for supposedly a premium product. To those in BA unfamilliar with the concept of market rate, this is what the rest of the world, including your competitors are prepared to pay. They do not pay for white-elephants like WaterWorld and its not-working part-time employees all on above market rate salaries. This is why BAs internal charges are so high.
Go, Ryanair, Easyjet etc. are the competition. They do not pay above market rate for anything why should GB Airways if it wishes to compete.
The employees and management of BA need to get out in the real world. Most believe they are still in BEA. GB has had its share of BA reject management who inevitably try to turn it into BA. This is why there have been 6 Managing Directors within the last 13 years (one, not a BA reject actually lasted 5 years).
The owners of GB Airways are no fools. They know they have one of the best most profitable airlines in the UK. I suspect they know BA are in very very deep trouble. As far as they are concerned it may only be a question of waiting...........
I really cant believe "LAND ASAP" blaming the " expensive BA cabincrew" on their downfall, when everybody knows its the 6500 managers in waterworld creating the chaos - perhaps hes one of them who just wants to blame the indians again ...
It has been mooted that what is needed at BA is a BA pilots union, as opposed to BALPA. By the existance of such an organisation, the BA pilots could ensure that their union was concerned soley with their interests. This I feel would lead to a far stronger opposition to giving BA work away to franchises and subsiduaries, since the interests of all the members of such a union would be the same, as opposed to the varied individual interests in BALPA at the moment.
The A320s at GB were initially destined for BA as 757 replacements, and were later refinanced by the Royal Bank of Scotland fo GB. The reason that BA no longer needed them was because of the effective hand over of BA routes to GB, who in the customers' eye now operate those routes as BA.
The winners, GB pilots. The losers, yet again, BA pilots. The real savings overall, nil.
I can't blame the GB pilots for being pleased about this, but maybe the time has come for a BA pilot UNION, as opposed to a British Airline Pilots Association.
The A320s at GB were initially destined for BA as 757 replacements, and were later refinanced by the Royal Bank of Scotland fo GB. The reason that BA no longer needed them was because of the effective hand over of BA routes to GB, who in the customers' eye now operate those routes as BA.
The winners, GB pilots. The losers, yet again, BA pilots. The real savings overall, nil.
I can't blame the GB pilots for being pleased about this, but maybe the time has come for a BA pilot UNION, as opposed to a British Airline Pilots Association.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Merstham, Redhill
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capedcrewsader:
Small point really but Valencia is definately not an original GB route. I have been to-ing and fro-ing from there since I was five (that's thirty five years in all....good God that hurts!) Anyway, unless GB have ever owned Tridents I believe that it was originally a BA route, and before that a BEA route, of course. In fact I think you'll find most of those routes you mentioned were originally BA routes.
Notwithstanding this, I agree that GB have worked hard to nurture their business and have certainly made good use of what has been given them.
Incidentally, on the subject of BA pilots being seconded; one of those FO's in waiting is a very good mate of mine and yes he has been waiting very patiently. Apart from the implications for scope I would not want to see him leapfrogged by our lot; it just isn't fair on the fat git! Ooops sorry, Lardy!
Small point really but Valencia is definately not an original GB route. I have been to-ing and fro-ing from there since I was five (that's thirty five years in all....good God that hurts!) Anyway, unless GB have ever owned Tridents I believe that it was originally a BA route, and before that a BEA route, of course. In fact I think you'll find most of those routes you mentioned were originally BA routes.
Notwithstanding this, I agree that GB have worked hard to nurture their business and have certainly made good use of what has been given them.
Incidentally, on the subject of BA pilots being seconded; one of those FO's in waiting is a very good mate of mine and yes he has been waiting very patiently. Apart from the implications for scope I would not want to see him leapfrogged by our lot; it just isn't fair on the fat git! Ooops sorry, Lardy!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Snooky - its time for a strong scope clause and its time for BA pilots to have our own union. BALPA will only succeed in reducing everybody to the lowest common denominator: Capts on £30K, F/Os on £15K and Chris Darke on £200K (parity with skippers at United!).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, cheap sniping comments apart (and I admit that I did start the thread with one, but it has generated some response) we are all agreed. From the BA CC's and BA crew's s perpsectives Franchises are not good. From BA management's perspective they allow them to look at reducing their costs in an ever more competetive world. As reality says, the world does exist outside BA, sorry to burst your bubble guys!
Any attempt by the BA management to place pilots from BA at GB not only undemines your Franchise argument but also adversely affects the careers of GB's pilots, something that they will not tolerate and neither would you at BA, I am sure.
Broadly speaking I think that Scope seems like the way for you guys to go, but as per one of my posts, don't you think you have enough on your plate at the moment without opening this one up. You need to let your management know that their plan is not acceptable since it is a no win situation for evryone apart from them. Do not be under the illusion that it would be chepaer labour, pound for pound a Eurofleet pilot cost more than a GB one, and the difference would be made up by BA. They are really only looking at either appeasing BA CC or getting a foot in the door. As I say, if the BA CC think's this is the way to go-fine. Hand Solo is right in saying that if you go down this half hearted route you are simply guilty of treating others in a way you do not want to be treated yourselves. GB is a small company doing well in difficult times, we operate as a team, do not have a top heavy management structure and are justifiably proud of our reputation for great service-those of you who travel with us will agree I am sure. We do not want ot be interfered with by BA and are happy as we are, but we cannot exist like this without BA. The competition is moving in to LGW, what we need to do is contrrol our costs and meet them head on, not get involved in some union lead attempt to level the playing field. Perhaps that should be left for another time.
Any attempt by the BA management to place pilots from BA at GB not only undemines your Franchise argument but also adversely affects the careers of GB's pilots, something that they will not tolerate and neither would you at BA, I am sure.
Broadly speaking I think that Scope seems like the way for you guys to go, but as per one of my posts, don't you think you have enough on your plate at the moment without opening this one up. You need to let your management know that their plan is not acceptable since it is a no win situation for evryone apart from them. Do not be under the illusion that it would be chepaer labour, pound for pound a Eurofleet pilot cost more than a GB one, and the difference would be made up by BA. They are really only looking at either appeasing BA CC or getting a foot in the door. As I say, if the BA CC think's this is the way to go-fine. Hand Solo is right in saying that if you go down this half hearted route you are simply guilty of treating others in a way you do not want to be treated yourselves. GB is a small company doing well in difficult times, we operate as a team, do not have a top heavy management structure and are justifiably proud of our reputation for great service-those of you who travel with us will agree I am sure. We do not want ot be interfered with by BA and are happy as we are, but we cannot exist like this without BA. The competition is moving in to LGW, what we need to do is contrrol our costs and meet them head on, not get involved in some union lead attempt to level the playing field. Perhaps that should be left for another time.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality Checks comments:
<<As a pilot workforce we do not wish to have BA pilots coming in as much as they would not wish to come. Our BALPA reps have worked very hard to secure good T&C’s for us and will not accept this situation, if it exists. It is unacceptable not because they would be BA pilots but because that is not how our recruitment process works>>
The proposal is that the number of BA pilots would be restricted to the work which is clearly identified as originally BA.
Big Dogs comments:
<<BA BALPA CC have defined Scope as wishing to 'Bring Franchise flying wholly within the BA group'. This would mean either an integration with GB Flight Crew or a take over (not unthinkable by any means). >>
'Integration' is likely to mean a number of BA pilots (determined as above) working in GB rather than a merger of the Seniority Lists.
Reality Checks comments:
<<What I do know is that GB has been very successful in developing its own route structure>>
On the back of the BA name, I would suggest.
<<(although as there haven’t been any job losses how has the BA pilot workforce been disadvantaged>>
Due to the reduction in opportunities available to BA pilots with BA work going elsewhere.
CapedCrewsAider comments:
<<GB has had its share of BA reject management who inevitably try to turn it into BA. >>
And succeeded - GB's SOPs will look very familiar to those from BA!
Secret Squirrel comments:
<<Incidentally, on the subject of BA pilots being seconded; one of those FO's in waiting is a very good mate of mine and yes he has been waiting very patiently. Apart from the implications for scope I would not want to see him leapfrogged by our lot; >>
I understand that one proposal is that 'Our Lot' should be the current ex CFE RJ pilots for whom there will not be commands in BA when the RJs go to the far N.
But on a separate note, is it not ironic that Lardy - who will have attempted to join all major UK airlines including BA with BA deciding that they did not want him flying BA passengers - will, when he works for GB, be doing just that - flying BA pax - (sticking two fingers up at BA as well, I wouldn't be surprised!!).
<<As a pilot workforce we do not wish to have BA pilots coming in as much as they would not wish to come. Our BALPA reps have worked very hard to secure good T&C’s for us and will not accept this situation, if it exists. It is unacceptable not because they would be BA pilots but because that is not how our recruitment process works>>
The proposal is that the number of BA pilots would be restricted to the work which is clearly identified as originally BA.
Big Dogs comments:
<<BA BALPA CC have defined Scope as wishing to 'Bring Franchise flying wholly within the BA group'. This would mean either an integration with GB Flight Crew or a take over (not unthinkable by any means). >>
'Integration' is likely to mean a number of BA pilots (determined as above) working in GB rather than a merger of the Seniority Lists.
Reality Checks comments:
<<What I do know is that GB has been very successful in developing its own route structure>>
On the back of the BA name, I would suggest.
<<(although as there haven’t been any job losses how has the BA pilot workforce been disadvantaged>>
Due to the reduction in opportunities available to BA pilots with BA work going elsewhere.
CapedCrewsAider comments:
<<GB has had its share of BA reject management who inevitably try to turn it into BA. >>
And succeeded - GB's SOPs will look very familiar to those from BA!
Secret Squirrel comments:
<<Incidentally, on the subject of BA pilots being seconded; one of those FO's in waiting is a very good mate of mine and yes he has been waiting very patiently. Apart from the implications for scope I would not want to see him leapfrogged by our lot; >>
I understand that one proposal is that 'Our Lot' should be the current ex CFE RJ pilots for whom there will not be commands in BA when the RJs go to the far N.
But on a separate note, is it not ironic that Lardy - who will have attempted to join all major UK airlines including BA with BA deciding that they did not want him flying BA passengers - will, when he works for GB, be doing just that - flying BA pax - (sticking two fingers up at BA as well, I wouldn't be surprised!!).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next-you are mssing the point-no one is under any illusions, and I have all ready intimated, that GB exist only in it's current form as a result of the Franchise. ie the fact that we are seen as BA to the punters. GB sops are very similar to BA's but not the same, esp on the Airbus where we belive that the manufacture might just know a bit more about the airplane than BA - wierd huh?
I'm sure that lardy is nott sticking two fingers up to BA......do you really think that having gone through and psased the BA selection makes you a better pilot? Or can you not see it for the lottery it is generally accepted to be.
If you think that BA can place some of it's pilots with GB-go ahead and try-you may turn out to be right, you may not-time will tell. Don't expect us to let it haappen without a fight though. If you want to bring Franchise flying wholly within the BA group-go ahead and organise a takeover or full integration-call it what you will.
Just as an aside-since you all seem so set against Franchises, subsidaries etc (I've all ready said I fully understand why you feel that and you have a point)-where were you all when the franchises were being given out and the subsidiaries being set up? Probably talking about Bidline, allownaces and seniority as you interminably do.
I'm sure that lardy is nott sticking two fingers up to BA......do you really think that having gone through and psased the BA selection makes you a better pilot? Or can you not see it for the lottery it is generally accepted to be.
If you think that BA can place some of it's pilots with GB-go ahead and try-you may turn out to be right, you may not-time will tell. Don't expect us to let it haappen without a fight though. If you want to bring Franchise flying wholly within the BA group-go ahead and organise a takeover or full integration-call it what you will.
Just as an aside-since you all seem so set against Franchises, subsidaries etc (I've all ready said I fully understand why you feel that and you have a point)-where were you all when the franchises were being given out and the subsidiaries being set up? Probably talking about Bidline, allownaces and seniority as you interminably do.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not unprecendented.
BA cadets to CFE in the previous recession, which had the effect of helping postpone (but not prevent) CFE T&Cs from improving.
Actually, I wouldn't mind going to GB - I'd be back to a 10 minute walk to work rather than Z car park!
Hey! Even better - maybe I could get a job with the CAA!
Somebody pass me a large calibre handgun with one bullet...
CPB
whose last remaining shreds of sanity have long since departed.
BA cadets to CFE in the previous recession, which had the effect of helping postpone (but not prevent) CFE T&Cs from improving.
Actually, I wouldn't mind going to GB - I'd be back to a 10 minute walk to work rather than Z car park!
Hey! Even better - maybe I could get a job with the CAA!
Somebody pass me a large calibre handgun with one bullet...
CPB
whose last remaining shreds of sanity have long since departed.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that many of the replies assume that BA is giving away a profitable route and the slots, when it gives up a route that subsequently is taken on by a franchise.
The franchise does not get the 'slot'- BA keeps all its slots! The franchise airline has to obtain these from the airport commitee, just like any other new airline.
Take MPL, for example. BA(EOG) aquired a profitable route from DanAir in 1992. Last year BA decided that MPL would be axed from their network as it was no longer profitable, and notified GB(at very short notice) that this route could be part of the franchise. GB did their sums, and decided that if it operated LGW NTS MPL in the winter, and direct LGW MPL and direct LGW NTS in the summer with the increased holiday traffic etc. the two routes would be profitable. They also had to take into account that Ryanair planned to start STN MPL this Spring as well.
BA customers in MPL, have now had continuity of service. They can continue to connect to other BA services at LGW (should there be any left next year). Ryanair will now have competition and are not going to have it all their own way on this route.
The way I see it, BA gains and GB gains - but GB of course is left with all the risks for the future.
BA presumably doesn't have the balance sheet to take the risks on this route. If their balance sheet deteriorates further they will be forced to shed marginal routes as well as the loss makers.
The franchise does not get the 'slot'- BA keeps all its slots! The franchise airline has to obtain these from the airport commitee, just like any other new airline.
Take MPL, for example. BA(EOG) aquired a profitable route from DanAir in 1992. Last year BA decided that MPL would be axed from their network as it was no longer profitable, and notified GB(at very short notice) that this route could be part of the franchise. GB did their sums, and decided that if it operated LGW NTS MPL in the winter, and direct LGW MPL and direct LGW NTS in the summer with the increased holiday traffic etc. the two routes would be profitable. They also had to take into account that Ryanair planned to start STN MPL this Spring as well.
BA customers in MPL, have now had continuity of service. They can continue to connect to other BA services at LGW (should there be any left next year). Ryanair will now have competition and are not going to have it all their own way on this route.
The way I see it, BA gains and GB gains - but GB of course is left with all the risks for the future.
BA presumably doesn't have the balance sheet to take the risks on this route. If their balance sheet deteriorates further they will be forced to shed marginal routes as well as the loss makers.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please Note
Chairman Bob
Franchises; EOG, GB, City Flyer, Go, Manx, Brymon, Brit Regional Logan air and probably some more that I've forgotten about.
Eddington
Franchises ;GB
I don't know what's going to happen but if I was a betting man!!!
Chairman Bob
Franchises; EOG, GB, City Flyer, Go, Manx, Brymon, Brit Regional Logan air and probably some more that I've forgotten about.
Eddington
Franchises ;GB
I don't know what's going to happen but if I was a betting man!!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggs, you've forgotten BMed!
Big Dogs',
If GB weren't under the BA umbrella, how top heavy would your management be if GB were responsible for all the peripheral aspects of running an airline, such as marketing, sales, etc.? Your service is a BA product so we can at least agree to be equally proud of it!
I stand by my comment re:Cabin Crew, who are on the whole a well motivated group of professionals. They just happen to be paid a take home salary of £2000+ month on average, which we KNOW is a long way off what our franchise partners pay.
Barcli, take an objective view of your skills description and inform the rest of us where else you could earn an equivalent gross pay of £30,000+ per annum using these skills in a customer service environment. The list is a bit short isn't it?
Big Dogs',
GB is a small company doing well in difficult times, we operate as a team, do not have a top heavy management structure and are justifiably proud of our reputation for great service-those of you who travel with us will agree I am sure
I stand by my comment re:Cabin Crew, who are on the whole a well motivated group of professionals. They just happen to be paid a take home salary of £2000+ month on average, which we KNOW is a long way off what our franchise partners pay.
Barcli, take an objective view of your skills description and inform the rest of us where else you could earn an equivalent gross pay of £30,000+ per annum using these skills in a customer service environment. The list is a bit short isn't it?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We at GB actually love being pilots for our company. Strange as it seems - that is the way it is. Everyone at GB knows what a good deal it is and the vast majority have no desire to leave. I would be delighted if BA were doing better and I genuinely wish them well as a company. I, like many of my colleagues, have absolutely nothing to gain by becoming a BA pilot but everything to lose. I would disappear to the bottom of some vast seniority list whereas if I stay at GB the future is reasonably rosy.
I had an interesting experience recently on a flight to Alicante where a delightful BA 777 skipper travelled with us on the jump seat. We discussed allowances and he told us that on his forthcoming Buenos Airies trip he personally would get about £1,400. I highlighted the fact that the entire GB crew of 2 pilots and 7 cabin crew on our flight would get about £140 between them for their day's work (evenly distributed round the crew may I say). Therein lies the answer to BA's ills and to GB's success. Without addressing the fundamental issue of massive overpayment of their flight crews (among many other issues including waterworld) there is no viable future for BA. I do not envy you good folk at BA one penny of your allowances and wish you every success, but all this tinkering with scope clauses and the like is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I am delighted to remain as the poorer relatives and am very happy with my lot. If people at GB want to become BA pilots let them go through the selection process like everyone else. I hope loads of them do so those of us who are happy at GB can work their way up the GB seniority list. Let us not spoil a perfectly good friendship by having an unwise marriage!
Best of luck to one and all at BA and GB.
I had an interesting experience recently on a flight to Alicante where a delightful BA 777 skipper travelled with us on the jump seat. We discussed allowances and he told us that on his forthcoming Buenos Airies trip he personally would get about £1,400. I highlighted the fact that the entire GB crew of 2 pilots and 7 cabin crew on our flight would get about £140 between them for their day's work (evenly distributed round the crew may I say). Therein lies the answer to BA's ills and to GB's success. Without addressing the fundamental issue of massive overpayment of their flight crews (among many other issues including waterworld) there is no viable future for BA. I do not envy you good folk at BA one penny of your allowances and wish you every success, but all this tinkering with scope clauses and the like is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I am delighted to remain as the poorer relatives and am very happy with my lot. If people at GB want to become BA pilots let them go through the selection process like everyone else. I hope loads of them do so those of us who are happy at GB can work their way up the GB seniority list. Let us not spoil a perfectly good friendship by having an unwise marriage!
Best of luck to one and all at BA and GB.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand by my comment re:Cabin Crew, who are on the whole a well motivated group of professionals. They just happen to be paid a take home salary of £2000+ month on average, which we KNOW is a long way off what our franchise partners pay.
Land ASAP..........you are way off the mark there my friend.
I've seen my girlfriend's payslip.....£900ish take-home at best & she's fairly senior at "Eurofleet LGW"
Land ASAP..........you are way off the mark there my friend.
I've seen my girlfriend's payslip.....£900ish take-home at best & she's fairly senior at "Eurofleet LGW"
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW! If cabin crew ARE earning that ("£2000+") then therein lies a large part of BA's problem in making money.
All a bit of a shambles, really, and that floppy-haired ex Civil service buffoon who ran up so much debt that it takes £400 million (yes £400M) to SERVICE the BA debt before a penny goes into the pot did not exactly help.
Throw in the other excesses of the master-mind (whilst looking for his title) and an apparently ineffective CEO now, and GB would be WELL ADVISED to stay away from the Titanic! Do not let the wolf in the door!
If the plan is (as I believe) to use BA crews/aircraft on BA LGW short-haul routes to be operated by GB on a franchise basis then GB will be ok. Those BA crews are certainly not 'expensive'. £1400 a trip? I bet the Gatwick guys would be lucky to see that in a month!
GB should take the money but not the poisoned chalice. BA will benefit by having the 'loss-making' routes run by an efficient airline, and GB will get the franchise money. Hopefully no ripples in the GB pool, either? The GB pilots and cabin-crew should stick out for that.
Could work out well for all and the 'loss-adjusters' - as BA accountants are known in the city(!) - will not have to work so hard to produce the losses - or on second thoughts, will they have to work harder?
Answers on a BA postcard, please.
All a bit of a shambles, really, and that floppy-haired ex Civil service buffoon who ran up so much debt that it takes £400 million (yes £400M) to SERVICE the BA debt before a penny goes into the pot did not exactly help.
Throw in the other excesses of the master-mind (whilst looking for his title) and an apparently ineffective CEO now, and GB would be WELL ADVISED to stay away from the Titanic! Do not let the wolf in the door!
If the plan is (as I believe) to use BA crews/aircraft on BA LGW short-haul routes to be operated by GB on a franchise basis then GB will be ok. Those BA crews are certainly not 'expensive'. £1400 a trip? I bet the Gatwick guys would be lucky to see that in a month!
GB should take the money but not the poisoned chalice. BA will benefit by having the 'loss-making' routes run by an efficient airline, and GB will get the franchise money. Hopefully no ripples in the GB pool, either? The GB pilots and cabin-crew should stick out for that.
Could work out well for all and the 'loss-adjusters' - as BA accountants are known in the city(!) - will not have to work so hard to produce the losses - or on second thoughts, will they have to work harder?
Answers on a BA postcard, please.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a BA pilot and I must say that the GB posts here are the least confrontational, but all posts in general are fairly accurate in their own right.
As BA pilots we are understandably frustrated at being continually asked to increase productivity and reduce costs whilst continually losing jos to other outfits(franchises or not). Despite rumours or focussing on our highest and most senior paid route out of thousands(Buenos Airies), BA pilots are now paid less 40% less than N.America and 30+% less than European outfits of equally-sized major International carriers. Especally the third of our pilot workforce on new pay scales. The blame does not lie at the majority of our CC colleagues either(fact: not on 2000) but on poor management decisions(tailfins, separate bases, YEN currency arbitrages, etc.)and major inefficient work practises maintained by unions within stronger than our own BALPA. (For example cargo workers got paid 100% for years even though up to 40% might not even show up for work daily, this was done on a rotational basis. BA are terrified by Cargo and in general their workers rule. Just a couple weeks ago, they refused to allow cargo to be received or sent, losing BA millions each day of this action. I know this because on a walkaround for a flight to Japan, I saw them loading the empty cargo bins into the hold. 20,000kg of cargo missed this flight alone. I never heard the result but I assume BA gave in again. )
Franchises have undoubtably been a huge success for BA, especially with monopoly restrictions on UK airport slots. Likewise franchises like GB have been successful in running their airlines like an airline and not a brand empire exercise(the franchise fee is small in comparison to the money spent on the BA brand. The brand is the managements main focus in BA, running an airline is just a secondary consideration. Proof: Future size and shape had 5managers like branding and fleet management, but no-one from flt-ops. hmmmm.). GB focus on being an airline and do this on an efficient and cost-effective manor, something we are unable to do in BA as pilot's because our hands are tied in the massive red-tape of layered management. A management that continues to degrade the status of pilots for their own purpose(heard 35 pilots on suspension at the moment). Unfortunately our ambitious pilot-managers are too brainwashed or concerned about their own careers to stick up for us. Most managers use BA to propel their careers forward into other firms outside transport so do not even care about our long-term success but are CV-building. Size is also a major hinderance to running an airline, once an outfit gets too big, profit margins rapidly disintegrate.
If I was a GB pilot the last thing I would want is be to become part of BA. Be careful of any proposals you are sent and read the fine print. Don't trust anything not in black and white, even if it is recorded on tape. Avoid wording like..."It is BA's intention not to....." this means nothing historically. And please have patience with our comments as frustrated BA pilots stamped on by the rest of our massive conglomerate.
In conclusion,
- GB pilots well done in becoming a successful outfit, regardless of the merits or not of being a BA franchise. Be careful, it can be quickly undone by our lot at the top who care little about running an efficient airline.
- At the end of the day, we are all Pilots whatever outfit. When are we going to take back our rightful status from the CV-builders, beancounters and ambitous pilot-traitor managers who fail to stick by their colleagues and one could argueably add BALPA head office to this list for failing to protect us over the past 10years (JF plug)?
As BA pilots we are understandably frustrated at being continually asked to increase productivity and reduce costs whilst continually losing jos to other outfits(franchises or not). Despite rumours or focussing on our highest and most senior paid route out of thousands(Buenos Airies), BA pilots are now paid less 40% less than N.America and 30+% less than European outfits of equally-sized major International carriers. Especally the third of our pilot workforce on new pay scales. The blame does not lie at the majority of our CC colleagues either(fact: not on 2000) but on poor management decisions(tailfins, separate bases, YEN currency arbitrages, etc.)and major inefficient work practises maintained by unions within stronger than our own BALPA. (For example cargo workers got paid 100% for years even though up to 40% might not even show up for work daily, this was done on a rotational basis. BA are terrified by Cargo and in general their workers rule. Just a couple weeks ago, they refused to allow cargo to be received or sent, losing BA millions each day of this action. I know this because on a walkaround for a flight to Japan, I saw them loading the empty cargo bins into the hold. 20,000kg of cargo missed this flight alone. I never heard the result but I assume BA gave in again. )
Franchises have undoubtably been a huge success for BA, especially with monopoly restrictions on UK airport slots. Likewise franchises like GB have been successful in running their airlines like an airline and not a brand empire exercise(the franchise fee is small in comparison to the money spent on the BA brand. The brand is the managements main focus in BA, running an airline is just a secondary consideration. Proof: Future size and shape had 5managers like branding and fleet management, but no-one from flt-ops. hmmmm.). GB focus on being an airline and do this on an efficient and cost-effective manor, something we are unable to do in BA as pilot's because our hands are tied in the massive red-tape of layered management. A management that continues to degrade the status of pilots for their own purpose(heard 35 pilots on suspension at the moment). Unfortunately our ambitious pilot-managers are too brainwashed or concerned about their own careers to stick up for us. Most managers use BA to propel their careers forward into other firms outside transport so do not even care about our long-term success but are CV-building. Size is also a major hinderance to running an airline, once an outfit gets too big, profit margins rapidly disintegrate.
If I was a GB pilot the last thing I would want is be to become part of BA. Be careful of any proposals you are sent and read the fine print. Don't trust anything not in black and white, even if it is recorded on tape. Avoid wording like..."It is BA's intention not to....." this means nothing historically. And please have patience with our comments as frustrated BA pilots stamped on by the rest of our massive conglomerate.
In conclusion,
- GB pilots well done in becoming a successful outfit, regardless of the merits or not of being a BA franchise. Be careful, it can be quickly undone by our lot at the top who care little about running an efficient airline.
- At the end of the day, we are all Pilots whatever outfit. When are we going to take back our rightful status from the CV-builders, beancounters and ambitous pilot-traitor managers who fail to stick by their colleagues and one could argueably add BALPA head office to this list for failing to protect us over the past 10years (JF plug)?
Last edited by airrage; 3rd May 2002 at 18:22.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airrage:
A very balanced and interesting post i thought.
I have nothing to do with BA or GB though i have friends who work for both, just thought i would warn you GB guys to be on your guard, we at KLMuk have been taken over by the big brother airline KLM and are going through alot of pain as a result.
Not quite the same but the big boys (BA and KLM) seem not to understand where the real problems are, they really need to get their own houses in order before they destroy all customer and franchise confidence.
God help us if BA and KLM merge!! you would need a whole city to accommodate the managers!
A very balanced and interesting post i thought.
I have nothing to do with BA or GB though i have friends who work for both, just thought i would warn you GB guys to be on your guard, we at KLMuk have been taken over by the big brother airline KLM and are going through alot of pain as a result.
Not quite the same but the big boys (BA and KLM) seem not to understand where the real problems are, they really need to get their own houses in order before they destroy all customer and franchise confidence.
God help us if BA and KLM merge!! you would need a whole city to accommodate the managers!
Last edited by driver1; 3rd May 2002 at 20:42.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snooky:
you are plain WRONG. The GB Airbuses were never intended for BA. If you knew any of the facts you would know: Firstly they are a different spec. Secondly they were not refinanced by RBOS from BA. The aircraft wre purchased by GB Airways and then refinanaced by GB Airways to the RBOS. Put any idea that these aircraft were ever intended for BA out of your head. These aircraft were purchased by GB Airways to replace the ageing B737 fleet. Not for new routes 'given' away by BA.The choice at the time was NG737s or Airbus. GB chose the Airbus because BA were going to base their Airbuses at LGW. Thus it made sense in terms of product support to have the same type.
Since Sept. 11th BA has cut its orders 'cos of its own ineptitude in running an airline.
Next in line:
GB Airways sucess is not 'on the back of the BA name' in recent years this 'name' has been a positive hinderence. BA has a reputation for overpricing and poor service (not to mention Channel 4 documenataries) that GB has had to overcome. In particular our cabin crew are constantly praised, even by BA. When GB became a franchise BA insisted we downgrade our business service to the same level as BA Club. Do not forget that up until the franchise, BA had a 49% share in GB Airways. I suppose your argument is that owners of MacDonalds restaurants/franchises are only making money on the back of the good name of MacDonalds. Isn't this how a franchise works. What business model of franchise are you working on. GB pays a considerable sum of money to BA each year, it is not free.
With regard BA reject management and SOPs, no GB pilot manager presently at GB has ever worked for BA. I was refering mainly to the large number of non flight operations managers who have passed through our doors over the years. There are managers and departments other than operations even in BA. Our most succesful MD was not BA. He was successful because he screwed costs right down. Broaden your outlook there is more to an airline than just pilots it is a team game.
Secret Squirrel:
Valencia and Malta had both been operated by BEA/BA in the past.
When GB started the routes BA had not flown them for many years. Dropped as uneconomical. These routes were available to anyone including BA. They now feed passengers into the rest of the BA network.
If BA wishes to compete in the 21st Centuary I humbly suggest they leave the civil service practices of BEA/BOAC behind.
If they think competing means forcing everyone elses costs up to the same level as their own, they have a very perverse view of the world. Even if they do this with GB how are they going to achieve this within Ryanair, Easyjet, KLMuk, Buzz, GO and any other upstarts who dare infringe on the birthright of BA.
BA have constantly bought out 'low cost competitors'; Northeast, Cambrian, BCal, Brymon, CityFlyer, Bral etc etc.. The only people ever to profit appear to be the vendors. Have BA never learnt the lesson?
BA has screwed up, they (including their employees) are paying the price.
BA (including its employees) need to remember 'you cannot beat the market'.
you are plain WRONG. The GB Airbuses were never intended for BA. If you knew any of the facts you would know: Firstly they are a different spec. Secondly they were not refinanced by RBOS from BA. The aircraft wre purchased by GB Airways and then refinanaced by GB Airways to the RBOS. Put any idea that these aircraft were ever intended for BA out of your head. These aircraft were purchased by GB Airways to replace the ageing B737 fleet. Not for new routes 'given' away by BA.The choice at the time was NG737s or Airbus. GB chose the Airbus because BA were going to base their Airbuses at LGW. Thus it made sense in terms of product support to have the same type.
Since Sept. 11th BA has cut its orders 'cos of its own ineptitude in running an airline.
Next in line:
GB Airways sucess is not 'on the back of the BA name' in recent years this 'name' has been a positive hinderence. BA has a reputation for overpricing and poor service (not to mention Channel 4 documenataries) that GB has had to overcome. In particular our cabin crew are constantly praised, even by BA. When GB became a franchise BA insisted we downgrade our business service to the same level as BA Club. Do not forget that up until the franchise, BA had a 49% share in GB Airways. I suppose your argument is that owners of MacDonalds restaurants/franchises are only making money on the back of the good name of MacDonalds. Isn't this how a franchise works. What business model of franchise are you working on. GB pays a considerable sum of money to BA each year, it is not free.
With regard BA reject management and SOPs, no GB pilot manager presently at GB has ever worked for BA. I was refering mainly to the large number of non flight operations managers who have passed through our doors over the years. There are managers and departments other than operations even in BA. Our most succesful MD was not BA. He was successful because he screwed costs right down. Broaden your outlook there is more to an airline than just pilots it is a team game.
Secret Squirrel:
Valencia and Malta had both been operated by BEA/BA in the past.
When GB started the routes BA had not flown them for many years. Dropped as uneconomical. These routes were available to anyone including BA. They now feed passengers into the rest of the BA network.
If BA wishes to compete in the 21st Centuary I humbly suggest they leave the civil service practices of BEA/BOAC behind.
If they think competing means forcing everyone elses costs up to the same level as their own, they have a very perverse view of the world. Even if they do this with GB how are they going to achieve this within Ryanair, Easyjet, KLMuk, Buzz, GO and any other upstarts who dare infringe on the birthright of BA.
BA have constantly bought out 'low cost competitors'; Northeast, Cambrian, BCal, Brymon, CityFlyer, Bral etc etc.. The only people ever to profit appear to be the vendors. Have BA never learnt the lesson?
BA has screwed up, they (including their employees) are paying the price.
BA (including its employees) need to remember 'you cannot beat the market'.