GB Rules - OK?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the generally well reasoned debate everyone......glad I asked the question now. With most fo the inevitable mud slinging over, can any one who hears more of how or when any of this may go ahead please post it. Either on this thread or start a new one.
I'm sure this will run for a while.
Airrage-thanks for your post-excellent reading.
Good luck to all of us- GB and BA pilots alike.
I'm sure this will run for a while.
Airrage-thanks for your post-excellent reading.
Good luck to all of us- GB and BA pilots alike.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CapedCrewsAider
<<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. >>
Accepted. I was referring to FR (ex BA) who was responsible for introducing BA's SOPs into GB - Big Dog's suggests that the Airbus is not strictly BA - but if you still have a compulsory hand over on each flight, then it is influenced by BA.
airrage
We might not agree on your other thread but you are quite right about GB being taken over by BA. It is extremely satisfying working for a small successful company and the best thing which GB pilots can do when they are taken over is to leave or remain and concentrate on the money and opportunities.
Big Dog's
We are in more agreement than not so I will just answer one of your comments:
<<do you really think that having gone through and psased the BA selection makes you a better pilot? >>
OF COURSE, but only in the eyes of BA, not mine! I have flown with many pilots who were 'acquired' by BA and once they have been trained (brainwashed) into BA's SOPs, they are just as good/bad as everyone else.
<<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. >>
Accepted. I was referring to FR (ex BA) who was responsible for introducing BA's SOPs into GB - Big Dog's suggests that the Airbus is not strictly BA - but if you still have a compulsory hand over on each flight, then it is influenced by BA.
airrage
We might not agree on your other thread but you are quite right about GB being taken over by BA. It is extremely satisfying working for a small successful company and the best thing which GB pilots can do when they are taken over is to leave or remain and concentrate on the money and opportunities.
Big Dog's
We are in more agreement than not so I will just answer one of your comments:
<<do you really think that having gone through and psased the BA selection makes you a better pilot? >>
OF COURSE, but only in the eyes of BA, not mine! I have flown with many pilots who were 'acquired' by BA and once they have been trained (brainwashed) into BA's SOPs, they are just as good/bad as everyone else.
CapedCrewsAider
I am merely repeating what was reported in the Edinburgh Evening News of 7th Dec. 2001. Anyone who can be bothered to register with them can read it themselves online.
I agree with everything that airrage says on this. Good luck to GB for the future, I think that we at BA need plenty of luck for the future. (Please don't nick any more of our routes and aircraft though).
PS, Buenos Aires is the best paid route of all, I'd say £1400 is an average pilots allowances for a month (in mainline).
I am merely repeating what was reported in the Edinburgh Evening News of 7th Dec. 2001. Anyone who can be bothered to register with them can read it themselves online.
I agree with everything that airrage says on this. Good luck to GB for the future, I think that we at BA need plenty of luck for the future. (Please don't nick any more of our routes and aircraft though).
PS, Buenos Aires is the best paid route of all, I'd say £1400 is an average pilots allowances for a month (in mainline).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snooky:
you are quite clearly not receptive to the facts. GB Airways has never 'nicked' any of your aircraft. It would appear that not only do you think all routes worldwide are your birthright, now all new aircraft off production lines worldwide are also rightfully yours. The facts are as I stated, not your local rag.
Similarly as you all claim to be working so hard, productivity etc. (Or are you saying you are idle at the moment).How would all you overworked BA pilots find time to operate any more routes. I assume you would have to recruit more pilots. I suppose your argument now is that this work belongs to unemployed pilots.
As it seems that BA seem incapable of entering into any venture without making a complete horlicks of it could I on behalf of all the other pilots in the UK ask BA to stay off OUR (the rest of the UK airline industry) routes so that at least WE ( the rest of the uk airline industry) can profit from them.
Would BALPA also represent the best interests of the UK industry as a whole and not come up with (anti-competetive) harebrained schemes such as S'CRAP or whatever it's called. There will always be someone leaner and meaner waiting in the wings to cash in on BAs failings.
BALPA should concentrate on the real problems in BA i.e. throwing management at every tiny problem, and not pander to the misconceptions of their insular pilot workforce.
BA pilots may be interested in this City analysis of the outlook for BA.
'There appears to be little direction in this share recently as the lack of any news one way or the other leaves the stock blowing in the wind. The most obvious issues, such as the security situation and the price of oil, have left BA pretty well untouched. The two issues are obviously linked, and the violence in the Middle East has caused the most worries to those who watch the oil price. Fears earlier this year that the conflict would not be contained and would spread to the rest of the region have been unrealised. Such concerns had lead to a rise in nearly a third in oil price in the last year. The recent intervention by the USA seems to have cooled fears recently, and since Israel pulled out of Hebron over the weekend the price appears to be settling near $26.50 for Brent June delivery, and Jet A1 at $28.80 over the last month. These values are within the 'ballpark' for planning. So although the situation is more worrying then at this time last year, we seem to have found a level plateau of hysteria.
In the airline sector in general, many carriers are reporting good loads, not the least BA, but particularly the no thrills operators. The inference is therefore that travel by air is not a dead duck, simply one that price pressure is bearing down on. The astute consumer is prepared to fly, prepared to pay, but only what he thinks is value for money. Some good news in that Air NZ will finish a difficult year at close to break even, some bad news that United seems to be unable to address its industrial issues and is just looking up Chapter 11. In all of this it seems that our dearly beloved BA will go for about £547m loss for this year, which is better than we expected.
So in the absence of any 'real' news I have once again bought beer, lunch etc for some dear friends in the hope of finding one or two answers. It is apparent that loads are good, but with limited yield, and repeat business is also holding up well. Future sales are also helping to address the current mantra of 'cash is King!' (and presumably still it's President Emeritus). Bleating about yields will not help one bit, cutting its cloth to suit its budget is much more likely to lead to profit.
Things that have not gone well include yet another IT cock-up with the infamous department once again failing to manage a mission critical system effectively. If there is a department in the company that could usefully be outsourced, it must surely be this one. BA badly needs expert help and management in this area. It is abundantly clear that BA must fully embrace web based technologies and get them right. Correspondents to this and other annals seem to have little faith in the current strategists for IM at BA, so here is nettle waiting to be grasped.
Engineering seems to have been hit very hard by Future Size and Shape, with the base at MAN closed and mechanics being laid off. I find this an area of concern since one of BA's main strengths is its operational integrity and reliability. Use of local contractors will not in my opinion lead to an increase in quality, only a drop in price, and will simply put BA 'in the queue' behind the increasing numbers of other operators at the airports it flies to. If BA ends up waiting for essential maintenance and servicing between flights, using the same contractors as the competition, then they will have discarded an important tactical advantage for little gain.
Cost cutting has hit LHR with many of the staff having shifts cut, and overtime reduced. This had an adverse effect on the ability of handling personnel to operate effectively. Together with the baggage handlers 'clocking off' and drivers being in short supply, this has led to a number of instances of delayed departure, crews being in the wrong place, perishable cargo left rotting, and bags left behind. Once again a product critical function that needs to be carefully managed to ensure that the staff are motivated and operate efficiently to underpin that 'operational integrity' that defines BA.
The dispatchers, who are loading supervisors have seen their numbers reduced. Without these people, the aircraft simply cannot depart or even arrive without delay. If you have sat on an aeroplane that landed on schedule, only for you to wait half an hour for someone to open the door, it is likely that this is the person you are waiting for. BA have adopted a predictable solution, whilst cutting these vital staff, they have increased the number of managers in that department.
The Cabin Crew budget remains at a staggering £485m, nearly three times the equivalent budget for Virgin for instance. Bigger airline you say, but not when you consider that BA have recently increased the number of Managers Customer Service to 104. These individuals, despite their name, do not serve customers or fly on aeroplanes. In an effort to save money they will be reducing the number of cabin staff on some flights. I can only imagine that this will adversely effect the standard of service on board, meaning that premium passengers will not have their expectations met, let alone exceeded. The quantities of catering are also being reduced, with even the number of bread rolls being limited. Eat before you go seems to be the watchword. Surely more focus on the on-board product will deliver more revenue than petty minded penny pinching.
Lastly, the pilots appears to be heading into turbulence. The new Director appears to be of the 'old school' and believes optimum performance is achieved from maximum aggro. There is also a new computer system (Oh dear) being introduced to reduce the amount of fuel used by the aeroplanes, which the pilots are unhappy about. Given the recent success rate of their IT department, I should expect we will all be asked to get out and push the last thousand miles. To treat such a group in this way is very concerning indeed, given their potential to seriously damage the company in the event of industrial action. Very disappointing.
My assessment remains fairly similar therefore to my previous posts. I suggest that the outlook for BA remains relatively good within the sector, provided one or two important issues are addressed. I still think that Future Size and Shape has yet to yield the promised savings. I sense a relaxation on the part of the company and a sigh of relief from vulnerable staff. Make no mistake, unless BA takes action to root out underperforming management staff, the company will not reach the '10%' return that Rod has targeted. Good staff are key to the success of any customer service industry, and rely on happy motivated people to achieve it. Industrial action is the last thing the company needs right now, and I'm afraid the management are not taking this seriously.
This stock is a potential outperform, but must try harder.'
Thses are your real problems. Not GB Airways.
you are quite clearly not receptive to the facts. GB Airways has never 'nicked' any of your aircraft. It would appear that not only do you think all routes worldwide are your birthright, now all new aircraft off production lines worldwide are also rightfully yours. The facts are as I stated, not your local rag.
Similarly as you all claim to be working so hard, productivity etc. (Or are you saying you are idle at the moment).How would all you overworked BA pilots find time to operate any more routes. I assume you would have to recruit more pilots. I suppose your argument now is that this work belongs to unemployed pilots.
As it seems that BA seem incapable of entering into any venture without making a complete horlicks of it could I on behalf of all the other pilots in the UK ask BA to stay off OUR (the rest of the UK airline industry) routes so that at least WE ( the rest of the uk airline industry) can profit from them.
Would BALPA also represent the best interests of the UK industry as a whole and not come up with (anti-competetive) harebrained schemes such as S'CRAP or whatever it's called. There will always be someone leaner and meaner waiting in the wings to cash in on BAs failings.
BALPA should concentrate on the real problems in BA i.e. throwing management at every tiny problem, and not pander to the misconceptions of their insular pilot workforce.
BA pilots may be interested in this City analysis of the outlook for BA.
'There appears to be little direction in this share recently as the lack of any news one way or the other leaves the stock blowing in the wind. The most obvious issues, such as the security situation and the price of oil, have left BA pretty well untouched. The two issues are obviously linked, and the violence in the Middle East has caused the most worries to those who watch the oil price. Fears earlier this year that the conflict would not be contained and would spread to the rest of the region have been unrealised. Such concerns had lead to a rise in nearly a third in oil price in the last year. The recent intervention by the USA seems to have cooled fears recently, and since Israel pulled out of Hebron over the weekend the price appears to be settling near $26.50 for Brent June delivery, and Jet A1 at $28.80 over the last month. These values are within the 'ballpark' for planning. So although the situation is more worrying then at this time last year, we seem to have found a level plateau of hysteria.
In the airline sector in general, many carriers are reporting good loads, not the least BA, but particularly the no thrills operators. The inference is therefore that travel by air is not a dead duck, simply one that price pressure is bearing down on. The astute consumer is prepared to fly, prepared to pay, but only what he thinks is value for money. Some good news in that Air NZ will finish a difficult year at close to break even, some bad news that United seems to be unable to address its industrial issues and is just looking up Chapter 11. In all of this it seems that our dearly beloved BA will go for about £547m loss for this year, which is better than we expected.
So in the absence of any 'real' news I have once again bought beer, lunch etc for some dear friends in the hope of finding one or two answers. It is apparent that loads are good, but with limited yield, and repeat business is also holding up well. Future sales are also helping to address the current mantra of 'cash is King!' (and presumably still it's President Emeritus). Bleating about yields will not help one bit, cutting its cloth to suit its budget is much more likely to lead to profit.
Things that have not gone well include yet another IT cock-up with the infamous department once again failing to manage a mission critical system effectively. If there is a department in the company that could usefully be outsourced, it must surely be this one. BA badly needs expert help and management in this area. It is abundantly clear that BA must fully embrace web based technologies and get them right. Correspondents to this and other annals seem to have little faith in the current strategists for IM at BA, so here is nettle waiting to be grasped.
Engineering seems to have been hit very hard by Future Size and Shape, with the base at MAN closed and mechanics being laid off. I find this an area of concern since one of BA's main strengths is its operational integrity and reliability. Use of local contractors will not in my opinion lead to an increase in quality, only a drop in price, and will simply put BA 'in the queue' behind the increasing numbers of other operators at the airports it flies to. If BA ends up waiting for essential maintenance and servicing between flights, using the same contractors as the competition, then they will have discarded an important tactical advantage for little gain.
Cost cutting has hit LHR with many of the staff having shifts cut, and overtime reduced. This had an adverse effect on the ability of handling personnel to operate effectively. Together with the baggage handlers 'clocking off' and drivers being in short supply, this has led to a number of instances of delayed departure, crews being in the wrong place, perishable cargo left rotting, and bags left behind. Once again a product critical function that needs to be carefully managed to ensure that the staff are motivated and operate efficiently to underpin that 'operational integrity' that defines BA.
The dispatchers, who are loading supervisors have seen their numbers reduced. Without these people, the aircraft simply cannot depart or even arrive without delay. If you have sat on an aeroplane that landed on schedule, only for you to wait half an hour for someone to open the door, it is likely that this is the person you are waiting for. BA have adopted a predictable solution, whilst cutting these vital staff, they have increased the number of managers in that department.
The Cabin Crew budget remains at a staggering £485m, nearly three times the equivalent budget for Virgin for instance. Bigger airline you say, but not when you consider that BA have recently increased the number of Managers Customer Service to 104. These individuals, despite their name, do not serve customers or fly on aeroplanes. In an effort to save money they will be reducing the number of cabin staff on some flights. I can only imagine that this will adversely effect the standard of service on board, meaning that premium passengers will not have their expectations met, let alone exceeded. The quantities of catering are also being reduced, with even the number of bread rolls being limited. Eat before you go seems to be the watchword. Surely more focus on the on-board product will deliver more revenue than petty minded penny pinching.
Lastly, the pilots appears to be heading into turbulence. The new Director appears to be of the 'old school' and believes optimum performance is achieved from maximum aggro. There is also a new computer system (Oh dear) being introduced to reduce the amount of fuel used by the aeroplanes, which the pilots are unhappy about. Given the recent success rate of their IT department, I should expect we will all be asked to get out and push the last thousand miles. To treat such a group in this way is very concerning indeed, given their potential to seriously damage the company in the event of industrial action. Very disappointing.
My assessment remains fairly similar therefore to my previous posts. I suggest that the outlook for BA remains relatively good within the sector, provided one or two important issues are addressed. I still think that Future Size and Shape has yet to yield the promised savings. I sense a relaxation on the part of the company and a sigh of relief from vulnerable staff. Make no mistake, unless BA takes action to root out underperforming management staff, the company will not reach the '10%' return that Rod has targeted. Good staff are key to the success of any customer service industry, and rely on happy motivated people to achieve it. Industrial action is the last thing the company needs right now, and I'm afraid the management are not taking this seriously.
This stock is a potential outperform, but must try harder.'
Thses are your real problems. Not GB Airways.
CapedCrewsAider, I do not wish to be confrontational here and turn this into a slanging match. Just consider how you would feel, though, if GB started to franchise out their routes to an airline that in general paid its pilots the same with the pretext that GB could not profit on those routes.
With regard to your comments on BALPA, there is much dissatisfaction at BA at the moment in this regard. Just imagine the consequences elsewhere in UK aviation if the BA pilots (approx. half the membership) went elsewhere and joined a union looking after only their interests as opposed to the general interest. This may yet happen.
With regard to your comments on BALPA, there is much dissatisfaction at BA at the moment in this regard. Just imagine the consequences elsewhere in UK aviation if the BA pilots (approx. half the membership) went elsewhere and joined a union looking after only their interests as opposed to the general interest. This may yet happen.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CapedCrewsAider thanks for info(by the way which analyst and date of report?), slightly off-topic but just want to comment on the analysts statement about pilots;
"To treat such a group in this way is very concerning indeed, given their potential to seriously damage the company in the event of industrial action."
I wish the majority of BA Conservative-thinking pilots realised this whilst bending over backwards in an effort to be reasonable. Undoubtably all UK pilots pay are bench-marked to BA payscales(mkt rate) and not ones profitability, so a victory for them will eventually translate into a rise for the entire industry.
Snooky's comments reflect exactly the frustration of all us BA pilots who despite working professionally and as efficiently as other outfits are told that some routes have to go because they are 'unprofitable', despite full loads and BA pilots pay often less than the 'low-cost' operators(believe it or not). I could have left EOG(BA short-haul LGW -old name) after I had already worked there for several years and received a 30% pay increase by taking a job of the street with GO(this is before their share option windfall). Yet GO was considered BA's low-cost operation. I understand why this is so(back-orfice/branding, etc)but it doesn't make it easier to swallow.
The fact that it was BA's mainline operations that provided the financial means(credit backing, leased aircraft)and flt ops personnel to launch GO(despite publicly denying this, we can name some of the managers)adds salt to our wounds. Of course despite this we were not allowed shares in GO or to enjoy financially the 3i sell-off or now Easyjet buyout. If it does now go for 400mill, then I wonder how much of the 18.5% of GO reserved for their employees(900 of them)will they receive? 18.5% of 400mill is 82,222 per employee(if all employees equal). This is not jealousy, congratulations to our GO colleagues just to highlight why there might be a few disgruntled BA real low-cost operators around watching our route network shrink.
The blame is not GB, GO or the low-cost operators but our own useless management. It's about time we took the airline back and ran it like an airline.
As for BA pilots breaking away from BALPA it is a serious worry but a definite possibilty. UK union recognition laws changed this past year. Now, If 50+% of employees vote in favour of a union it has to be legally recognised by the firm involved. So if for instance more than 50% of BA pilots voted in favour to say bring the TGWU (who run BASSA our cabin brew union, plus our transport drivers, plus cargo) BALPA would cease to be the official union in BA. BA could still choose to acknowledge BALPA but it would cease to be effective with less than 50% support. Just food for thought of course, but something people should keep in mind when they throw around anti-BA sentiment. At the moment the higher input per employees of BA-BALPA union subscriptions help fund some of the services that would not be around should these BA subscription funds be diverted elsewhere. The attitude of our union head office of late also inches the yet untested numbers closer or over the needed 50%.
"To treat such a group in this way is very concerning indeed, given their potential to seriously damage the company in the event of industrial action."
I wish the majority of BA Conservative-thinking pilots realised this whilst bending over backwards in an effort to be reasonable. Undoubtably all UK pilots pay are bench-marked to BA payscales(mkt rate) and not ones profitability, so a victory for them will eventually translate into a rise for the entire industry.
Snooky's comments reflect exactly the frustration of all us BA pilots who despite working professionally and as efficiently as other outfits are told that some routes have to go because they are 'unprofitable', despite full loads and BA pilots pay often less than the 'low-cost' operators(believe it or not). I could have left EOG(BA short-haul LGW -old name) after I had already worked there for several years and received a 30% pay increase by taking a job of the street with GO(this is before their share option windfall). Yet GO was considered BA's low-cost operation. I understand why this is so(back-orfice/branding, etc)but it doesn't make it easier to swallow.
The fact that it was BA's mainline operations that provided the financial means(credit backing, leased aircraft)and flt ops personnel to launch GO(despite publicly denying this, we can name some of the managers)adds salt to our wounds. Of course despite this we were not allowed shares in GO or to enjoy financially the 3i sell-off or now Easyjet buyout. If it does now go for 400mill, then I wonder how much of the 18.5% of GO reserved for their employees(900 of them)will they receive? 18.5% of 400mill is 82,222 per employee(if all employees equal). This is not jealousy, congratulations to our GO colleagues just to highlight why there might be a few disgruntled BA real low-cost operators around watching our route network shrink.
The blame is not GB, GO or the low-cost operators but our own useless management. It's about time we took the airline back and ran it like an airline.
As for BA pilots breaking away from BALPA it is a serious worry but a definite possibilty. UK union recognition laws changed this past year. Now, If 50+% of employees vote in favour of a union it has to be legally recognised by the firm involved. So if for instance more than 50% of BA pilots voted in favour to say bring the TGWU (who run BASSA our cabin brew union, plus our transport drivers, plus cargo) BALPA would cease to be the official union in BA. BA could still choose to acknowledge BALPA but it would cease to be effective with less than 50% support. Just food for thought of course, but something people should keep in mind when they throw around anti-BA sentiment. At the moment the higher input per employees of BA-BALPA union subscriptions help fund some of the services that would not be around should these BA subscription funds be diverted elsewhere. The attitude of our union head office of late also inches the yet untested numbers closer or over the needed 50%.
Last edited by airrage; 6th May 2002 at 12:05.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI, the CapedCrewsAider's "report" isn't by an analyst, nor is it even necessarily from someone working in the city. It is ripped off of a private investor bulletin board, and is the opinion of an anonymous individual, just as posts on here are.
So I wouldn't attach too much weight to it.
I would be interested to know CCA's employer and whether he is a contributor to the aforementioned board though...
So I wouldn't attach too much weight to it.
I would be interested to know CCA's employer and whether he is a contributor to the aforementioned board though...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this continues as a discussion on the management practices (or otherwise)of BA managers, I think we will be losing the point. There is also plenty on the Chris Darke thread about how disillusioned BA pilots are with BALPA. As for benchmarking, somehow it occurs to me that this is irrelevant and just shows how caught up in the past many of you at BA are. Things seem to have been going down hill for you since the mid 90s. If you want to take charge of it and change things then you will, no doubt, have to do it yourselves-do you have the collective will? Time will tell.
In the meantime, I believe that no one, and that includes BA and GB pilots, will benefit from BA pilots flying for GB Airways on any scale. You will merely, as has been mentioned here, be undermining your own principles. Perhaps you would be good enough to convey this to your management when they approach you on this very subject.
As for us, we will contest any attempt by the management to bring in pilots from outside GB. If you think that sounds like your view of us in reverse, I would direct you to one of my earlier posts that questioned where you all were when franchising and the like was taking place. I think you need to ensure that this is not allowed to happen again and to see Scope as your long term aim. Hopefully this will allow you to concentrate on the many issue which now face you.
Good luck!
In the meantime, I believe that no one, and that includes BA and GB pilots, will benefit from BA pilots flying for GB Airways on any scale. You will merely, as has been mentioned here, be undermining your own principles. Perhaps you would be good enough to convey this to your management when they approach you on this very subject.
As for us, we will contest any attempt by the management to bring in pilots from outside GB. If you think that sounds like your view of us in reverse, I would direct you to one of my earlier posts that questioned where you all were when franchising and the like was taking place. I think you need to ensure that this is not allowed to happen again and to see Scope as your long term aim. Hopefully this will allow you to concentrate on the many issue which now face you.
Good luck!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snooky;
'Just consider how you would feel, though, if GB started to franchise out their routes to an airline that in general paid its pilots the same with the pretext that GB could not profit on those routes.'
Firstly BA pilots earn considerably more than their GB equivalents and at EOG were contracted to fly fewer hours. This is fact and if your management tell you otherwise, they are being economical with the truth. (This is the only thing they are economical with!) BA is paying over market rate. GB pays market rate. If GB decided that routes were uneconomic I would expect them to either cancel them or talk to its flexible workforce on options open. In fact GB Airways did just that. for sometime a BRAL 146 operated MAN-GIB-MAN on a wet lease.
It was clear that this was uneconomic on a B737, zero unrest amongst the crews, we live in the real world, with real economics.
This route proved uneconomic on the 146, it no longer exists, that's life. However if the lowly paid pilots in BA think its a goer, well feel free. We will not think you are stealing our route, honest.
In fact after the Gulf war the GB pilots took a considerable pay cut one winter to avoid layoffs and ensure the survival of GB. Some crews were on half pay. I cannot imagine BA pilots entertaining this, and GB were not as far up the creek as BA is now.
With regards BALPA and BA, the world will still turn without BA pilots in BALPA and/or without BA. Don't you think that to believe catastrophe will befall the rest of the industry without BA or its pilots is perhaps just a trifle arrogant.
BA is defying Darwinism at the moment, natural selection will always dictate the survival of the fittest. That is true of every airline in a free market.
'Just consider how you would feel, though, if GB started to franchise out their routes to an airline that in general paid its pilots the same with the pretext that GB could not profit on those routes.'
Firstly BA pilots earn considerably more than their GB equivalents and at EOG were contracted to fly fewer hours. This is fact and if your management tell you otherwise, they are being economical with the truth. (This is the only thing they are economical with!) BA is paying over market rate. GB pays market rate. If GB decided that routes were uneconomic I would expect them to either cancel them or talk to its flexible workforce on options open. In fact GB Airways did just that. for sometime a BRAL 146 operated MAN-GIB-MAN on a wet lease.
It was clear that this was uneconomic on a B737, zero unrest amongst the crews, we live in the real world, with real economics.
This route proved uneconomic on the 146, it no longer exists, that's life. However if the lowly paid pilots in BA think its a goer, well feel free. We will not think you are stealing our route, honest.
In fact after the Gulf war the GB pilots took a considerable pay cut one winter to avoid layoffs and ensure the survival of GB. Some crews were on half pay. I cannot imagine BA pilots entertaining this, and GB were not as far up the creek as BA is now.
With regards BALPA and BA, the world will still turn without BA pilots in BALPA and/or without BA. Don't you think that to believe catastrophe will befall the rest of the industry without BA or its pilots is perhaps just a trifle arrogant.
BA is defying Darwinism at the moment, natural selection will always dictate the survival of the fittest. That is true of every airline in a free market.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.............and to get back to the original line of the thread, has anybody got some REAL info on the subject?
Little point on getting the BP going high and the bad feeling growing when there is no foundation, is there now........
Little point on getting the BP going high and the bad feeling growing when there is no foundation, is there now........
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there is foundation to this subject. BA fleet managers have visitied the Beehive (GB's head office) to discuss the subject and when I last heard (2 days ago) the proposal was for a number of BA 737 pilots to be given temporary 6 month contracts (Captains & FOs). This would be totally unacceptable as we have a number of qualified and capable FOs who should be given these commands. It is creating very bad feeling within the company and must be stamped on. BA would not in a thousand years accept direct entry commands ahead of qualified FOs and nor will we. If GB needs more Captains - promote them. If we need more FOs - recruit them . There is no shortage of good pilots right now, but wherever they come from they must go to the bottom of the seniority list like anyone else. We are not asking for special favours - GB pilots only want a just, fair and transparent system of promotion.
As said previously, this is about to become a very big deal indeed, and if those in charge do not say a resounding 'NO' to these overtures from BA then there will undoubtedly be serious ructions.
As said previously, this is about to become a very big deal indeed, and if those in charge do not say a resounding 'NO' to these overtures from BA then there will undoubtedly be serious ructions.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little bird tells me that a number of ex-DAN skippers have been identified to augment GB for 6 months from BA SHLGW.
Why ex-DAN?..... Some contractural difference I understand and nothing to do with the fact that an appreciable percentage of ex-DAN crew are non-BALPA members.
It stinks (as usual) and GB F/o's have every right to feel aggrieved.
Why ex-DAN?..... Some contractural difference I understand and nothing to do with the fact that an appreciable percentage of ex-DAN crew are non-BALPA members.
It stinks (as usual) and GB F/o's have every right to feel aggrieved.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Snooky
Your comments on part-time working during the Gulf War versus BA pilots does not stand up. Many went part time, took stand-down, went on secondment all over the world, even worked as cabin crew to avoid layoffs.
PLEASE!!! ALL off you out there who revel in a 'the world v BA' mentallity please try and put your prejudices aside.
FACT: A very large proportion of BA SH crews are paid less than franchises.
FACT: Almost all FO's are vastly underpaid in comparison.
FACT: Like it or not, all our companies monitor market rates for pilots. If they can avoid paying more, they will. True, some BA pilots earn good money, but have to stay 15+ years to beat some low-cost salaries. To put that into perspective, if I had gone LHS low cost instead of joining BA, (as my experience would have allowed) I would be £120,000 BETTER OFF after 4 years! Subject to coomand availability, it will take another 5 or 6 years to match the likes of Easy, and I will never recoup the shortfall, no matter how good my final salary.
Regarding SCOPE, I would suggest everyone listens to all the proposals before judgement. For example, it's an accepted practice in SCOPE agreements the 'major company' to give access to it's seniority lists in return for a deal. If such a clause is wriiten in, based on seniority, a franchisee pilot could fly any aircraft in BA's fleet.
BA ARE SHORT OF PILOTS. X NUMBER OF ROUTES NEED Y NUMBER OF PLANES NEED Z NUMBER OF PILOTS.
Your comments on part-time working during the Gulf War versus BA pilots does not stand up. Many went part time, took stand-down, went on secondment all over the world, even worked as cabin crew to avoid layoffs.
PLEASE!!! ALL off you out there who revel in a 'the world v BA' mentallity please try and put your prejudices aside.
FACT: A very large proportion of BA SH crews are paid less than franchises.
FACT: Almost all FO's are vastly underpaid in comparison.
FACT: Like it or not, all our companies monitor market rates for pilots. If they can avoid paying more, they will. True, some BA pilots earn good money, but have to stay 15+ years to beat some low-cost salaries. To put that into perspective, if I had gone LHS low cost instead of joining BA, (as my experience would have allowed) I would be £120,000 BETTER OFF after 4 years! Subject to coomand availability, it will take another 5 or 6 years to match the likes of Easy, and I will never recoup the shortfall, no matter how good my final salary.
Regarding SCOPE, I would suggest everyone listens to all the proposals before judgement. For example, it's an accepted practice in SCOPE agreements the 'major company' to give access to it's seniority lists in return for a deal. If such a clause is wriiten in, based on seniority, a franchisee pilot could fly any aircraft in BA's fleet.
BA ARE SHORT OF PILOTS. X NUMBER OF ROUTES NEED Y NUMBER OF PLANES NEED Z NUMBER OF PILOTS.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: london, uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Caped Crews Aider
Dear CCA
For the record I am a skipper on the 737 at LGW and earn £54K - is that so different from what you earn, and way above market rate? I didn't think so.
With regard to LGW pilots being limited to 720 hours, this is true. But given the nature of the operation that actually means working pretty hard in terms of duty days, due to multiple short sectors (My next tour is lgw/man/lgw/man. nightstop, then man/lgw/edi/lgw) - much harder to get to 720 that way rather than long daytrips to the Canaries (I know, I've done both).
So lets give the mutual mud slinging a rest (from both sides) - I doubt that there is much truth in the BA pilots to fly for GB start of the thread (except perhaps a few over 55 Dan Air guys who won't want to do an A320 course) - far more likely that the operations will end up merging (Rod doesn't seem keen on franchises) and we will all be working together.
SO WE COULD ALL START BY BEING A LITTLE MORE FRIENDLY !!
For the record I am a skipper on the 737 at LGW and earn £54K - is that so different from what you earn, and way above market rate? I didn't think so.
With regard to LGW pilots being limited to 720 hours, this is true. But given the nature of the operation that actually means working pretty hard in terms of duty days, due to multiple short sectors (My next tour is lgw/man/lgw/man. nightstop, then man/lgw/edi/lgw) - much harder to get to 720 that way rather than long daytrips to the Canaries (I know, I've done both).
So lets give the mutual mud slinging a rest (from both sides) - I doubt that there is much truth in the BA pilots to fly for GB start of the thread (except perhaps a few over 55 Dan Air guys who won't want to do an A320 course) - far more likely that the operations will end up merging (Rod doesn't seem keen on franchises) and we will all be working together.
SO WE COULD ALL START BY BEING A LITTLE MORE FRIENDLY !!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hereford united;
Can you honestly tell me your final salary is 54K. Be honest, what about your allowances, Hourly Flying Rate, pension contributions etc. All this makes you at least 10K better off than your GB equivalent.
No matter what BA pilots own perceptions they still have the best pay, conditions, and range of opportunities in the UK. If not why do so many people want to work for BA. If what you all say is true no one would go near BA and its pilots would be leaving in droves. It's a free market vote with your feet. Easyjet are recruiting, sounds better than the picture you paint of life in BA.
GB Pilots also fly 3 sectors i.e LGW-ACE-LPA-LGW, or VLC-LGW-ALC-LGW. How long are your duty days compared to this?
With regards working together, GB is a privately owned company, rumour has it the Bland group turned down a very attractive offer from BA who then bought CityFlyer. Working together will require agreement from both. As I said earlier maybe all Blands have to do is wait............then for BA read GB.
SO COULD WE ALL START BY BEING A LITTLE MORE HONEST!! (With ourselves and each other.)
Can you honestly tell me your final salary is 54K. Be honest, what about your allowances, Hourly Flying Rate, pension contributions etc. All this makes you at least 10K better off than your GB equivalent.
No matter what BA pilots own perceptions they still have the best pay, conditions, and range of opportunities in the UK. If not why do so many people want to work for BA. If what you all say is true no one would go near BA and its pilots would be leaving in droves. It's a free market vote with your feet. Easyjet are recruiting, sounds better than the picture you paint of life in BA.
GB Pilots also fly 3 sectors i.e LGW-ACE-LPA-LGW, or VLC-LGW-ALC-LGW. How long are your duty days compared to this?
With regards working together, GB is a privately owned company, rumour has it the Bland group turned down a very attractive offer from BA who then bought CityFlyer. Working together will require agreement from both. As I said earlier maybe all Blands have to do is wait............then for BA read GB.
SO COULD WE ALL START BY BEING A LITTLE MORE HONEST!! (With ourselves and each other.)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to stick my head up above the parapet (much) on this one but its been done to death on other threads how much BA crew earn in relation to everyone else, and believe me, a new EOG captain probably isn't earning as much as his GB peers. Thats doesn't really have a lot of bearing on the debate though. In a nutshell, if you join GB on the new pay deal then you'll be earning more than BA, and very well done to GB for securing it. However this all still smells suspisciously like someone trying to (ab)use our people to undercut you. But then I'm a cynic.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: london, uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re CCA
Fair enough Oh Caped One, of course I was talking about basic salary. If you fly the full 720 hours then an extra 8/9K in flight pay will come your way.
Allowances wise I expect I'm better off too - but then I do have 7 nightstops in the next two weeks work, and I will need to eat. (Forget all that £1400 for a tour, I'm on two quid an hour !!)
So on balance I dont see the differential as being all that great - of course I could move to Easy (if they'd have me) but I do aspire to a minor Baronial postion somewhere around 30 West eventually, preferably on something with 4 engines, so I have to sit it out for a few years at LGW first.
Thats the attraction of BA - long term of course we have good opportunities, but that is not the debate.
With regard to duty days, how about Athens/Tripoli daytrips, Bilbao and back then Marseille, Bucharest and back then
Manchester. We're doing the hard yards too - to have 10 days
off a month (our agreement) and to achieve the annual hours means we do some fierce days too.
Fundamentally we were talking about operating costs, and they are really not that different.
Allowances wise I expect I'm better off too - but then I do have 7 nightstops in the next two weeks work, and I will need to eat. (Forget all that £1400 for a tour, I'm on two quid an hour !!)
So on balance I dont see the differential as being all that great - of course I could move to Easy (if they'd have me) but I do aspire to a minor Baronial postion somewhere around 30 West eventually, preferably on something with 4 engines, so I have to sit it out for a few years at LGW first.
Thats the attraction of BA - long term of course we have good opportunities, but that is not the debate.
With regard to duty days, how about Athens/Tripoli daytrips, Bilbao and back then Marseille, Bucharest and back then
Manchester. We're doing the hard yards too - to have 10 days
off a month (our agreement) and to achieve the annual hours means we do some fierce days too.
Fundamentally we were talking about operating costs, and they are really not that different.
Last edited by hereford united; 10th May 2002 at 08:23.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CapedCrewAider,
just to pick up on your point about 'everyone wanting to work for BA, the mood at GB is that most of the guys (and girls, yeah now we're talking!) have no interest in becoming part of BA.
We can all talk about how great our p and c's are and how little we work or not etc. etc., however....
....What GB don't want is to be taken over/merged (however well it's dressed up) and then to be changed into an unprofitable arm, have a few routes closed, have the a/c sent to the regions and some or all of the pilots sacked. (Does BRA and Cityflyer ring a bell here??)
IF IT A'NT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT as someone once said to me.
Regards
just to pick up on your point about 'everyone wanting to work for BA, the mood at GB is that most of the guys (and girls, yeah now we're talking!) have no interest in becoming part of BA.
We can all talk about how great our p and c's are and how little we work or not etc. etc., however....
....What GB don't want is to be taken over/merged (however well it's dressed up) and then to be changed into an unprofitable arm, have a few routes closed, have the a/c sent to the regions and some or all of the pilots sacked. (Does BRA and Cityflyer ring a bell here??)
IF IT A'NT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT as someone once said to me.
Regards