GB Rules - OK?
The crux of this debate comes down to the fact that having taken over some routes (and debatably some aircraft) from BA, and now operating them apparently as BA (to the passenger), the GB pilots are now getting upset that they (as the more expensive option in this case) may in some way be replaced, possibly only in the short term, by some of the pilots who would have been operating the routes and aircraft had BA kept them in house.
The GB arguement revolves around how unfair this is to their first officers. Don't forget, though, that the removal of these routes and aircraft has had a negative impact on the BA first officers who would have got a command had these routes and aircraft continued to be operated by BA, and those first officers have probably waited far longer for a command that those who would be affected at GB.
I can only say that there are arguements for and against both sides in this debate, ultimately fairness is unlikely to come into the outcome.
The GB arguement revolves around how unfair this is to their first officers. Don't forget, though, that the removal of these routes and aircraft has had a negative impact on the BA first officers who would have got a command had these routes and aircraft continued to be operated by BA, and those first officers have probably waited far longer for a command that those who would be affected at GB.
I can only say that there are arguements for and against both sides in this debate, ultimately fairness is unlikely to come into the outcome.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swash
BRA and Cityflyer ringing bells?
Yes I think it does, paticularly the line about "most of our guys and gals have no interest in becoming part of BA"
I seem to remember similar wording a few months back.
Strange how so many of them are now swooning at the chance of 747-400!
ho - hum
BRA and Cityflyer ringing bells?
Yes I think it does, paticularly the line about "most of our guys and gals have no interest in becoming part of BA"
I seem to remember similar wording a few months back.
Strange how so many of them are now swooning at the chance of 747-400!
ho - hum
Snooky
You're still missing the point! GB pilots work to a seniority system that, in my experience, was generally fair and transparent. If you feel that these routes should be back in LGW and/or LHR shorthaul then that's a matter for BALPA or whoever to argue the case. However, until that happens (if it ever does) then you cannot argue the right to place Flt crews with GB.
The real issue for BA is meeting the challenge posed by the low cost operators, in particular the orange invasion at LGW. The relationship between GB and BA should be one of partnership based on mutual benefit, otherwise why bother at all? BA has some real problems to address and I think for some of you the solutions will be unpalatable eg how will you feel working 6 on 3 off like the low cost crews? Or working to 900 hours per annum?
I'm not anti BA, far from it, I just feel GB does a good job and should be left to do what it does best.
You're still missing the point! GB pilots work to a seniority system that, in my experience, was generally fair and transparent. If you feel that these routes should be back in LGW and/or LHR shorthaul then that's a matter for BALPA or whoever to argue the case. However, until that happens (if it ever does) then you cannot argue the right to place Flt crews with GB.
The real issue for BA is meeting the challenge posed by the low cost operators, in particular the orange invasion at LGW. The relationship between GB and BA should be one of partnership based on mutual benefit, otherwise why bother at all? BA has some real problems to address and I think for some of you the solutions will be unpalatable eg how will you feel working 6 on 3 off like the low cost crews? Or working to 900 hours per annum?
I'm not anti BA, far from it, I just feel GB does a good job and should be left to do what it does best.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boys and Girls
GB won't be here in two years, it will be brought within the BA fold, Gb's will go to the bottom of the seniority list, you will nolonger make a profit. BA are short of pilots so I cannot see anyone going to GB. GB Capitanos to moan as much as the Dan Air Boys, what a waste of a pound!!
GB won't be here in two years, it will be brought within the BA fold, Gb's will go to the bottom of the seniority list, you will nolonger make a profit. BA are short of pilots so I cannot see anyone going to GB. GB Capitanos to moan as much as the Dan Air Boys, what a waste of a pound!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snooky
You are right in that the crux of argument is that the imposition of BA captains on GB is unfair to our FOs, but you are absolutely wrong in your analysis that somehow this is quid pro quo.
The reason BA gave up these routes is that they could not make any money on them. This was not some act of kindness towards GB at the expense of their own pilots - it was a straight economic decision. Like any airline with a shrinking route structure brought about by economic problems, there is an inevitable loss of opportunities for your flight deck and cabin crew staff. That is nothing to do with GB but straight economics. Make your routes work is the bottom line and that will provide bright futures for all your staff - it is that simple. GB took the risk that they could do better and have made your failing routes work - to the mutual benefit of both our airlines.
There is an underlying argument here that somehow GB 'owe' BA pilots a kickback of some kind. We are seen as the second-class citizens who are good to use when times are hard, who should take the scraps off the table and bow to the master when he calls. That is not acceptable to us. We expect to be treated as equals - no more and no less.
BA will, quite rightly, never give us direct entry commands and nor would we ever expect them. If we wish to join BA, we expect to undergo the same selection procedure as everyone else with no favours and we expect to join right at the bottom of the pile. We in turn expect anyone who joins us to join at the bottom of the pile, and work their way up in the recognised manner. It is totally unacceptable for anyone to get direct-entry commands from whatever airline they come. We only want the same rules to apply to us in our airline as apply to you in yours. Is that so unreasonable?
You are right in that the crux of argument is that the imposition of BA captains on GB is unfair to our FOs, but you are absolutely wrong in your analysis that somehow this is quid pro quo.
The reason BA gave up these routes is that they could not make any money on them. This was not some act of kindness towards GB at the expense of their own pilots - it was a straight economic decision. Like any airline with a shrinking route structure brought about by economic problems, there is an inevitable loss of opportunities for your flight deck and cabin crew staff. That is nothing to do with GB but straight economics. Make your routes work is the bottom line and that will provide bright futures for all your staff - it is that simple. GB took the risk that they could do better and have made your failing routes work - to the mutual benefit of both our airlines.
There is an underlying argument here that somehow GB 'owe' BA pilots a kickback of some kind. We are seen as the second-class citizens who are good to use when times are hard, who should take the scraps off the table and bow to the master when he calls. That is not acceptable to us. We expect to be treated as equals - no more and no less.
BA will, quite rightly, never give us direct entry commands and nor would we ever expect them. If we wish to join BA, we expect to undergo the same selection procedure as everyone else with no favours and we expect to join right at the bottom of the pile. We in turn expect anyone who joins us to join at the bottom of the pile, and work their way up in the recognised manner. It is totally unacceptable for anyone to get direct-entry commands from whatever airline they come. We only want the same rules to apply to us in our airline as apply to you in yours. Is that so unreasonable?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tandemrotor,
without pointing out the obvious, there is/was a pretty big difference between the BRA/Cityflyer 'lot' and GB's current lot.
Had I been a turboprop Captain on 36k (or what ever it was) and had the chance to get a pretty decent payrise by signing a new contract, I would have been pretty chuffed. I have to admit that I don't know the fine points of the new contracts but friends of mine who did WERE very pleased, and now are NOT.
As indicated by several BA people on this thread, there is nothing/little to gain by becoming part of BA, unless of course ones ego would grow by flying one of BA's huge, wonderful, shiny, amazing, super-dupa B747-400's.
without pointing out the obvious, there is/was a pretty big difference between the BRA/Cityflyer 'lot' and GB's current lot.
Had I been a turboprop Captain on 36k (or what ever it was) and had the chance to get a pretty decent payrise by signing a new contract, I would have been pretty chuffed. I have to admit that I don't know the fine points of the new contracts but friends of mine who did WERE very pleased, and now are NOT.
As indicated by several BA people on this thread, there is nothing/little to gain by becoming part of BA, unless of course ones ego would grow by flying one of BA's huge, wonderful, shiny, amazing, super-dupa B747-400's.
My arguement is based on the fact that switching the routes (and aircraft) to GB is not ever going to make any difference to profitability. I agree that the cabin crew may cost more at BA, but the pilots are cheaper at BA. Maybe this is the aim, use the cheapest of each.
It's not as if GB are actually operating the routes as GB, to the buyer it's BA.
I never suggested that GB should be treated as second class citizens. BA has a long history of direct entry commands, even relatively recently there's BCal, Dan Air, and City Flyer.
It's not as if GB are actually operating the routes as GB, to the buyer it's BA.
I never suggested that GB should be treated as second class citizens. BA has a long history of direct entry commands, even relatively recently there's BCal, Dan Air, and City Flyer.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hereford United;
You forgot to mention pension. I know BA have just dropped the final salary scheme for new entrants, however BA put more than twice as much into your fund than a GB pilot receives in his money purchase fund. This is a huge operating cost to BA, hence dropping NAPS. and therefore negating a potentially huge future comittment. The fact that BA pilots retire at 55 is a huge cost.
' As for your statement Fundamentally we were talking about operating costs, and they are really not that different'. You have missed the point completely. GBs,Gos Easyjets and Ryanairs operating costs are miles apart from BAs. Why? No Waterside, no Jubilee House, no bloated management structure, no large and diverse fleets and training costs. No large ineffective marketing departments or IT depts no CSD's on huge salaries.
To be low cost everything that is not core to your business must be subcontracted, i.e. IT, Transport, handling, maintenance etc., etc. You can operate an airline without doing all these in house. You can tender and subcontract and believe me the quality is no worse.
Pilot salaries are a part of the equation but there is far more to O.C.s than just that.
Snooky:
You are quite clearly not receptive to the facts. If BA were to operate any GB route they would lose money on it. Are any shorthaul routes profitable for BA? They even appear to have turned CityFlyer into a loss maker. Ask yourself why?
For your information most of our routes were operated by GB Airways as GB Airways prior to the franchise (before BA sold their 49% interest). The Franchise was not imposed on BA by GB, rather it was a business deal cooked up by BA. BA recieve considerable income from it which they will lose if they turn GB into a loss making airline ala CityFlyer. But you have been told all this before, you just don't want to hear it do you.
Suggs;
There are two airlines one consistently profitable and low cost, privately owned. The other deep in debt losing money, high cost and subject to the vagaries of the stock market.
Which is most likely to be around in 2 years?
With regards moaning, not one GB captain here eyes up BAs routes or complains about BA operating charters on theirs. It seems to me there is one group of disgruntled, malcontents moaning here and it is not GBs. There is one group blaming BALPA, GB or anyone except themselves for the mess they are in.
You forgot to mention pension. I know BA have just dropped the final salary scheme for new entrants, however BA put more than twice as much into your fund than a GB pilot receives in his money purchase fund. This is a huge operating cost to BA, hence dropping NAPS. and therefore negating a potentially huge future comittment. The fact that BA pilots retire at 55 is a huge cost.
' As for your statement Fundamentally we were talking about operating costs, and they are really not that different'. You have missed the point completely. GBs,Gos Easyjets and Ryanairs operating costs are miles apart from BAs. Why? No Waterside, no Jubilee House, no bloated management structure, no large and diverse fleets and training costs. No large ineffective marketing departments or IT depts no CSD's on huge salaries.
To be low cost everything that is not core to your business must be subcontracted, i.e. IT, Transport, handling, maintenance etc., etc. You can operate an airline without doing all these in house. You can tender and subcontract and believe me the quality is no worse.
Pilot salaries are a part of the equation but there is far more to O.C.s than just that.
Snooky:
You are quite clearly not receptive to the facts. If BA were to operate any GB route they would lose money on it. Are any shorthaul routes profitable for BA? They even appear to have turned CityFlyer into a loss maker. Ask yourself why?
For your information most of our routes were operated by GB Airways as GB Airways prior to the franchise (before BA sold their 49% interest). The Franchise was not imposed on BA by GB, rather it was a business deal cooked up by BA. BA recieve considerable income from it which they will lose if they turn GB into a loss making airline ala CityFlyer. But you have been told all this before, you just don't want to hear it do you.
Suggs;
There are two airlines one consistently profitable and low cost, privately owned. The other deep in debt losing money, high cost and subject to the vagaries of the stock market.
Which is most likely to be around in 2 years?
With regards moaning, not one GB captain here eyes up BAs routes or complains about BA operating charters on theirs. It seems to me there is one group of disgruntled, malcontents moaning here and it is not GBs. There is one group blaming BALPA, GB or anyone except themselves for the mess they are in.
Last edited by CapedCrewsAider; 10th May 2002 at 19:55.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just playing Devil's Advocate here: How successful would GB be if the BA franchise was removed ? I seem to recall that the GB expansion since being a BA franchisee, has been vastly greater than anything beforehand when it was truly independant.
Compared to that scenario, a few BA pilots flying BA routes on GB aircraft might seem like a good idea!
Compared to that scenario, a few BA pilots flying BA routes on GB aircraft might seem like a good idea!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just playing devils' advocate myself, how big did Ryanair, Easyjet and GO get in the last few years without a BA franchise.
Compared to that scenario maybe GB Airways would be better off being free of the shackles again. Just a thought.
Compared to that scenario maybe GB Airways would be better off being free of the shackles again. Just a thought.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story goes, according to a rather senior BA Manager,
BA would like to get their hand on GB as part of their future size and shape bol**Ks, JG has no intention of letting this happen.
As for the BA chaps flying for GB, no chance. All a bit of a storm in a tea cup. Sorry to upset the few excited people in BA who would like to get fly in GB.
BA would like to get their hand on GB as part of their future size and shape bol**Ks, JG has no intention of letting this happen.
As for the BA chaps flying for GB, no chance. All a bit of a storm in a tea cup. Sorry to upset the few excited people in BA who would like to get fly in GB.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me suspicious if you like but I had the opportunity to speak to LCG over coffee the other day and he said "LGWs problem is that its costing BA too much money". One way it occurs to me of reducing those costs would be to hand the whole of Short Haul at Gatwick (SHAG) to GB lock stock and barrel. This would then remove from BA problems with Cabin Crew/Loaders/Check In/Engineering etc. In other words GB could make the operation pay whereas BA according to them can't.
Ah but one slight problem GB do not have the aircraft nor the crews to man such an expansion. Answer simple hand over the aircraft 737s (the RJs are on their way to MAN & BHX) plus the pilots on a modified wet lease arrangement. This situation would suit both companies, the pilots would involved would still be effectively BA and so as the Aircraft were ultimately replaced by GB with the airbus then the pilots could return to mainline assisting them in the coming shortage.
Meantime BA has got rid of its shorthaul operations at MAN/BHX/LGW all without a shot being fired by its rebellious staff.
It would seem everyone wins but then I always was naive.
Ah but one slight problem GB do not have the aircraft nor the crews to man such an expansion. Answer simple hand over the aircraft 737s (the RJs are on their way to MAN & BHX) plus the pilots on a modified wet lease arrangement. This situation would suit both companies, the pilots would involved would still be effectively BA and so as the Aircraft were ultimately replaced by GB with the airbus then the pilots could return to mainline assisting them in the coming shortage.
Meantime BA has got rid of its shorthaul operations at MAN/BHX/LGW all without a shot being fired by its rebellious staff.
It would seem everyone wins but then I always was naive.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackball:
Neat soloution but what happens in two, three or four years time when the LHR BA pilots look across to LGW and say 'Those are BA aircraft flying BA routes - they should be flown by BA pilots'.
Which, surprisingly enough, is just what they seem to be saying now!
Neat soloution but what happens in two, three or four years time when the LHR BA pilots look across to LGW and say 'Those are BA aircraft flying BA routes - they should be flown by BA pilots'.
Which, surprisingly enough, is just what they seem to be saying now!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr CapedCrewsAider,
I can't quite see how you have so missed the recurring point.
You said that "You have missed the point completely. GBs,Gos Easyjets and Ryanairs operating costs are miles apart from BAs. Why? No Waterside, no Jubilee House, no bloated management structure, no large and diverse fleets and training costs. No large ineffective marketing departments or IT depts no CSD's on huge salaries."
You make this statement but curiously make no reference to it's importance to your company. Without the bloated Waterside management you would have no 'ineffective' marketing or brand.
Can I make a suggestion? How would you feel if GB's seniority list was merged incorporating everyones date of joining? Is that fair enough for you? Would you then refrain from biting the hand that feeds you?
You defence is hollow and hypocritical.
Let me explain why BA continually hives off their routes. It has VERY little to do with the relative costs/profit of the routes.
BA can't attract applicants. Did you hear that? The pool is DRY! Why? Because there is too much to lose. You are better off staying at GB. At least we can agree on that point. What happens each time BA gets rid of routes? It needs LESS pilots. So when a big swathe of senior Captains retires, BA just shrinks the master seniority list. In so doing the so called pilot shortage just doesn't happen, so BA don't have the disadvantage of being the wrong side of a supply/demand curve regarding their crewing levels.
So please, BUY the big picture and realise that your defense of your undoubtably great company will do nothing but enhance the comparitavely poor salary gains in the UK compared to our more lucrative neighbours. It's so obvious!!!!
I can't quite see how you have so missed the recurring point.
You said that "You have missed the point completely. GBs,Gos Easyjets and Ryanairs operating costs are miles apart from BAs. Why? No Waterside, no Jubilee House, no bloated management structure, no large and diverse fleets and training costs. No large ineffective marketing departments or IT depts no CSD's on huge salaries."
You make this statement but curiously make no reference to it's importance to your company. Without the bloated Waterside management you would have no 'ineffective' marketing or brand.
Can I make a suggestion? How would you feel if GB's seniority list was merged incorporating everyones date of joining? Is that fair enough for you? Would you then refrain from biting the hand that feeds you?
You defence is hollow and hypocritical.
Let me explain why BA continually hives off their routes. It has VERY little to do with the relative costs/profit of the routes.
BA can't attract applicants. Did you hear that? The pool is DRY! Why? Because there is too much to lose. You are better off staying at GB. At least we can agree on that point. What happens each time BA gets rid of routes? It needs LESS pilots. So when a big swathe of senior Captains retires, BA just shrinks the master seniority list. In so doing the so called pilot shortage just doesn't happen, so BA don't have the disadvantage of being the wrong side of a supply/demand curve regarding their crewing levels.
So please, BUY the big picture and realise that your defense of your undoubtably great company will do nothing but enhance the comparitavely poor salary gains in the UK compared to our more lucrative neighbours. It's so obvious!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land ASAP:
Ryanair, Easyjet, GO etc all have recognisable brands without the bloated costs of a Waterside. BA is not the only brand. You don't need to p!ss money away to have a recognisable brand. Are you in the marketing dept?
Mr ASAP you have missed the point about franchising completely. What do you think GB pay £ millions for except the Brand and marketing. This is the fundamental point about franchises. They are not free. The franchisee pays money to the franchisor, they expect some advantage i.e. aBrand and national marketing. The question is: is GB getting value for money? Bear in mind BA marketing has been so poor in recent years GB has set up its own marketing department!
As for the hand that feeds you. GB Airways pays money to BA. BA pays no money to GB. Who is the customer? Who is feeding who here? . Who pays who for handling, engineering and other services. These are in addition to any franchise fee.
Who is biting the hand that feeds it? I would suggest not GB. I believe you like most of BA have forgotten about customer service. The customer is king.
Abusing your customers is a very bad idea.
Mr ASAP are you being serious, BA can't attract pilots thats why they hive off routes? Any unemployed pilots like to comment on this. This comment shows a certain paranoia - BA is getting rid of its routes to avoid hiring pilots - great business plan!
Ryanair, Easyjet, GO etc all have recognisable brands without the bloated costs of a Waterside. BA is not the only brand. You don't need to p!ss money away to have a recognisable brand. Are you in the marketing dept?
Mr ASAP you have missed the point about franchising completely. What do you think GB pay £ millions for except the Brand and marketing. This is the fundamental point about franchises. They are not free. The franchisee pays money to the franchisor, they expect some advantage i.e. aBrand and national marketing. The question is: is GB getting value for money? Bear in mind BA marketing has been so poor in recent years GB has set up its own marketing department!
As for the hand that feeds you. GB Airways pays money to BA. BA pays no money to GB. Who is the customer? Who is feeding who here? . Who pays who for handling, engineering and other services. These are in addition to any franchise fee.
Who is biting the hand that feeds it? I would suggest not GB. I believe you like most of BA have forgotten about customer service. The customer is king.
Abusing your customers is a very bad idea.
Mr ASAP are you being serious, BA can't attract pilots thats why they hive off routes? Any unemployed pilots like to comment on this. This comment shows a certain paranoia - BA is getting rid of its routes to avoid hiring pilots - great business plan!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Those ORANGE tails are coming and that is really serious for the BA brand.
GB management knows this and is hitting back tactically and agressively particularly on AGP.
I despair at poor BA management at LGW.
Recently we were delayed for 45 mintues because there were not enough staff to man the boarding gate due to the switchover of Cityflyer fligths from South to North Terminal. Seven other BA/GB flights were similarly affected at the same time! Management knew the date of the changeover months earlier. How's that for customer service? Where is BA's strategy? Did you know there is now no JFK service form LGW? Who makes these decisions? JFK should be a trunk route even at a slimmed-down LGW
As far as I am concerned, I am pleased to be part of the BA family. I am also pleased that in general this debate about BA crews flying for GB seems to be reasonably friendly. Just remember that this crewing business is a red herring to the real threat and that is I repeat those Orange tails!
GB management knows this and is hitting back tactically and agressively particularly on AGP.
I despair at poor BA management at LGW.
Recently we were delayed for 45 mintues because there were not enough staff to man the boarding gate due to the switchover of Cityflyer fligths from South to North Terminal. Seven other BA/GB flights were similarly affected at the same time! Management knew the date of the changeover months earlier. How's that for customer service? Where is BA's strategy? Did you know there is now no JFK service form LGW? Who makes these decisions? JFK should be a trunk route even at a slimmed-down LGW
As far as I am concerned, I am pleased to be part of the BA family. I am also pleased that in general this debate about BA crews flying for GB seems to be reasonably friendly. Just remember that this crewing business is a red herring to the real threat and that is I repeat those Orange tails!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr ASAP are you being serious, BA can't attract pilots thats why they hive off routes? Any unemployed pilots like to comment on this. This comment shows a certain paranoia - BA is getting rid of its routes to avoid hiring pilots - great business plan!
We are all pilots. This is a pilots website. I would prefer you to focus on the fact that BA cannot hire enough DEP's. Hence my profound conviction that FLIGHT CREW COSTS are not the reason for BA's 'supposed' demise. GB pilots should consider merging with BA's seniority list, for the overall benefit of the industry. The relative merits of each others company brands/efficiencies/marketing depts etc....are side issues to the thread title.
I, as a BA pilot, resent YOU as a separate GB pilot flying a route that has been 'donated' to you by the 'powers that be'. I resent this because I cost the same to employ and fly the same aircraft type and that we are the same perceived product, using most of the same tertiary business services.
I want to see solidarity between both our groups, not persistant bickering, so that we can....[list=1][*]Raise the status of pilots throughout the BA group[*]Collectively bargain for Terms and Conditions rather than be played off against each other[*]Not return to the BOAC/BEA (read BA L/Haul and GB) of old[/list=1]
Your stance throughout this thread has perplexed me, which at best is loyal but it does nothing to create the harmony that our Company Councils need in the forthcoming discussion regarding SCOPE.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"BA loses around 200 pilots per year at the moment and CANNOT fill the vacancies with suitable replacements. "
they will find replacements even harder to come by with the final salary pension axed for newcomers.
they will find replacements even harder to come by with the final salary pension axed for newcomers.