GB Rules - OK?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ba Crews To Fly For Gb Airways?
Rumour has it that two of the fleet managers from BA visited the Beehive recently to discuss where to put their excess pilots. They apparently want some of their 737 crews from LGW to fly for GB under a kind of secondment deal-any one else heard about this?
If it happens it will be the beginning of the end for another relatively contented and profit making organisation taken under the wing of BA to ensure it can start making heavy losses!
If it happens it will be the beginning of the end for another relatively contented and profit making organisation taken under the wing of BA to ensure it can start making heavy losses!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not the BA crews you need to worry about, its the BA managers! Besides, looking at your recent payrise it seems you paid quite a bit more than your average EOG pilot so it might be a cheaper (if rather dubious) way of getting some short term flight crew!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: london, uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlikely to see too many BA 737 crews working at GB because we are short (people being dragged back from unpaid leave at present) - but perhaps another takeover in the offing?
As to the gybe about BA wrecking GB's finances, who exactly sells your tickets, and who subsidises your operation at the North terminal?( £700 charge to turn around a BA 737, £400 for a GB one - as told to me by a BA director)
So maybe a little less BA bashing would seem appropriate.
As to the gybe about BA wrecking GB's finances, who exactly sells your tickets, and who subsidises your operation at the North terminal?( £700 charge to turn around a BA 737, £400 for a GB one - as told to me by a BA director)
So maybe a little less BA bashing would seem appropriate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about BA subsidising GB, but GB pays 12 million quid for the franchise, which all goes in to the melting pot. GB keep tight control of their costs, BA don't seem to.
Still no one has answered whether they have heard of any of this happening. As for BA pilots, I am sure they are a great bunch. My original post was questioning the wisdom of BA crews flying for a franchise (I don't think that this can be good for any of us) and also to ask if this all indicates that BA may be looking to take over GB.
Still no one has answered whether they have heard of any of this happening. As for BA pilots, I am sure they are a great bunch. My original post was questioning the wisdom of BA crews flying for a franchise (I don't think that this can be good for any of us) and also to ask if this all indicates that BA may be looking to take over GB.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have it on good authority that GB is looking to merge with British Airways. It turns out that the Bland Group (owners of GB) is actually worth more than BA. It seems that all BA pilots will be put at the bottom of the GB seniority list.
It's as good a rumour as the original post!
It's as good a rumour as the original post!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality, believe me this is definitely being looked at. I could name the names of the two BA guys who recently visited the ops director at GB with just such a proposal. Whether it's because BA need somewhere to put their pilots, I don't know, but I was wondering how many other people had heard about it-obviously not many. Don't discount it though-if it hasn't got out till now, that's because they didn't want us to know.
Any one read their BA BALPA CC Newsletter recently?
This is a rumours network right?
Any one read their BA BALPA CC Newsletter recently?
This is a rumours network right?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA are desperately short of pilots at the moment. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of BA pilots being used outside the company!
Why do you think we are giving away 160 jobs in the regions?
Because we ain't got the pilots (and the management don't want the embarrassment of having to recruit whilst we are laying off the 'meetings mafia'!)
Why do you think we are giving away 160 jobs in the regions?
Because we ain't got the pilots (and the management don't want the embarrassment of having to recruit whilst we are laying off the 'meetings mafia'!)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some truth in this rumour. Some representations are rumoured to have been made to the management in recent days. These requests were not dealt with properly - the managament should have said a very firm no! The numbers quoted have varied but it could involve up to 6 Captains and an unspecified number of FOs.
The bottom line is that there are a number of promotable FOs at GB who have patiently waited their turn on the seniority list. As long as that situation exists, direct entry commands would be totally unacceptable to the pilot population at GB, particularly the FOs. There is no doubt that such a move, if presented to the CC, would be immediately rejected. There are no circumcstances where such a move would ever be acceptable, and would almost certainly result in industrial action.
The bottom line is that there are a number of promotable FOs at GB who have patiently waited their turn on the seniority list. As long as that situation exists, direct entry commands would be totally unacceptable to the pilot population at GB, particularly the FOs. There is no doubt that such a move, if presented to the CC, would be immediately rejected. There are no circumcstances where such a move would ever be acceptable, and would almost certainly result in industrial action.
Since four of the five 320s were originally destined for BA as 757 replacements and are now flying in BA colours on routes that should be operated by BA, it seems reasonable that BA pilots should fly them.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But until such time as Scope is implemented lets not undermine our own arguments by providing cheap labour to a franchise company. GB have just secured themselves a good pay deal, lets not undermine it by providing cheap 737 labour. The whole purpose of this Scope drive is to eliminate undercutting each other and improve remuneration for all, lets not be guilty of what we are trying to eliminate.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the road you are going down Snooky, but it doesn’t stand up. GB was originally only ever given AGP from BA. Surely not a bad swap the millions the franchise cost. We have now been given MPL, presumably because BA couldn’t make it pay. We would only have taken BA destined Airbuses because they didn’t require them at the time.
GB provides an extension to the BA network, creating our own routes to supplement BA’s vast network in areas they probably could not make pay. I think the inference is that we are stealing BA jobs. Do you really think that?
A franchise is a two way street and we don’t need favours from BA. The franchise has proved a success to BOTH companies, although I can see that some would think we get preferential treatment, as after all we are the only one making a profit.
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.
Do not let this thread descend into two pilot workforces attacking each other. Remember the industry does exist outside British Airways.
Oh and BTW, today is the 50th anniversary of the first Comet passenger service!
GB provides an extension to the BA network, creating our own routes to supplement BA’s vast network in areas they probably could not make pay. I think the inference is that we are stealing BA jobs. Do you really think that?
A franchise is a two way street and we don’t need favours from BA. The franchise has proved a success to BOTH companies, although I can see that some would think we get preferential treatment, as after all we are the only one making a profit.
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.
Do not let this thread descend into two pilot workforces attacking each other. Remember the industry does exist outside British Airways.
Oh and BTW, today is the 50th anniversary of the first Comet passenger service!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality Checks -
You're right to ask that this thread does not descend into a them versus us discussion but let me respond on a few issues.
The Airbus order (Which if all were 'firm' works out at around 100 hulls), came to a very tidy price, which you must agree would have never been achieved by GB as a single bidder. This is a subsidy for GB Airways and I can't see how you can disprove that. The A320-200 IAE's were intended to replace 757's, but instead the 757's were taken out as part of the Future Size and Shape capacity reduction program. The Airbus's were considered to be 'surplus' hence GB's bargain purchase.
What BA pilots worry about is that you inherit routes that are defined as unprofitable by our creative accounting department, however the 'real profit' of these routes is far from that. Perhaps you might care to mention why the FAO route, which you inherited a few years back has very high yield to BA, judging by the amount BA.com asked for when I tried to book online recently.
The Big Picture in my opinion is this. Staff costs as a franchisee are lower, I agree, but which ones in particular? It isn't the pilots, and this is not a Nigel whinge, because I know the pay scales of each airline. It isn't the ground staff because we use the same people. It isn't the ticketing because we use the same call centre in Newcastle. It isn't the marketing etc....
The ONLY staff group that BA and GB have a huge disparity in pay between is.......wait for it.......drumroll........
The Cabin Crew
GB's are a mere snip compared to our hard working (but expensive) colleagues.
So to summarise, the pilots of BA S/H feel that you are a threat, but we are caught in the crossfire of the considerable cost differential. Until BA can address this, you at GB will be recieving our 'supposed' loss making routes and 'somehow' making a profit. We, as BA pilots, refuse to let the inefficiencies of others erode our route structure. Some of us don't like Long Haul.
You're right to ask that this thread does not descend into a them versus us discussion but let me respond on a few issues.
The Airbus order (Which if all were 'firm' works out at around 100 hulls), came to a very tidy price, which you must agree would have never been achieved by GB as a single bidder. This is a subsidy for GB Airways and I can't see how you can disprove that. The A320-200 IAE's were intended to replace 757's, but instead the 757's were taken out as part of the Future Size and Shape capacity reduction program. The Airbus's were considered to be 'surplus' hence GB's bargain purchase.
What BA pilots worry about is that you inherit routes that are defined as unprofitable by our creative accounting department, however the 'real profit' of these routes is far from that. Perhaps you might care to mention why the FAO route, which you inherited a few years back has very high yield to BA, judging by the amount BA.com asked for when I tried to book online recently.
The Big Picture in my opinion is this. Staff costs as a franchisee are lower, I agree, but which ones in particular? It isn't the pilots, and this is not a Nigel whinge, because I know the pay scales of each airline. It isn't the ground staff because we use the same people. It isn't the ticketing because we use the same call centre in Newcastle. It isn't the marketing etc....
The ONLY staff group that BA and GB have a huge disparity in pay between is.......wait for it.......drumroll........
The Cabin Crew
GB's are a mere snip compared to our hard working (but expensive) colleagues.
So to summarise, the pilots of BA S/H feel that you are a threat, but we are caught in the crossfire of the considerable cost differential. Until BA can address this, you at GB will be recieving our 'supposed' loss making routes and 'somehow' making a profit. We, as BA pilots, refuse to let the inefficiencies of others erode our route structure. Some of us don't like Long Haul.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 4th Quark Galaxy
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality Check,
I agree that it helps neither group if it turns into a slanging match. I would like to point out a couple of 'extras' to add to your message in the interests of balance and accuracy.
The MPL route was 'given' to GB to be operated via NTS. If the route is operated LGW-MPL then the alleviation would have been broken and the BACC will have every right to get it brought back to Mainline. It wasn't that the route was too loss-making, but GB's argument that the added pax from NTS would fill the a/c and turn a better profit. Fair enough. I can't see why LGW couldn't operate the same, but I'm just a simple pilot.
The Airbus not required bit is a bit Red Herringish. BA definitely does want the a/c on order and is still receiving them at a fair old lick. I believe the GB aircraft (A321s in particular) were bought on the 'back' of the BA options, so they got a good deal because BA had ordered a big order. No doubt there would be some benefit to BA as well as GB, but to suggest GB got them because BA didn't want them is probably not accurate.
Alright, back to the thread..........
PS: sorry for repeating some of the message above. As you can see from the times, we were simultaneous typing.
I agree that it helps neither group if it turns into a slanging match. I would like to point out a couple of 'extras' to add to your message in the interests of balance and accuracy.
The MPL route was 'given' to GB to be operated via NTS. If the route is operated LGW-MPL then the alleviation would have been broken and the BACC will have every right to get it brought back to Mainline. It wasn't that the route was too loss-making, but GB's argument that the added pax from NTS would fill the a/c and turn a better profit. Fair enough. I can't see why LGW couldn't operate the same, but I'm just a simple pilot.
The Airbus not required bit is a bit Red Herringish. BA definitely does want the a/c on order and is still receiving them at a fair old lick. I believe the GB aircraft (A321s in particular) were bought on the 'back' of the BA options, so they got a good deal because BA had ordered a big order. No doubt there would be some benefit to BA as well as GB, but to suggest GB got them because BA didn't want them is probably not accurate.
Alright, back to the thread..........
PS: sorry for repeating some of the message above. As you can see from the times, we were simultaneous typing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the qusetion is "Who is driving this deal?" 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).
But what does RE think of all this? If BA attempt to drop or transfer their loss making (by creative acccounting or otherwise) routes to GB this obviously has serious ramifications for BA's pilots. This I fully understand. The MPL route is now operated direct, so what power do the BA CC have in this instance?
I really don't see that GB are competing with BA, on the contrary. GB only exists in it's current form because of BA and the franchise. I would happily post here the salary scales for GB pilots, but I think it is missing the point. As is the comment about GB's Cabin Crew. In fact basic salaries for some of our crew are considerably higher than their equivalents at Eurofleet LGW. GB's allowance structure is, however, very simple and not nearly as lucrative for all crews, flight deck included.
The BA CC are right to feel that their is a potential threat from GB to their jobs, but please take this up with your management. It is they who would undermine you and attempt to cut their costs by farming out routes to a franchise. My impression at the moment is that even more would be coming GB's way were it not for the efforts of the BA CC-I stand to be corrected if that is not the case!
From GB's perspective, we have to be realistic, although I'd rather not be bullied thank you. If the BA CC want something to happen such as we have discussed above (call it Scope if you will), then let's see the colour of their money and whether they have the oomph to make it so. If not, with the current state of flux in the industry and in particular BA, wouldn't the BA CC be better off concentrating on all the other issue facing your crews, leave GB to get on with it's job alongside Eurofleet LGW and then look again when the Airbus comes to LGW(which it will inevitably). The current proposition from the BA managers seems like an attempt at appeasing the BA CC's desire for Scope in order to let RE transfer more routes to GB, perhaps when the further five shorthauls are announced as part of FSS.
That's enough from me, but I welcome intelligent and considered intercourse.
Ta
BD's
But what does RE think of all this? If BA attempt to drop or transfer their loss making (by creative acccounting or otherwise) routes to GB this obviously has serious ramifications for BA's pilots. This I fully understand. The MPL route is now operated direct, so what power do the BA CC have in this instance?
I really don't see that GB are competing with BA, on the contrary. GB only exists in it's current form because of BA and the franchise. I would happily post here the salary scales for GB pilots, but I think it is missing the point. As is the comment about GB's Cabin Crew. In fact basic salaries for some of our crew are considerably higher than their equivalents at Eurofleet LGW. GB's allowance structure is, however, very simple and not nearly as lucrative for all crews, flight deck included.
The BA CC are right to feel that their is a potential threat from GB to their jobs, but please take this up with your management. It is they who would undermine you and attempt to cut their costs by farming out routes to a franchise. My impression at the moment is that even more would be coming GB's way were it not for the efforts of the BA CC-I stand to be corrected if that is not the case!
From GB's perspective, we have to be realistic, although I'd rather not be bullied thank you. If the BA CC want something to happen such as we have discussed above (call it Scope if you will), then let's see the colour of their money and whether they have the oomph to make it so. If not, with the current state of flux in the industry and in particular BA, wouldn't the BA CC be better off concentrating on all the other issue facing your crews, leave GB to get on with it's job alongside Eurofleet LGW and then look again when the Airbus comes to LGW(which it will inevitably). The current proposition from the BA managers seems like an attempt at appeasing the BA CC's desire for Scope in order to let RE transfer more routes to GB, perhaps when the further five shorthauls are announced as part of FSS.
That's enough from me, but I welcome intelligent and considered intercourse.
Ta
BD's
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok…all good points. I’m afraid I don’t know the low down about the BA/GB Airbus order and why the a/c were distributed in the order they are/were. I also do not know the criteria for us getting routes from BA. What I do know is that GB has been very successful in developing its own route structure. We have broken into the Canary Island market with much success. We have a full programme flying our a/c on our routes and therefore cannot “pick up “ any BA routes anyway. I understand your concerns about GB undercutting BA and being awarded your S/H routes (although as there haven’t been any job losses how has the BA pilot workforce been disadvantaged?) but instead of concentrating on the small issues of the odd route here and there (GB are not big enough to pose a serious threat to your S/H operation) perhaps the bigger question is how does GB with so few a/c make such large profits. Surely this is where BA has to come to terms with the industry of today, because if it doesn’t then there won’t be any routes to worry over. . It seems to me that GB has always had a special relationship with BA and this has been mutually beneficial. Long may it continue.
Anyway this is way off the starting point of this thread, to which I have no more comments. Thanks for the civilised debate.
Anyway this is way off the starting point of this thread, to which I have no more comments. Thanks for the civilised debate.