BA Franchise
 

Hello everyone,
Just wondering about a rumour that i heard flying about, concerning a certain Willie Walsh buying back the Franchises of BA... Namely GB, Bmed and GSS?

Can anyone shed any light on this, dont think its in his short-term plan but more of the long-term... Anyone else heard anything?

Thanks:ok:

Im not so sure, GB hold 17% of Gatwick's slots - without BA, these would have to be released and Gatwick would be Orange within weeks, dont imagine WW wants that to happen !

OA

From very high source

Walsh is going to pay off GB and BMed but leave GSS alone (sort of)

GB and Bmed will be offered cash for the remaining term of their franchise or be allowed to operate until the end of it then lose all routes.

GSS will be forced to have 75% BA Captains or lose their contract well.

Not bothered about LGW slots. Thats next to go.

NN

NN - how can they "lose all routes" - they don't belong to BA? There are no route rights within the EU and for the rights for non-EU routes belong to the franchisees. At the very least Willie could be faced with trying to compete against the former franchisees flying in their own colours and with much lower costs than his or, even worse nightmare, flying against them as, say, VAA franchisees? I suspect he's got a lot more problems much closer to home than worrying about something that actually works and is to the benefit of all parties.

:D

An excellent wind up NN - keep 'em coming! Made me laugh :O

GB/Bmed own some of the routes but others are flown under licence, and some using BA slots.

These will go.

I'm sure GB would be delighted if they held 17% of the Gatwick slots, but their figure is nothing like it! It is actually 6.18% for the year to 31Mar05, the last for which figures have been published.

GB Airways and BMed both operate services using their own slots, allocated to them via the normal slot process. Normal Nigel's statement is simply untrue.

Why on earth would WW want to spend a pile of cash either buying franchises; or paying compensation to the franchise operators for early termination of their contracts with BA? It is a rather barking idea unless he thinks that by transferring flying to lower-cost franchise bases, he will save more in operating costs from BA than he has to pay out to buy the franchises in the first place. It's one hell of a high-risk strategy and it also wouldn't help to reduce the costbase of whatever core of BA would be left after you had done this - ergo most unlikely.

Indeed Flightrider - and the strategy worked so well iro Dan Air, Cityflyer and BRAL etc that I'm sure he'd love to do more of the same - not!

NN - to my knowledge, where actual route licenses exist, they all belong to the franchisees - not to BA.

"GB hold 17% of Gatwick's slots - without BA, these would have to be released and Gatwick would be Orange within weeks"


Isn't Gatwick pretty much ORANGE already ?
:ok:

Good wind up right enough -- who is the high-up source -- the LHR caterer's ??

A little while ago Branson was spotted getting friendly with the GB owners down in Morocco -- Along the lines of first refusal if the franchise wasn't renewed -- It was -- If it wasn't he fancied resurecting Virgin Sun bringing GB in tow.

Just look at where WW flew to as soon as he took over at Aer Lingus, FAO, AGP, PMI, TFS. All good money making routes. Never were even contemplated under the old regime only on a charter basis.

Only clouds for GB is if he decides to bring the routes in-house. But BA would probably cock it up and couldn't operate at the lower cost bases within the franchises.

"But BA would probably cock it up " Naah-surely not!

Can't see them bringing GB or Bmed 'in house' unless BA Mainline buy them both out. They're cheap and not so tied up with daft union agreements that stem from the BOAC/BEA days. the Gatwick operation has been on the cards for a major shakeup for ages so there could be some warped truth in the rumour....

Perhaps Bland Group will put in a bid for BA, and run it as a franchise of GB Airways.

And before you laugh that one out of court, just check out Bland Group's profit record over the last few years, and their asset-build . . .

That didn't stop them from buying and integrating CityFlyer at LGW, instead of the logical step of getting CFE to run routes at a lower cost-base!

Which probably means the Bland group have far more sense than to even consider taking on all of BA's problems!

GB taking over leisure/short haul out of LGW has been on the cards before, so you may be right.

Actually it was a wind up. Who said rumours had to be true?

As for the BACC screwing your lot, why don't you ask some of your ex BA Captains how much pension they are on?

I can tell you that some of them are on pensions of around £120000 and they are still prostituting themselves in the LHS of a 744 for about £60000.

If anyone is keeping the salaries in GSS down it is these greedy b*****s who work for way below the market rate, whilst drawing training/management enhanced crystalised APS pension.

As for the BA guys there, if its not our work who's is it?

I quite agree that it should be done in house. However, far from TUPE, we should just get some freighters and cancel the contract with GSS. I'm afraid it wouldn't be your way in, as you so understandably desperately want.

I'm sure you will manage just fine without BA contracts and BA pilots.

We'd prefer it too. Everyone's a winner.

Normal Nigel

First i must say I do not work for BA or a franchise or GSS, I work for another "Flag Carrier" In europe.

I find your selfish attitude breathtaking, the last part of your post suggested that you would prefer to see all of the GSS jobs come in house and the GSS pilots not to be integrated into BA, why is that? are you so much better?? I dont think so, but its people like you who give BA pilots such a bad name due to the Iam superior attitude. Surely it would be better for all if the GSS pilots were integated into BA on BA terms and conditions? Everybody wins then. When will you BA guys learn to work together with other pilot groups for a better life for all instead of trying to impose yourselfs on others and give nothing? (BACX is a another good example). We all do the same job, lets try and improve it for all.

Yes ok. I suppose we might as well give Easy Jet, Aer Lingus and every other Tom Dick and Harry a job while we're at it.

GSS is nothing to do with BA, except for the fact it does our freight work and we have some 744 P1 jobs for that fact.

Other than that the only ties are the ex BA prostitutes reducing the market rate for 744 P1's.

I don't see you criticising them?

Oh and its nothing to do with any "I'm superior" attitude. To suggest that shows your own petty insecurities. Its about BA pilots doing BA work.

Next time, before you post, try to find out the facts behind the post before you go off on a little rant.

Oh and if you'd bothered to check your facts, you would see that the GSS situation bears no resemblance to BACX (a wholly owned subsidiary).

The arguments for integrating them into BA do have merit.

Sorry to confuse you with some facts but you should try using some sometime.

In light of what Norm says, may I respectfully suggest that we let this thread expire of it's own accord.

Dog

Why?

Just starting to enjoy it.

If you're not, can I respectfully make a suggestion?

Don't read it.

quote: I quite agree that it should be done in house. However, far from TUPE, we should just get some freighters and cancel the contract with GSS. I'm afraid it wouldn't be your way in, as you so understandably desperately want.

says it all really :rolleyes:

totally superior attitude!! and if you integrated the pilots into BA it would stop the "Ex BA Prostitutes" as they would be too old.

Simple really :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote: I suppose we might as well give Easy Jet, Aer Lingus and every other Tom Dick and Harry a job while we're at it.

They are not doing, quote: "your work" they are competitors totally different, and if they wish to work for BA they should apply.

I agree with the principal that you do not wish to see your T and Cs erroded due to lower cost companies doing your work, but it needs to be addressed in a far more mature way to protect your future.

Wake up and smell the coffee!! the management are laughing at you big time by the dividing the pilot forces, by working together for a common cause you will be far stronger.

BTW why do you think BA are struggling so much to get pilots? its because the terms and conditions have been erroded to such an extent that people are just not interested anymore. I worry for you guys as you may find things becoming very uncomfortable in the future unless you pull together.

WW will not buy GB or BMED its not on the cards, however what is under the review is LGW which will change to become a Singlefleet (midfleet for EF LGW Cabin Crew).WW has said he likes LGW as it is lean and mean and can take on Easyjet. Both Man / BHX are under review as well as LHR , so who knows what he is going to do he may surprise us all !

Whats GSS?

Sorry Joe I disagree, however I am not an expert in corporate law. My take on it is that all we've got to do is cancel your contract or not renew one, then use our own freighters. We would be under no obligation to hire you guys unless it involved a merger or takeover.

The BACC's attitude is far from disgraceful. It is admirable that it seeks to protect BA work for BA pilots. I would expect a GSS CC to do the same. Have you got one?

Blue

Is that so. Last I heard there were no empty courses.

Thanks for your concern but don't worry. We'll be ok and thats without "pulling" together with a company that we have nothing to do with except give work to.

Serious question. Are you Dutch?

Memphis

No we're making no profit at all at the moment, are we?

As for a walk out, most of us would welcome it. Then we can sack these plebs and start again ready for T5. I think you'll find WW has rather a large war chest and he will use it.

Can some people at least visit the planet Earth before posting.

And I know some people on here have difficulty reading and processing information so I'll repeat.

My earlier post about the franchises was a wind up, you know, a bit of fishing.

Joe

I think you should quit while you are ahead. You have just told us that GSS are TOTALLY reliant on the work given to them by BAWC.

With respect, this is PRECISELY the point that the BACC have made. GSS would not exist without BAWC.

Strange that we should be discussing GSS on a thread about franchises, since, as you say, GSS is not a franchise.

Joe

I understand that but

1. We don't employ you as contract workers. We give your company a contract of work. Is that different?
2. We wouldn't be using different contract workers, we would be bringing it "in house".

By your rationale if BA decided to now drop Gate Gourmet as it's catering supplier and bring it back in house we would then have to employ all GG employees?

I doubt it.

Also your theory would therefore determine that BA can never move its cargo business ever again without employing all the GSS people? Rubbish.

Nigel, may I suggest Va te fais enculer!

Speaking as a franchisee unfortunately bought by BA, thereby fulfilling most of the conditions you deny to GSS, we are all too well aware what BA are really like. Our successful Company was immediately told it was losing money, was packed with BA second-raters, had more management jobs created overnight than most of us had ever heard of, and its morale plummetted.

GSS - be very grateful indeed you are NOT a franchisee. You prove once again that you can make a healthy profit doing the same task which BA were unable to achieve successfully. BA as ever are jealous :{ and insist on trying to remove the laurels, to load you with their people, (who they interestingly enough admit are only there because they are greedy bar stewards :yuk: ). There's no winning is there. Be grateful they at least haven't sadled you with their managers or trainers - that is truly dire!
Joe, Nigel's sally regarding using their own frieghters or cancelling your contract is baloney. If BA were able to make money at it, they would not have outsourced the task in the first place. BA were pretty good at long haul pax ops when they were BOAC. They remain pretty good at it (if you can stomach the world's most arrogant cabin crew lol :} ). However, they have proved to be a signal failure at everything else they have attempted...er, London Eye excepted (although Ayling WAS involved in the Dome, whih kind cancels the Eye out I guess). So there you have it. Look on the bright side - you don't depend on any of their militant and useless ancillaries, from LHR checkin to er, dare I mention catering......
The woolly pully will be recruiting soon, and so will the other competition - just wait till lo-cost becomes long haul. BA is a dinosaur, and an inefficient one at that.

Good luck Joe, remember, never depend on the integrity of a BA manager, or the morality and ethics of a BA BALPA CC.

Apre moi le deluge!

I don't recall BAWC ever asking BA Flight Ops for a quote for an ad hoc all-freighter operation, hence there's really no evidence BA couldn't achieve the task succesfully.

Seem to remember Go did pretty well. LHR shorthaul is breaking even. BAWC makes a fortune. Worlds most profitable airline. The only part thats not doing well is, errrr, your part! Thats why you don't get any profit share.

Best get that straight jacket back on TLP.

BA pilots are as expendable as catering workers or any other groups. The pilots do not own any work. If the management want to sub-charter the entire short haul operation to Easyjet and the long haul operation to Virgin then they are perfectly entitled to do so.

They could even do as they have in many other departments, sell the entire Flight Crew operation to some investment company and hire in the services on inferior terms and conditions. Pilots are no more important to BA's operation than catering workers.

Left to the market, BA could easily get rid of the expensive pilot fraternity and replace them with cheaper contract employees.

If I was left in charge I would set up a holding company and contract out the entire operation to the lowest bidder. Maybe WW has already thought of it.

What is important is what WW believes, and that is very much dependent on the latest theory from Harvard Business School.

Harry the expendable

Harry Wragg:

"Pilots are no more important to BA's operation than catering workers".

How very, very, very true!

I am extremely grateful that my Company is not so vulnerable!

Just like they could get rid of those troublesome catering contracters and nobody would notice the disruption at all. Evidently it has not occurred to Harry (clearly not a Harvard Business School graduate) that it takes rather a lot longer to replace nearly a thousand 777 pilots than 600 low paid catering workers. Given that BA employ almost one third of all UK ATPL holders and probably upwards of 75% of all 744 or 777 rated pilots in the country I'd be intrigued to see just who Harry thinks could bid for the work.

"Seem to remember Go did pretty well. LHR shorthaul is breaking even. BAWC makes a fortune. Worlds most profitable airline. The only part thats not doing well is, errrr, your part! Thats why you don't get any profit share."

Ummm, yes, we certainly don't, do we. Funny how the advent of BA managers instantly turned a yearly record profitablity, sustained on the same routes over the previous half decade into an instant loss? Odd how your own revenue allocation system disadvantages shorthaul, (not to mention the cost of all your effing managers...

However, I must admit to a sense of fun, when you throw the bread on the water, the same old sour faces always rise to the bait. Never fails.
Looking forward to Willie's first innovative poliy, and the departure of the rest of our sickly secondees - should reduce the MOR count anyway.....and think of the saving in replacing all those bent tails!:ok:

You mean the routes you had a monopoly on until Go/Easy appeared on them? Funny how competition hurt your well run airline.
Don't think you'll save much money on bent tails by getting rid of the secondees. I refer you to this report which on page 7 mentions the commanders inexperience in the 20T aircraft category as a contributory factor.

Funny old thing HS boyo, but your report wouldn't open. May I refer YOU to the guy who bent the last one, er, mebbe we'll spare his embarrassment. Or should we discuss the mainline trainer...the one who mixed gear and flaps up??? Perhaps we should compare the BA cadet fiasco - er, how many of those got chopped on the humble ATP and had to be slid back in via the rear hangar door?

No, let's not go there eh?

As for the competition, yep, but we used to see all that off. Funny there's no stomach for it no more....perhaps you could review the routes we've been forced to abandon at the first hint of competition - policy from Waterside I understand, as you know all too well. Finally, I'm sure you're still enjoying the use of our LHR slots. We used to make a lot of money on those routes before they were asset stripped. :*

The link works fine for me, but if you seem to be having trouble then try this:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-CFAD.pdf

I don't think naming names is appropriate on this forum, suffice to say that your community are not entitled to cast stones on the subject of RJ damage. Fortunately you seem to be the only CX pilot here who doesn't share that wisdom. BA cadets chopped on the ATP? Not many. Perhaps you'll tell us the numbers instead of just alluding to it and providing no actual evidence, your usual modus operandi I note.

Still, as your views seem to have been disowned even by other CX pilots (on the TDLF thread) its hardly worth wasting the bandwidth on an extremist like you.

Hmm - but you just can't resist it can you?
As for my colleagues, well, it's a shame there isn't a poll facility on here any longer. Then we could ask everyone from CX who REALLY thinks we have benefited at all from the BA takeover. Your methods, your characters (hah) your ethics, morals, you are all at least consistent, and well known for it throughout the industry.:yuk:
Nope, there have to be a few like me around, going out on the edge to remind people what BA are really like. There's a whole generation of pilots who probably haven't heard of 'dirty tricks', or Dan-Air, but I'll make quite sure they remain aware of what BA are like behind the mask.
Good luck with Gate Gourmet!

No, only in your mind. As evidenced by the fact that you are one of the tiny minority of people both on Pprune and in the real world who spend all their time moaning about BA.

Quite. Just like the other nutters on the steets. And the people you speak to smile, nod politely then get on with their lives. Now tell us about your alien abduction.

AAIB PDF for G-CFAD (opened for me, obv). Incident occurred at LCY.

From the report (emphasis is mine, for HS benefit)

Thanks for the emphasis, but the point you miss is that both the 737 and the A319 (the BA aircraft the RJ replaced) both had a tailstrike risk. As did the 767, 777 and 747-400. Ergo, the commander was not a BA mainline secondee or he would have flown an aircraft in excess of 20T with a tailstrike risk.

Guys, this I am a better pilot than you crap is childish, your managers are laughing at you big time, work together for god sake and build a better life for all.