. . which we are given to believe would not have happened before some, no doubt well meaning, transparency legislation was enacted.

"Aye, laddie, the road t' Hell is paved wi' guid intentions." :uhoh:

Spot on BC.

I witnessed first hand London Airways systematically destroy MAN to prop up LHR and T5.

They are a disgrace to the UK, have a look at how much it costs to fly from MAN to any European destination via "The Pit" and it is extortionate, you can fly MAD - CPH for the same price as doing MAN - CPH. British Airways, don't make me laugh, they are an absolute disgrace and I would feel very sorry for some of the staff as I know there are some real decent people working for them, but I would have a smirk on my face if they went to the wall.

Just to bring a touch reality to the debate. It doesn't say BA IS burning £2.6m/day, it says we WILL BE based on forward projections.

Yes, times are undoubtedly tough, quite possibly tougher than after 11/9, but the above numbers are those that MAY apply IF NOTHING were to be done about it. The company WILL do something about it to PREVENT losses on those scales developing. In other words, the company understands the trading environment, future business trends and the impact on the company - that, to me, is a company being run in a fiscally prudent manner. Doubtless the management will try to use the trading environment to push though changes to working practises on the back of the circumstances, but one thing you can be sure of - BA WILL SURVIVE, and it won't need or receive any government money.

I'm by no means a fan of the Irish dwarf, but I will not underestimate his determination, and it is that quality that we see us through these tough days.

Quote,

"Letters offering the severance deals to managers on salaries between £40,000 to £250,000 are due to be sent out on September 25.

Compulsory redundancies will follow if the vast majority do not accept the offer".

My question is, will all managers getting between 40 and 250k get letters, or will the letters be only given to those who have their card marked ???

And I guess, managers outside the 40 to 250K pay range will not get a look in.

Ex Cargo Clown, what on earth are you talking about my friend?!

Disgrace to the UK? Sure, the airline has its problems but at the end of the day, it's a business with shareholders to keep happy. If BA is "London Airways", it's because that's where the money is. They'd be foolish to stay in the regions if they could make more money elsewhere.

I'd love to see a greater BA presence around the country but at the end of the day, if it's not going to ensure me a nice dividend (which we got for the first time in many years this year) and help secure the company's future, well, it'd be foolish to be there.

Guys I am purely creating a scenario here but..

If BA fell as well, say in the next week......would and could (legally) the government offer any help to save them (Northern Rock style), whilst days earlier watch XL fall down the pan??

I am not trying to cause arguments, and work for neither company's. I am just interested, because in my opinion its help all the best they can, or none at all!

BA was doing nicely in MAN, too nicely in fact which made the London operation look bad.

The tricks they played to make the regions look bad were astounding. The 1502/3 for instance, that is/was a very profitable route, so BA "massaged" the profit it made on the route to make it run at a loss.

BA were also instrumental in making Iberia drop the MAN-MAD/BCN, again to try and put PAX through LHR.

I believe LH have very successful operations out of MUC and DUS as well as FRA, it's a shame our alleged flag carrier is only interested in London.

I shouldn't be surprised though, the average BA manager's IQ is in single digits.

Well what a lot of ill - informed and illogical nonsense being written mixed in with a liberal sprinkling of personal grudges.

Gems such as when the pension deficit is almost totally irrelevant given that the funding arrangements to cover the government caused deficit are in place and a known quantity i.e. The deficit is not required to be paid off right now.

Skylion makes a very accurate assessment of BA in his post above.

The references to BA staff in the regions and the presence in the regions ignores one important fact. Despite it looking very impressive to have such a large airline serving every nook and corner of the UK it is an exceedingly expensive thing to do. A fact. What is the point in spending vast sums of money for marginal return when expensive equipment can be utilised far more profitably elsewhere? Despite popular opinion there are many clever people analysing stuff like that and BA has historically been very good at identifying profitable routes. Dreams of operating out of every UK airport are sheer romanticism devoid of commercial reality.

Ex Cargo Clown care to explain and substantiate your easily voiced allegations of rigging the numbers?

Windsheer - The EU would have the Government over the hot coals if they nationalised or otherwise subsidised BA under state aid rules. There is absolutely no chance in the world whatsoever of the UK Government propping up BA or any UK airline. National Rock was supported becuase of the same reason the US government are risking up to a trillion dollars propping up their mortgage market - because it would pose a substantial risk to the financial system and the whole economy not to. Losing BA would be neither here nor there - and I'd assume they'd be a move for them because of the strength of the brand if they did head for the graveyard.

It amuses that many people who post on this board are incredibly agressive to anyone who makes a technical mistakes about flying matters, but there is such complete ignorance about business. I'm not in the flight trade but I can tell you that people are talking about Virgin not BA being in a whole world of crap - take that for what you want (and I personally have no idea) but the merry go round of money through different company structures could come to a grinding halt anytime soon.

Anyhow back to lurking.

M.Mouse
 

Ex-Cargo Clown is bitter ex-manchester ground staff, probably bitter at having to take severence from a £55k a year job where he only worked 5 hours per day...

The JFK is just an example of the way LON distorted things to discredit services from stations other than LHR.

The aircraft was "leased" to BAR, at what was a completely ridiculous rate, the freight capacity for instance was factored in by mainline to be earning the TACT rate rather than the much lower commercial rates. Why, to make it look like it was running at a loss.

If you tried to book a NYC - MAN ticket through BA.com, guess what. It's preferred routing was always JFK - LHR - MAN. Ask yourself why..,. Again with the JFK, it arrived at 0620 and had fantastic European connections, AMS, BRU, DUS etc this is what T3BA was designed for, did London Airways ever market these routes ? No.

Going back a little further, the ISB flight. It used to come up from LHR with 80 pax sometimes, and then mysteriously leave MAN with a full load. Where did these Pax come from ?

London Airways have never been interested in the regions, isn't it strange how EK, QR, SQ and the rest can make a good go of it.....

As for the comment about MAN staff working 5 hours. Best joke I've heard all day. 90% of LHR staff are undoubtedly the laziest, useless entities in the entire universe.

Cheers twelve grand.

I had an idea that 'help' would not come on a plate.

Its a sad period for aviation....:(

Doesn't matter where they came from. What matters is what they were paying.

They fly from MAN to their home hubs. Just like BA. No difference at all, unless you are easily fooled into thinking that just because you get on the big plane first it's somehow a different business model.

Never flew with the shuttle cabin crew then? MAN was the worst operation on the shorthaul network, and only just behind LHR.

I worked there, i know how the working practices used to be :rolleyes:.

Maintrol and Engineering planning for one.......:ugh:(Expletive Deleted)

Come on chaps this is all getting a bit heated and a lot of anger is being expressed of the past. I do not recall too many of us bothering when we saw the back of 'Go' and our/their staff that were outed. It seems that it is in the main ex MAN staff that seem to be unable to move on.

Let us @ LHR at least move on, the regions are no more and I fear that LGW will have even more to fear during the next year as once this issue is sorted LGW will be next for outsourcing ?

I think we should retrench to fortress Heathrow, outsource gatwick ground handling and everyone will live happily ever after....

Thanks, mate. Well spotted, you must have spent some time searching the site to find that bug. Much appreciated for your help.

How many times do we need to explain why BA does not fly more to/from the regions ?
BA flies from it's hub LHR (2 runways) to many destinations.
KLM flies from it's hub AMS (6 runways) to many destinations.
Delta flies from it's hub ATL (5 runways) to many destinations.
Lufthansa flies from it's hub FRA (3 runways) to many destinations.
Air France flies from it's hub CDG (4 runways) to many destinations.
American flies from it's hub DFW (7 runways) to many destinations.
United flies from it's hub ORD (6 runways) to many destinations.
Hubs allow airlines to operate to more destination profitably by adding transfer pax to direct pax.
BA also has a much lower slot share at it's hub than any of these others.

Can somebody explain to me why the 757 is not used at the new T5 at Heathrow?

All the destinations served from T3 by BA will be 757 flights and non of them will be operating from T5.

Is there a reason for this? Can the 757 not be accomodated at the new terminal - sure not the case?:confused: