I believe this is not a BA issue but the Israel government closing the borders except to returning residents.
I doubt there are many backpackers in West Africa, unless I have completely misunderstood the market.

Unlikely to come as a great surprise, but still not fun... 12,000 staff at risk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52462660

Cruz: "We must overcome this crisis ourselves, too. There is no government bailout standing by for BA and we cannot expect the taxpayer to offset salaries indefinitely... We will see some airlines go out of business."

Stab at the competition there. But I can't help but think that the Gov might prefer to give them cash to keep these people employed.

Wizzair to Luton is to restart this weekend, is it not?

No idea, but I managed to fly to Stansted yesterday on an Israir flight which was collecting Israelis to repatriate them. All cabin crew wearing full hazmat suits and masks. No more than 80 passengers with the first five rows and last four blocked off. I had a row to myself. No health checks carried out but we were required to wear masks the whole flight.

I have never seen airports so quiet. Tel Aviv was eerily empty, with two out of 80+ check in desks open. Four flights out yesterday. Arrival at Stansted was similar. Apparently only three flights yesterday. From walking into the terminal from the plane to walking out, including passport and collecting luggage was well under five minutes.

Thoughts are with all the staff here.

I still think if this crisis carries on for many more months, BA will have no choice but to approach the government for support. Their earlier statement about not needing help could end up being a rod made for their backs.

With most airlines requiring government assistance by the end of this crisis, perhaps nationalising the lot and having one large state airline might be the cheapest way out of the crisis for the industry, with the least pain for employees.

Many European countries already have one airline that is overarching dominant in their market place (Germany and France to name two). The UK is somewhat different, with the London market being quite different to that in the rest of the nation at present. To do as I have proposed would essentially take the industry back to the 1960s, but may not be too far fetched a solution if things get really bad.

I cannot say I am surprised with Cruz’ comments. He has had a cut throat attitude throughout his time at IAG and is part of the reason they brought him in from Vueling.

i don’t think you can blame him for this one though, taking everything at face value with the current situation, as it does seem quite a logical decision (as terrible as the loss of circa 12,000 jobs are) with BA the majority loss maker within the group and a reduce in air travel. However, I cannot say I am surprised at this. BA continue to constantly get negative press and they have had numerous issues, especially with crew strikes, and another one of their major issues is the product itself. When AC came and decided to have a major overhaul of the product this hasn’t succeeded IMO. It did bring the prices down versus what they were but a lot of the general public still see and hope that they’re purchasing a premium product when buying a ticket with BA and this isn’t the case IMO. Travelling domestic or SH is no different to EZY and their CW product still isn’t as good as some of their competitors for LH.

This post isn’t a one intended to agree that BA’s actions are justified because I do wholeheartedly believe, despite the current awful pandemic we’re going through, that the majority of these job losses could and would be avoided if AC had not ruined a very good airline.

i also think his statement is terribly worded - having a dig at the competition whilst also saying that they cannot rely on furlough forever. The latter to me, having being employed by BA for a number of years in the past, screams and insinuates to me that the majority of these job losses were already on the radar pre-pandemic and I’d be very surprised if there are current BA employees on this board that do not agree with this.

Surely you don't want to go back to a situation where politicians run airlines, bad decisions proliferate, innovation stops, fares rise and inefficiencies abound. Because that's what nationalisation means in practice.

Maybe so, but who knows how this will play out ? A protracted emergency (such as is now happening) will most likely result in Governments being the only ones able to generate the necessary funds to keep airlines functioning. There again, how long can these governments keep throwing money in all these different directions ? Where are they going to get money from in order to pay it out? Simply printing it, in the end ! Where will that lead - massive inflation as in pre war Germany ? These are extremely worrying times & I am hugely worried about the whole structure of society. The danger of this virus lies not in the medical side but, through its effects on the economy, on the basic infrastructure of our lives. Just pray(& I am not religious) for some respite - & pretty soon !

Going back to the days of government meddling in decisions as to what aircraft are purchased, and restrictive route licencing? Certainly not. I don't really want the government to go down the road I described. However, give the likelihood that air transport won't get back on it's feet for the rest of this year, very possibly well into next year, there are likely to be large sums required to tie over not just BA, but all the other UK carriers, that is virtually unavoidable. The thought process goes that rather than chuck £200m here, £500m there and perhaps £1bn somewhere else it might be smarter from a financial perspective to bring the whole lot together, creating economies of scale, whilst ensuring that professional management, and definitely not politicians in charge of running the business. This could be as a short / medium term solution; in the interim period new carriers would spring up, unfettered by route licencing restraints, and the government supported carrier flogged off, preferably to UK interests as and when feasible.

I very much doubt the industry would go this way, for political and ideological reasons, but from an economic point of view it may be the best course of action, depending upon just how bad things get, and they have already got bad, for the employees of not just BA but many others, including SAS and Lufthansa.

So it looks like the plan is to merge all 3 fleets to create a single fleet at LHR.
Not too sure this will go down well with Euro/Worldwide fleet and their notorious union. Mixed fleet I’m sure are happy to just go along with it, like they’ve got a choice in the matter anyway. I wouldn’t expect this to work very well onboard, each fleet having its own kind of service.

A merger of the fleets was always going to happen at some point. Though, many who have done long-haul in the past and transferred to Eurofleet for a better work/life balance will not relish doing long-haul again.

One really big sticking point is the number of SCCMs on board and what happens to the Purser/CSD roles.

Or hand BA T5 over to a 3rd party GHA

What's going to happen to London City?

Nothing planned, yet.

"Not too sure this will go down well with Euro/Worldwide fleet and their notorious union"

What they going to do? threaten to go on strike???

That is what BA are planning for the ground staff at LGW, but not LHR

Haven't they tried that before, at least with the Ramp. That failed with 2 handlers forcing BA to take it back in-house. I know they've been in talks with Menzies in the past with regards LHR Ramp, but was deemed too risky and too big a task to undertake from Menzies part.

Gatwick ramp came by via forming GGS as a standalone subsidiary, but the cost savings had been made in the initial outsourcing.

As USERNAME_ says, nothing planned yet. The Alex Cruz email was headed as being for Mainline colleagues on UK contracts only. There's been no communication from BA CityFlyer leadership either way.

CityFlyer is already a lean operation and was arguably under crewed for the pre-COVID19 timetable so it will be interesting to see how things adapt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52489013

My thoughts on having one type of crew is that this is what has been needed for a long time to bring better efficiencies and flexibility to the operation. Having one crew type won’t tick everyone’s boxes but it will align the business with other airlines across different markets.

Regarding the possible closure of LGW this could also be a wise move, leaving LGW to the LCCs and charter operators. As and when demand returns that necessitates more services from LGW and more competition, BA could always do w pattern operations from selective destinations around Europe.

It might be the end of BA at LGW but maybe not IAG, in a scenario where Covid damage and the economy isn’t too bad this could be a good excuse to reduce costs substantially by just transferring the slots across to Vueling/Level on lower costs. The overwhelming bulk of routes are good fits for those two anyway. Remember it’s probably more likely than not Norwegian will be gone (from the UK anyway), TCX have already gone and Virgin are shaky. There is already a gap in leisure-oriented long haul and soon this could be significant.

If Covid is truly devastating it’ll be irrelevant what happens at LGW because it’ll be all about last-gasp survival mode and utilising unwanted LHR slots and capacity for anything worthwhile currently at LGW.

It looks like LCY fleet and CF are going to hopefully remain untouched. I hope for the staff LGW is okay, but in the case of it going, perhaps we might see CF Embraers shuttling in and out of Gatwick on W patterns for the more profitable routes?

Have people seen this

https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...JNFG8lAroPI0Kc

Might not do much good but we can only try

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52489013?SThisFB

Gatwick is not “ok” BBC suggest it’s not coming back.
Look with the market collapsed, if BA want to fly LON-xyz, they’ll serve it from LHR only, not LGW, not LCY.
None of these 2nd hand Embraers are even likely to enter service. Any LCY routes that overlap with LHR ought to close as IAG need to make their money and protect their position at LHR. Barclays today is thinking about giving up their Canary Wharf offices, the world is changing very fast here.

OTOH if BA abandon LCY, who will take up the slack - maybe less demand, but demand from money-rich time-poor passengers usually on expenses. Will BA gift that to the likes of KLM, DLH, Air France. Luxair? I don't think so.

Staff recently received an email from Tom Stoddart (CF MD) stating that Cityflyer are not part of BA’s announced cuts.

BA
 

Am sure BA/IAG would want to keep a defensive foothold at LGW as an even more highly frequent easyJet would definitely potentially impact the commercial performance of LHR with a highly overlapping P2P catchment. I understood LGW to be overall profitable and if it wasn’t strategically of importance why buy ZB/MT slots ? Could be some negotiation positioning going on here ? I believe LGW is important to protect LHR for BA. But then maybe the world has changed. Then again in time LHR will be full again, poss very delayed R3 if they give up LGW en masses they may never get back in. Then where (with lack of R3) do you expand ? Unless of course they are precipitating no VS, open up London and consolidate and grow LHR - bit of crystal ball gazing LGW flleet takes up VS

If this Covid problem is not solved PDQ, there will not be a full Heathrow again in the next ten years +. There will also be absolutely no necessity to expand at Gatwick, either. The world is staring into the abyss here. The virus will not, of itself, wipe out humanity; but its effect on the economy (through lockdowns etc.) will cause a depression the likes of which will seriously threaten social breakdown. All airlines are threatened with devastation - even if they get Government bail outs. How long will they be able to keep on bailing out the airlines if the virus is not beaten very quickly ? Not very long. I have great sympathy with BA (& all the rest); they have to try & survive - if they can; & they are all playing politics to help them achieve it. Also, there is NO question that BA are using this situation to try & shaft the staff (way over & above what they need to do to shore up their finances). On the other hand, the staff need to be as flexible as they can be & to realise that normal service - or anything remotely resembling normality - is not going to be resumed ; ever ! I wish you all the very best & the greatest luck in the world - & pray that BA & BALPA will achieve the fairest way to proceed.

In their letter to BALPA British Airways have said they are looking to amend the scope agreements. My immediate thought is that they are looking to replace mainline at Gatwick with Cityflyer and retreat all mainline flying to Heathrow.

Or allow Cityflyer from LHR.

The 1918 flu pandemic was rather more severe than Covid, yet the world carried on. Over 100 years later, medicine has advanced hugely. Ebola is a disease which mainly affects people living in the very poorest of countries - i.e. not places where the stockmarket worries about particularly - yet a vaccine was found. Big pharma and medical researchers at universities all over the world are throwing everything they've got a Covid; vaccines from reputable institutions are already being trialled. While I cannot predict what will or won't happen and the comments from BA about Gatwick are deeply concerning, please take a deep breath and try to get a sense of perspective of the likely long term effect of Covid on BA and LHR/LGW. Once a vaccine is found, we are likely to see a recovery in demand for flying

Maybe some kite flying of a few nuclear options going on, so when BA “cave in” and everyone breathes a sigh of relief they will be trying not to look too smug as they will actually have got what they’ve wanted for a long time.

But my take is that BA are in the gradual recovery camp ; it is only partly about the virus, the rest is about the economic consequences of the virus. If you have 62% of the slots in one of the most premium airports in the world, everything else is secondary to maintaining as much of that position as possible.

Yes, David, what you say is true - no argument. But, Covid isn't finished yet; & it is not the medical effect that is most worrying, it is the economic; & Governments' reactions to that. Also, a vaccine will be a while coming. My point is that we probably don't have the time to wait before everything goes to rag****. I could be wrong, but I don't think that the basic premise of my comment is too far off the mark. We do not have too much time going on like this !

I note that to often the reference is to BA! The reality is IAG are calling the shots and what counts are their plans. LGW can be operated by Vueling, Level and Iberia Express, particularly as IAG will in the future have a large fleet of surplus aircrafts. Indeed BA CityFlyer may also have a role to play at LHR and LGW, though immediate future of social distancing on an EMB will be a challenge. With the sad likelihood of at least 1 in 5 job losses it will be years before people have the finances to fly as frequently as they used to.

Not just on an EMB! The issue is the same for every other airliner.

Quite honestly, if airlines are relying on social distancing as a way to restart then the whole lot are screwed as there will be no money to be made. The ONLY way out of this for the airlines is an effective vaccine. Until that happens everything is on hold.