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.