BA considers quitting shorthaul-BBC

[RVR800]

British Airways is considering abandoning its loss-making shorthaul routes and consolidating as an intercontinental carrier, a report has said.
Rod Eddington, chief executive at the troubled airline, has told senior City investors that BA may retreat to longhaul as part of a "think the thinkable" review of operations, the Financial Times said.

The proposal is being dubbed the "BOAC" option, in a nod to British Overseas Airways Corporation, which merged with shorthaul-focused British European Airways in the early 1970s to form BA.

"We have to find a new way of casting the business proposition," a senior BA executive told the FT.

Qantas rumour

Separate reports that the airline is to cut its shareholding in Qantas were on Wednesday denied by the Australian flag carrier.

"At this stage, Qantas has not been advised of any proposal by British Airways to reduce its shareholding," Brett Johnson, Qantas general counsel said.

It was later announced that BA's holding in Qantas had been trimmed by one percentage point to 21.4%, but because of a share dilution rather than a stock sale.

Traffic decline

News of the "BOAC" option follows reports over the weekend that BA is mulling proposals for withdrawing from its second base at London's Gatwick airport, in an effort to avoid reporting its first loss since privatisation in 1987.

British Airways has seen passenger numbers decline for 10 successive months, with the 11 September attacks only adding to the airline's woes.

Passenger volumes were 17.8% lower last month than in November 2000.

BA chief executive Rod Eddington has said he is confident that BA can survive the current crisis, as it had £1.1bn in cash reserves and could draw on a further £800m.

[Boeing Belly]

Oh dear, it looks like Mr Eds going to do the only thing he knows how to do- slash and burn.

[mainfrog2]

The key word here is considering, I think the BA rumour mill (it's most productive division ) is being unleashed on a wider world, makes a change from just the staff.

When Cityflyer merged with BA Gatwick a lot was said then which doesn't seem to have come to pass, and I'm now on a fake BA contract (BA at the top Cityflyer T&C, oh no sorry, I don't have a portacabin as a crew room anymore) so basically I'm now s*****d both ways. I don't get any of the benefits yet my head is still on the block.

Also if BA pulls out of short haul europe how will it's remaining franchises fare. Will BA allow those franchises to take on some of the routes it couldn't make pay.
I would imagine not, because if those said franchises proceeded to make those routes pay BA would be left with a massive amount of egg on it's face which would expose it for what it is.

[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: mainfrog2 ]

[Pandora]

BA needs to take a long hard look at why it is making shorthaul losses with full aircraft, while the low cost airlines pay more, charge less and still make profits. But as I've said before - it takes a lot to get a manager to admit he is surplus to requirement.

[knows]

Any one who works for BA is well aware of the sad, ridiculous waste.
As an example, in the last six weeks they have even opened a new "quest" centre at Glasgow. (As an explanation for non BA staff this is a "flashy" facility where crews can learn languages, new skills, book holidays, use the training programmes etc).
This is an example of expenditure that contributes nothing to our flying programmme and nothing to our passenger service.

We need BA to concentrate on selling tickets and operating flights. Nothing else really contributes. [/b]

Personally, I'd like to see massive cuts in every non flying activity.

Looking at recent press coments ;
There are some benefits I'd argue for RE and his directors to "propogate" the myth, that they may choose to pull out of shorthaul.
I'd suggest that frightening shorthaul pilots/crews/staff, particularly at LGW and perhaps BHX, makes it easier for them to achieve the planned changes.

For example; The fear of losing ones job may destroy any "will to fight" BA's plans to carry out further transfers of work to franchise airlies. (obviously, if you are BA crew, in the long term this type of transfer will mean the end of your job)

Basically, I conclude that It won't be as bad as they might have us beleive.
(i) Shorthaul will stay.
(ii)Pax will start returning.

But lets get everyone to realise that crews want changes (NOW) to reduce the massive overheads of non productive BA staff/managers/directors.

[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: knows ]

[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: knows ]

[kippa]

"British Airways is considering abandoning its loss-making shorthaul routes and consolidating as an intercontinental carrier"

This is a smoke screen... What they really mean is that will get rid of what they perceive to be expensive staff and transfer the routes to their "franchise" partners who by the way, are wholly owned subsidiarys.

Seems to me that they can have the same routes and the same revenue with cheap flying staff. I presume that even more management will be required to administer this "lean and mean operation"

Applications on sale at a lottery outlet near you..£50 a shot...Now that is how to make money out of shorthaul.

[JB007]

It all fits in with a rumour I heard a few weeks ago - which was to give GB all of BA's B737 operation including its Pilots. Thus securing LGW/LHR slots and keeping the whole operation in-house.

All of these pilots will be placed onto GB's salary scale (I assume its lower!) with BA paying the remainder to make up the difference...another saving!!

Not sure what BALPA will think! But turns GB into a major player, making it one of the largest fleets in the UK overnight!

[moggie]

BA shorthaul is unfairly penalised at the expense of longhaul when they feed pax into the longhaul system. A passenger who flies shorthaul to LHR and then longhaul to BOS has the WHOLE of his fair credited to longhaul - shorthaul does not get 1 penny.

Depsite this, shorthaul is actually the most cost effective area of BA ops - it seems to be longhaul that loses the money.

So then, how bad will longhaul look when it is not getting that shorthaul money fed in as a subsidy?

[yaffel1]

It's all rather ironic. Not too long ago BA had the opportunity of transferring routes to CityFlyer to try to make them profitable. Now one or two talk about GB doing it. Great idea, go for a non-wholly owned franchise instead of the subsidiary.

Unfortunately, Gatwick was always going to come under the microscope because EOG is such a disaster financially. There are multiple reasons for this, but ultimately BA had the chance to rectify the situation, decided not to, and then really blew it by effectively shutting CityFlyer down. Idiots.

My best wishes to all individuals who are concerned.

[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Papillon ]

[Blended-winglets]

Would make sense for GB to take over the 737 operation and BA Citiexpress to take over the rest of the shorthaul flying out of LGW using the rj100........just a thought! :)

[clipstone]

What is the average passenger load over the whole of the BA empire? anyone know? percentage wise and pax number wise? My LHR/ARN a couple of weeks ago was about 40 pax on a B757

[kippa]

BA Citiexpress = 100% owned by BA.
BA take all profits/losses

Q. If BA are "abandoning shorthaul" and giving routes / slots to BACE(BA Citiflyer Express) how can they claim to be getting out of shorthaul.

BA are not getting out of shorthaul, they are manipulating the workforce to drive wages down. The words do not reflect the truth.

[had_enough]

I wondered how long it would be before Rod wheeled out the s*rew the pilots template - used so well on Air NZ and CX crews.

If you wish to know how it all pans out contact the HKAOA - CX Pilots association. Future steps will be explained on detail.

Best of luck everyone.

[mjenkinsblackdog]

This is panic management if this occurs for ba.Surely better to temporarily suspend some routes ,and battle on.
If ba continue like this it leaves little option for the serious business travellers across europe.
They will merely switch to lufthansa,air france ,klm,etc.
Plus these european routes feed the long haul flights and vice versa. :cool:

[In trim]

I agree with many of the above posts.....and wonder how different Gatwick would now look had Rod not decided to shaft, sorry, INTEGRATE, CityFlyer last year.

Had September 11th happened first, they could have transferred many of the North Terminal EOG routes to CityFlyer (as Bob Ayling wanted to do) with a much reduced union backlash. CFE could have continued to run BA routes (aircraft size reduced from 737 to RJ100 on some routes), make a profit (even in the current climate given the CFE management), and feed some short-haul pax onto BA's long-haul flights.

The CFE integration was entirely driven by politics, and made very little business sense. Even halfway through the integration process, costs were rising dramatically, yield management on some CFE routes was losing the focus that CFE management had, and it was clear that the integration was going to be a financial disaster.

Yes, CFE had its problems, but nothing that couldn't have been resolved. BA could have had a nice little 'BA' operation at Gatwick, managed by a management team who were specialists in the LGW short-haul market, and totally focussed on this. I wonder if Rod is regretting the decision now???

[Lucifer]

Looking at it another way, it could be a way of keeping the flight and cabin crew, but forcing out the unnecessary management through actual transferral to BACE, or the threat of doing so.

[Suggs]

I'll think that you will find that it was BALPA who insisted that CFE be brought in house.

[Deadleg]

I am Brymon,now soon to be BA CitiExpress.I and a number of my collegues in the last 6 months have speculated that BA was "going back to it's roots" ie BOAC(Longhaul)& BEA(Shorthaul).Our suspicions were all but confirmed when after 11/09 it was announced that BAR was to be dissolved and merged with BACE.Is it a coincidence that the GFMO Brymon and now BACE was the GFMO BAR and was transfered to the job some 4-5 months before the annoucement of BACE?My guess(and it is only my guess)is that in the short term EOG will become part of BACE.What effect will this have on flight crews?Not a great deal I would imagine but management well thats another story!

[sharpshot]

Does anyone recall when the original merger took place in the early 70's?

Those chaps that dream up new liveries must be chomping at the bit. Will this be the demise of the "Chatham Dockyard" and a sooooper 21st century "Speedbird" logo!!

(Sure Bob Ayling still has an ethnic artists Tel. No.)

[The Guvnor]

I always thought that the Chatham Dockyard design looked suspiciously like that of BEA's last logo!

Come back Roy Watts, all is forgiven! :D :D :D

[In trim]

Suggs,

You state:

"I'll think that you will find that it was BALPA who insisted that CFE be brought in house."

I do not know how much influence BALPA had in the decision....I thought one of the main union issues was the North Terminal ground staff.

At the time of the decision no-one could have foreseen the state of the industry now, post September 11th. However, EOG were still in a pretty bad state and losing money on much of the short-haul operation.

Does this not demonstrate, therefore, the shortsightedness of many within EOG and BALPA to be pushing for CFE to be integrated into the North Terminal operation (on pretty much EOG terms and conditions) which would increase CFE costs and thus further jeopardise a BA future at LGW.

Surely pilots working for a loss-making operation (EOG) should have been looking longer-term which could have produced a better, more cost-effective, BA presence at LGW, perhaps with compromise T and C's midway between the prevailing CFE and EOG levels.

As stated above, none of us could have foreseen Sept 11th and its effects, but let us not forget what a sorry state BA LGW was already in!

CFE crews were pushing for EOG/BA T & C's, and now everyone wearing a BA uniform at LGW is concerned for the future, whilst the likes of easyJet, with sensible cost-control measures, are waiting in the wings!

[Bumblebee]

In trim,

losses allegedly attributable to EOG have nothing to do with Pilot and Cabin crew costs, salary levels, or their T's + C's.

As far as employee costs go, EOG has the best cost base in BA mainline fullstop. It did beforehand, and does even moreso now that CFE are integrated.

At LGW the money is bleeding away in plenty other places.

[In trim]

Bumblebee,

I agree with what you say. However, where EOG is bleeding money in "all those other places", CFE had those places under control!

The point I am trying to make does not relate solely to crew T+C's (though I acknowledge my post did sound a bit that way). The point I was trying to make is that, regardless of where the cost problems were within EOG, the fact is BALPA and other pressures were pushing for a profitable CFE to be integrated into an organisation with serious cost-control problems, and without the proper management focus that a shorthaul operation at LGW requires to be successful.

I still believe that any pressures which pushed the integration in this direction (even discounting subsequent effects of September 11th) were foolhardy and shortsighted, and not conducive to producing a robust, profitable, 'BA' product at LGW.

In trim.

[willy wombat]

Bumblebee - EoG crew terms and conditions may be more competitive than those of mainline but there's still a lot of hidden costs to the company not immediately obvious from the BALPA salary comparisons. For example, in these difficult times, why are the CFE crews now being swamped with masses of crew food which they don't have time to eat? I know the prevous management was pretty stingy on the food side but the pendulum has now swung far too far in the opposite direction. Why has much of the hotac been changed to more expensive, off airport hotels? Could it be because BA pilots insist that on full rest (as opposed to split duty) nightstops airport hotels are not acceptable, even 5* ones? It seems to me that there are problems all over BA, and if each individual group, be they pilots, cabin crew, engineers, managers or whatever continue to insist that 'its not our fault, its everyone else' there's little chance of getting BA fixed.

[Recover]

In Trim,

What you are saying is sensible stuff but it goes away from the main thrust of the arguement at the time, ie that CFE were flying BA routes and therefore undermining 'proper' (mainline) BA by doing the same thing for poorer pay & conditions. The thin end of the wedge was getting thicker and it wouldn't be too long before our illustrious management decided this was such a good deal that CFE and Co could do BA shorthaul and it was not beyond the realms of possibilty that JMC could have ended up doing the longhaul side of things. The Ayling dream of a virtual airline.

What BALPA, and by that I mean we, decided was that this broke our scope agreement with BA (that BA routes should be flown by BA aircraft and BA pilots) and that this was not good for the long-term prospects of BA mainline. EoG was already the cheap option and there was no way we were going to erode those conditions any more. So how about the idea of raising CFE's conditions, agreeing with the company that since they would now be BA pilots on BA T & Cs, they could now fly any of the routes and the company can have the flexibility of using the 737 & RJ when it wished.

At the time our management were going for their, now standard, divide and rule plan. It would only affect SH so the LH guys won't take any notice, type thing. Fortunately, ALL of us saw this for what it was worth. BA trying to undercut our existing T & Cs. That's why there was a fantastic repsonse to industrial action if it was required.....and why the company backed down pretty sharpish.

This is not a story of greedy pilots going for more, but a story of pilots just trying to protect what they have. It was great news for the CFE pilots (I hope they'll agree) and the company got it's flexibilty wish. Of course, things have changed dramatically recently, but that is not an excuse (as the company is trying to use it as) to then toss out all the existing agreements on the basis of cost-cutting. Rod needs to take a VERY hard look at where the money is going and if he looked out of his office at all the coffee drinkers down by the stream, I'm sure he can get a very good idea.

I can understand your arguement that by bringing CFE up, we have increased the costs and so now endanger them as well as mainline. Well, how far do you go with this stuff? There will always be a cheaper option and a few hundred pilots on higher dosh is not the cause of BA's current problems and would not be the solution. BA pilots are very efficient and the cheapest longhaul crews in the World. It's the huge, unecessary, infra-structure that surrounds us that needs to be looked. We're an airline and should stick to flying aircraft. We are not a computer company, employment agency, health service, education department or consultation service and should stop trying to be so. That's where the money saving has to come.

Cheers for now,

Recover

[Tigerpalm]

Interesting JB007. Heard this week major happenings at GB.However,I doubt the infustructure of GB could cope, even with the TX of crews.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

It may be that there is something in the rumours about BA & GB, but if there is then none of the pilots know about it. There has not been so much of a sniff along these lines.

[In trim]

Recover,

I accept some of what you are saying, but refer you back to my second post where I acknowledge that the T's+C's are a fairly small cost issue in relation to the waste elsewhere within BA....and I definitely agree about the coffee-drinkers by the stream!

Scope clauses or not, I still maintain that when EOG had not even come close to identifying or sorting out their own costs (albeit many of these costs being at head office), it makes no business sense to integrate a profitable CFE operation in this way into EOG.

Even if the atrocities of September 11th had never happened, I am certain that the whole of BA shorthaul at LGW (EOG + CFE) would end up losing money, and Rod would be back with his knife to make drastic cuts....having now demonstrated that short-haul at LGW does not work!

End result.....BA pilot job losses at LGW! Surely a more practical business approach, rather than integrating in this way, would have been the better long-term solution?

Again I would re-state that within months of the integration starting, CFE routes were beginning to deteriorate as the focus and expertise was lost on yield management, and costs started going through the roof.

Commercial suicide? I think so.

In trim.

[Fluke Skywalker]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Right! I've had it with this "City Flyer were the best thing since sliced bread" attitude and how the merge into 1 operation at EOG has ruined CF. Let me put a few things straight.

The difference between BA and City Flyer is plain and simple - QUALITY. Quality starts from the ground up and quality costs money. It starts with selecting high quality flight and cabin crews who are highly motivated and customer focussed. It continues with top quality flight training (initial and more importantly recurrent) and with safety tools like SESMA(BASIS) (which BA "invented" and is now the envy of the world's airlines). Even if they don't pay the best salaries to their flight crew at least they are decent wages and T&Cs (at the moment!).

Compare this to City Flyer. The worst wages and T&Cs operating out of portacabins. Cabin crew who on interview don't know that CF are a BA Franchise AND ARE STILL SELECTED! (True story) Ever done a 5 day 14 sector trip Willy Wombat? Fancy spending those nights down route in airport hotels in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do - it wouldn't be much of a life would it? As for too much crew food, research proves that if you don't eat regular meals you don't perform - how exactly are you supposed to eat breakfast at a sensible time on a 5am pickup? You might be able to take your own lunch on a day trip but once you're down route there's no way.

Get real Willy Wombat and co - you CF guys were exploited as cheap labour and its as simple as that. The rest of us know better! :cool:

[In trim]

Fluke,

I won't repeat what I've already said, and I'm definitely not saying CF was the best thing since sliced bread. However.....

Training....Are you suggesting CF training was substandard? Definitely not the case.

Look at BA's own surveys regarding cabin service and you will see where CF consistently scored!

And as far as other 'Quality' systems....CF had BASIS (The more advanced version than BA, I hasten to add), and SESMA was on the way....held up only by system/compatability issues within BA in trying to integrate with the Quick Access Recorders on the RJ.

I do agree there were issues with CF T+C's. However, BA shorthaul at LGW is not in a pretty state at the moment, whether you care to admit it or not.

Yes, there are many reasons for this, and I am not blaming flight crew T+C's as putting EOG into this state. However, if Rod does come along with a big knife (which I believe would have happened at LGW regardless of Sept. 11th), there will be many guys who would dearly wish to go back to the old CFE lifestyle in exchange for greater job security.

[topman]

Fluke Skywalker - Your talking "B*ll**ks.

Until you start talking some sense, do us all a favour and keep quiet.

Whilst CFE wasn't perfect, as already mentioned by a number of posts, it was a stable and safe operation due to the motivation and team spirit of staff and management, in all departments.

Did you get that?

"TEAM SPIRIT AND MOTIVATION".

If BA had only a modicum of this, they wouldn't be in such a dire situation.

[In trim]

Topman.....you're a star. Couldn't agree more.

In trim.

[tech...again]

Top man,

Absolutely - nail on the head

TA

;)

[willy wombat]

Fluke Skywalker - thank you for your posting because it totally confirms the key point that I made in my earlier posting i.e. that it seems that within BA every department thinks that it is perfect and the problems are all due to other departments, which is clearly your view as far as BA/EOG pilots and their T&Cs are concerned. My point again is that if those at BA don't soon start to accept that there can be problems in their own areas, as well as in other areas, and thus make no efforts to put their own house in order, I suspect that BA's LGW operation will continue to steadily disappear up its own jet pipe to the great benefit of Stelios and others like him.

[Mike Oscar]

Topman, In trim, Willy wombat, and tech..again.

Agree with you all. Fluke Skywalker appears to be suffering from the increasingly common "BA head up arse" syndrome and will not acknowledge that there are problems until it's too late.

I would suggest that he 'wakes up and looks around him' but unfortunately all he would see is rectal wall!

[Mike-Hunt]

Fluke

I work for a BA franchise. Are you saying to me that we are substandard to BA? If that's a yes then explain HOW and WHY?
I mean, did BA employees come from a different planet? If yes are they heading to somewhere wonderful right now by having been so fantastic in the last few years? NOT.

[Fluke Skywalker]

Well I was going to comply with Topman's request (he's clearly quite skilled in CRM), but I've had so many replies that I'm going to respond (may the force...)

Does anyone remember the forecasts for BA at the start of this year? Profits of £400 million+ were predicted by Merril Lynch and co. That was with the current workforce and the "problems in all areas".

The problems started with Bob Ayling's inspired strategy of focussing on Premium traffic which led initially to profits and the above mentioned forecasts BUT at the same time was (is) a very high risk strategy, leaving BA at the mercy of the world, and in particular the American, economy.

Before September 11th forward bookings had dropped off the planet, so to speak, due to the downturn (and now recession) in the US economy. That dreadful day compounded the situation and has left us all in the situation we ALL find ourselves in.

My point is that the strategy is very high risk: it's brilliant when the economy is booming, but when it slumps it's disastrous. Hence we find ourselves in a fight for survival where any option is considerable - including getting rid of shorthaul. The focus seems to have been distorted: if PAX want to fly from A to B we should be able to offer them a product that provides them with the service at a realistic price. Unfortunately we can't because put plainly and simply our overheads are too high, far too high, and the reason for that is that we employ too many people who contribute little or nothing at all to the end product of flying an a/c from A to B. It's not too many crew meals, or hotac in "glamourous" city locations and it's certainly not the Flight and Cabin Crews at EOG, who are the hardest working and worst paid of all flying crew in BA.

As for Team Spirit and Motivation, there are 3000 Cabin Crew sitting around EOG and Crawley on Standby at the moment with very little work for them (since the 73s went to LHR), but there's no sign of bitching or complaining from them. On the contrary, they've been thoroughly professional and we continue to have cracking nightstops. As for Flight Crew, we just get on with it, don't we...

Finally, Mike-Hunt, I never said that BA franchise operators are sub-standard to BA, only that BA employ high quality crews. As I've never worked for one I can't compare the standards, so personally my mind is an open book. To be honest, however, there is a view in BA that our standards are amongst the best and I personally think it is justified. ;) :cool: :p

[Sleeve Wing]

Ref.the twitterings of The Fluke, some of BA STILL think they're God's Lot !
God help the rest of us !!


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[whats_it_doing_now?]

Well I thought that was a fairly good response by fluke. He made no mention of thinking that ba staff think they are 'gods lot'.

[topman]

Quite remarkable!!

Not even a mention of being able to walk on water.

Must have been reeeeal hard.

Still, you know that they all think it.

[overstress]

Topman - he wouldn't have mentioned it because - well - doesn't everyone posess superaquatic perambulatory skills? Certainly we Nigels do... ;)

[Kew Tarse]

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread....a good old BA vs CF battle. Fluke has certainly backed down a bit since his initial comments on the "Quality" issues when comparing the two.

Whatever happens, someone will end up using the slots at LGW if BA pull out, and I suspect them boys in orange will be top of the list.

Would Fluke ever lower himself to fly a 737 with an orange tail? There would have to be a real shift in attitude first!

[topman]

Overstress

Methinks that the only link with water will be whether BA manages to keep its head above it. I suspect that the answer for LGW will be the removal of the BA lifeboat which is itself taking on water, faster than Rod and his boys can bail out.

The future for LGW could have been a world away from the current situation. If only!!!

Never mind, as they say "The Futures Bright, The Futures Orange".

[yellow dog]

BA won't bail out of LGW, even if the water is pouring in. What you will see happening is the company 'farming ' out the work to Citiexpress and GB/BMed where the costs are inherently lower. As an observer I would have said that the majority of City Flyer's pilots would have welcomed being bought out by BA, increased salary, better pension(at least I think so) and the chance of flying a vast array of aircraft(seniority permitting).

[Anti-ice]

Ok, some relevant points in this hot topic.

Speaking as one who has operated 3 yrs at EOG and 4 years at Eurofleet LHR, and having operated on countless 73/75/767 flights I may qualify for an opinion (!)

Obviously the overiding factors here are cost and market conditions and these have both altered drmatically in recent times.

It is fair comment that EOG has a low cost base, and a very good job they do to, but you need consistently high club loads to maintain a routes viability - this really only occurs on flights to/from LHR.

It appears that the day of duplicated routes from airports 35 miles apart is drawing nigh to a (partial) close.

Meanwhile, LHR S/H has changed alot in recent times too, whereas one route may have had 3X 767's a day 3 yrs ago , they may have 2-3 A319/757 flights now.

Maintaining an on-time quality product is vital to LHR's future, with T5 almost certainly on the way, we need a seamless quality UK airline to maintain and provide for the millions who visit,bring business to, and transit through the UK.

I agree with sentiments shown on P1 by mjenkinsblackdog - who said that if BA sell out of europe , passengers will quickly go to Lufthansa,KLM,Air France . . . .

There are alot of inefficiencies that need to be driven out , but keeping a national is all so important (as recent times have proved)

After 9>11 ,and with 2002 in sight ,wishing all in UK and Worldwide aviation good times again ahead.

[Amazon man]

The biggest mistake made at LGW was to merge Cityflyer with EOG plain and simple.

The merger has been a disaster from start to finish this I have heard first hand from a very senior BA manager.

What a waste to turn a lean cost efficient airline making money into EOG.

Those of us in Citiexpress in the main want nothing to do with BA seniority lists, scope clauses or anything else to do with mainline BA,its bad enough being saddled with BAR.

Look out for big changes in the New Year.

[yaffel1]

Of course it was a stupid move, plain and simple.

Lots of people in the industry looked on aghast when BA announced the decision. It's too late to go back now though. What is frustrating is that LGW will start to suffer a slow death with BA either gradually vacating the place or taking the plunge and pulling out altogether.

Whatever the T & C issues between EOG and CFE, it benefits no-one (except EZY) to have LGW fail altogether for BA, as everyone ends up losing their jobs.

I know that a lot of the BA managers were appalled at the decision when it was made. It will be interesting to see if those responsible for driving it through ever suffer for their decision, made in the teeth of opposition from the CFE management who told them exactly what would happen.

Sept 11th is not to blame for this, it has merely accelerated the inevitable.

[fox_trot_oscar]

Unbelievably stupid. :confused:

So, a few months down the line at LGW, the way things are looking - CityFlyer Express to CitiExpress. That's it, just knock off the 'y', change it to an 'i', knock out the 'flyer' and bingo...!

(Not to mention totally screwing up a great and profitable operation and writing off the last chance in the foreseeable to make BA shorthaul LGW profitable and still keep a split cabin operation - and therefore product differentiation from the competition - viable. I somehow don't think a can of coke and a bag of pretzels will tempt customers away from EZ/FR/GO etc. when Club Europe disappears...)


Genius. NOT. :mad: :mad:

[Tandemrotor]

Amazon man

"Those of us in Citiexpress in the main........bad enough being saddled with BAR."

Don't suppose you'll turn away the opportunity of 'saddling' yourself with all the additional BAR routes though, since it won't do your career prospects any harm. unlike BA pilots and cabin crew who have seen their career prospects trashed to outsource flying to your cheap and cheerful brigade, so we can keep spewing cash out of HMS Waterworld!

I think the reason your 'very senior BA manager' (is that a contradiction in terms?) thinks the whole thing is a disaster is because BALPA, acting in all pilot's best interests, scotched BA's cosy idea of outsourcing flight deck jobs to the lowest bidder.

Then again, judging from your comments on seniority lists, scope clauses, and anything else to do with mainline BA, perhaps you actually want to be the lowest common denominator, driving everyone's salaries down! personally, I think most people want to see the opposite.

Take it from me, what goes around, comes around.

Grow up mate.

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Tandemrotor ]

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Tandemrotor ]

[Charizard]

Now, now. I totally agree with Amazon Man. Of course we wish BA could make a profit, of course we wish we could be paid 95k before allowances, (not to mention the actual size of the allowances scale!!!!!) No, I'm not jealous, I was quite happy with my lot being a reasonably paid member of the UK's most profitable airline, (in return on turnover terms). Now, whilst I totally acknowledge the ineptitude, the incompetence, the sheer lack of understanding of basic cost control that afflicts our new BA bosses - you BA pilot guys have to acknowledge also that your bloated Ts and Cs are part of the problem. Sure, I could use more money, but I get paid enough for a decent life. Now, to hear that I may have to sit next to a BA guy being paid a bloody sight more because BA can't use its own people - its irritating at the least.
As to the shorthaul routes out of MAN etc. Are you seriously suggesting that BA mainline can afford to run these thin routes with a cost base the same as the fat longhaul routes. Dear oh dear, there is no RIGHT to a job in this world boys. Coming from a Company which puts profitability first, it does at least mean that my job has been secure all the time I've been here. Now, because I'm apparently lucky enough to be part of a (pause while I guffaw) world class company, I'm on a pay freeze, no increments this year, no cost of living, and assimilating the huge losses of BAR into our bottom line.
I suggest you take an 'O' level in basic economics before you dare to start criticising a Company that can at least turn a profit. (And that's not to say I support our management. The profits could have been a great deal bigger and better if Brewitt, Moll, and the rest of them had displayed a little leadership and actually LED the pilot workforce instead of dictating how it would be. However, Brewitt and Moll's era is beginning to look like the bible according to sound management compared to De La Fosse and McLaren and the other fifty General Managers we have already accumulated.

DOOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

And another thing. I don't want ot be part of your seniority list. I don't want your bloody scope clause (from what I can see it will prevent me ever getting onto a jet.) I don't want anything to do with your Company - and if you can't see that a high cost base causes eventual company failure, then you deserve everything coming to you. I'm not a management apologist. British Leyland were stuffed primarily by incompetent management, just like BA, however the refusal to see the effect of basic arithmetic by the likes of Red Robbo and his mates made things a lot worse than they needed to be.

Rant over.

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Charizard ]

[Peter Skellan]

Who in the hell would want to work for BA these days?

Many other airlines offer similar levels of good training and safe operation on modern aircraft. Yet they don't suffer from the bitter infighting of BA. Cabin Crew and Flightdeck are at each others throats, everybody hates carrying Waterworld and they are all living in a slowly shrinking company. I'm sure the good time in BA are great - as they will be again in 5 years time. But the 5 years of misery as the downturn comes cancels that out.

I'd take a high morale and short time to command over any fancy final salary - retire at 55 pension scheme any day of the week. The low costs must be laughing their socks off at the moment as they offer exactly that. Its all very well saying BA pilots earn more on average. If you allow for a lot of that figure being LHR crews and the fact that living anywhere near the SE of England is hugely expensive they have less to spend each month than any Charter pilot living out of the SE with a Mortgage half the size.

I would never consider applying to BA and believe me - I fit right into their stated recruitment DEP profile.

I don't want to see a once great company down but the fact remains - from the outside they look increasingly rubbish to work for.

PS.

[Flightrider]

Latest rumour I heard was that BA wouldn't just give the Gatwick 737 operation wholesale over to GB, but they were negotiating a deal for BA to take over the few Heathrow slots which GB holds before BA bails out of Gatwick completely in return. 737s to GB, RJ146s to BACE.

BA are half-way down the slippery slope at Gatwick now. It's unprofitable; so they cut routes which are unprofitable and hand the slots back. Along come easyJet and compete with BA on routes like Geneva, Barcelona and Amsterdam from Gatwick and then those routes become unprofitable so get cut. More slots go back, easyJet expand...this could continue until there's no BA and a huge easyJet operation at Gatwick. I bet easy would love to launch some domestics from Gatwick but just can't get enough slots to launch them at high frequency.

I wonder what the "BA Future Size and Shape" quango will come up with about Gatwick? What's the betting that they demand a low-cost subsidiary at Gatwick to keep any presence there - only 12 months after they started integrating the only hope they had of keeping LGW alive.

Yes, EOG may have the lowest cost base of any operation within BA. However, I'll bet it's still a damn sight higher than easyJet's, with whom they are competing. Look at all those fancy exec lounges, Jubilee House, costly union agreements on rostering and working practices etc. Unless they can EITHER get the costbase down OR maintain significantly higher revenues to pay for it, they are stuffed.

I heard a little story last week. A crew were ready to push back for departure to wherever and called the ground crew for start. The tug was just in the process of disconnecting, so the captain asked the tug crew what was going on. "End of our shift," came the reply. "We go off at 12 today, so you'll just have to wait for another tug." 40 minutes later, one arrived and the crew were absolutely speechless. I have heard several occurrences of crews delaying flights because their crew meals were not aboard PURELY because they would be hauled over the coals by their union for setting a precedent to management of departing without them.

How the hell can you expect to run a profitable operation with low costs and good customer service if your airline is riddled with silly agreements like this, enforced to the letter by people who feel they have no option to stick by those agreements to "fit in" at BA?

BA have *never* understood how to make Gatwick work for them and have a consistent track record of ******ing up operations which they have bought there. Dan-Air had a low cost base which they managed to increase substantially to quasi-BA levels before buying CityFlyer and stuffing that as well by merging it into EOG.

Do civilisation a favour. Let BA go from Gatwick and give someone half-decent a chance of making it work, offering a punctual service at the right times, getting your bag back to the terminal within 20 minutes of landing (instead of the usual 40) and cutting the crap out that you don't need (hot meals to Aberdeen etc). That would be pretty out-of-keeping with the numerous recent flights I've had with EOG, but that's what I think is needed as a frequent flyer with them from Gatwick.


------------
New BA policy decision. With immediate effect, catering on short-haul flights will change from a torpedo roll with a fun-size Mars Bar to a fun-size torpedo roll and a Miniature Hero.

[Super Stall]

Peter Skellan et al,

Yet again on a BA thread it would appear some of those with the most to rant about have little, if anything, to do with the company - But hey, everybody is entitled to their view.

For what its worth I'm just a simple airman me, I enjoy my flying, I get paid well for doing it, excellent allowances, just the right amount of time off, AND I get on very well with the cabin crew thankyou very much.

Apparently there is a building near Heathrow, too many people in it not pulling their weight and costing too much.

I don't care, never even been there. Head in the sand ?. Maybe, but I leave the politics to the people who thrive on that sought of thing and to the rather talented people on the BA company council, who seem to have a flair for it.

'from the outside they look increasingly rubbish to work for' - Well from the inside they look pretty good I can tell you, though not without their faults.

'I would never apply to BA' - Well don't then. I'm only here through fate and the fact that I would'nt mind flying long haul at some stage (cant do that at a low cost operator, YET). There are lots of companies I would choose not to work for, but I dont feel the need to post the fact.

I'm a long way down the seniority list, under the current strategic review I may even lose my job, oh well timing is everything as they say, I probably got in a bit too late. But at the moment its all just speculation and I'll just keep turning up, and enjoy my flying, not much else I can do you see. But to all those who think just because the company is going through a rough patch its all doom and gloom I can assure you BA is a very good company to work for, just so long as you're a pilot not a politician.

I just can't understand why some of you who dont work for BA feel the need to get so worked up about BA's problems. Aspirations fadeing perhaps.... ? ;)

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Super Stall ]

[relapse]

PETER SKELLAN...I don't believe you.
:D

[Tandemrotor]

Peter Skellan

"I'd take a high morale, and short time to command..."

Me too. BAR at BHX was, and I guess still is a great place to work from. It also MAKES A PROFIT!!! Inspite of the best efforts of management.

Just incase you are interested in the facts, I was amazed to read that you think BAR pilots earn more on average than the low costs (bloated terms and conditions!) People actually choose to work in the regions for many reasons - see 'high morale and short time to command!' - But NEVER financial!. Have you any idea WHATEVER of what a regional captain and first officer are paid? I suspect you would be very surprised!!

As for your ridiculous comment about retiring on a FSS at 55. Let's talk again when you are 60, and trying to buy an annuity!!

By the way, I really am terribly sorry "Super stall", but I am struggling to maintain your levels of enthusiasm for this Company. But decent management would change that.

[cumulo-granite]

Did somebody say BA LGW 737 short haul ops to GB and RJ146's to BACE...?! In return for a handful of LHR slots?

Surely GB and BACE wouldn't have enough people to cover the strike...!

I suppose the future for BA LGW is going to be quite harsh, though.

:( :(

[stigg]

Charizard : As regards "I dont want your bloody scope clause" well, when you eventually get on your jet-ette you may find after a while you get pretty bored of what lies between 5W and 6E and may really appreciate the chance to look outside without having to change company.
As for "I dont want anything to do with your Company" - tough s**t , it bought yours.

[rhythm method]

Yes you bought us out, but unfortunately big BA are haemhorraging so much bloody money that there is a real risk we could get dragged down with you. CFE has already been ruined, let's hope (and pray) that some lessons were learnt and our nice wee profit making airline will survive whatever b*stardised plan that these geniuses in Waterworld are dreaming up for us.

[Amazon man]

Cumulo-granite,

If your a BA pilot and talking of striking in the present climate then this only confirms what a lot of us beleive that BA pilots are not living in the same aviation enviroment as the rest of us.

[Peter Skellan]

The basic pay no longer matches that of a year 1, 2 & 3 DEP compared to ANY charter FO. The pension is now less than Britannias.

If you are NOT LHR then You spend your entire career bitching about their allowances.

The rest of the BA empire is equally screwed.

More is the pity.

[aviatter]

I would kill for any of your jobs! I can't believe what I'm reading on this forum, especially in these times.

If I ever get to the point where I'm complaining about flying planes for a living I will just remember back to what I'm doing now...not flying!!!

I know working conditions aren't exactly ideal, but common guys and girls, when all is said and done you are doing what you love. If not, quit complaining and find something else to do. That way someone who really wants to fly, can. ;) ;)

[mainfrog2]

Aviattor

A lot of people at BA now are probably feeling that their work and work environment is being eroded away to a position where they would under a normal business climate have moved. At the moment they are fairly stuck with only a small amount of recruitment in other airlines going on and BA knows it. I feel agrieved about a lot of what BA has done to myself and others in the last 12 months. But just cos their situation may not be as bad as your own doesn't mean they can't complain about it okay.

[Soup Dragon]

SuperStall: good post, agree with your sentiments.

Skellan: What Tandemrotor has to say about BAR is entirely true.

To all those nigel bashers out there, a question. A huge percentage of BA DEP's have joined from other UK operators, charters, lowcost and scheduled, both from the LHS and RHS. Therefore a lot of you out there, deriding BA pilots, presumably flew with us in previous lives. And presumably at the time you thought we were OK blokes. So tell me, at what point exactly was it that we all became to$$ers. Was it the day we applied to BA, the day we joined or was it perhaps the day your application was rejected??

And in response to the "I would never want to join BA" brigade, I echo a previous posters comments: THEN DON'T. There are many operators that I would choose not to apply to but I don't feel the need to broadcast it the fact.

Regards to all

[thedude]

Good post superStall.
As I read through many topics on this site, I am constantly amazed by attitudes of, all be it a few, fellow aviators. I read many posts, which although not saying it directly,
suggest a degree of gloating at the misfortune of others. The sort of people who after having a bad day and staggering out of the local pub, would give the homeless guy a good kicking 'to make themselves feel better'.
I don't know whether this is a result of life difficulties outside of the job but
instead of being thankfull for, in my view, having one of the best job's there is, they either constantly complain about how others have it better or get enjoyment from seeing others in trouble.
If you don't like the position you are in, try to do something about it, if you think the other company has crap conditions, then don't apply and may I suggest that for every person in a job you think is better, there are a 10000 who would like yours.
:cool:

[Tandemrotor]

Peter Skellan

You clearly have an axe to grind. Perhaps even a chip on your shoulder. I will refrain from making the obvious comments regarding the origin of these feelings.

You clearly have a very limited grasp on the reality of actually working for BA. You say you wouldn't want to. I'm pleased. Imagine if a Nigel came out with comments like yours. The response would be deafening as people jumped on the band wagon to 'bash BA!'

Isn't it strange however, that BA recruits, at times in large numbers, from every other operator in the country. By The way, I joined with 2 people from Brittania. One a training Captain, who joined BA as an FO. Strange that isn't it!

BA may be planning to reduce their shorthaul operations, but if they do, it is emphatically nothing to do with Flight Deck costs. That is why so many nigels are sad, and a little angry to be losing a very attractive career path.

Incidentally, if you where actually IN BA, you wouldn't need to "spend your entire career bitching about LHR" you would just choose to work there. But then you're not, and you can't.

[Peter Skellan]

I'm not having a go at the BA flightcrew - my Dad's one of them.

All I am saying is that for the entire history of British aviation it has been a fact that BA was the best employer. This is no longer the case.

Which is a pretty stark thing and worthy of discussion.

As I implied earlier I don't want to join BA and couldn't afford the pay cut.

PS

[cumulo-granite]

Amazon man,

You couldn't be further from the truth! I am certainly not a BA pilot and my reference to industrial action was merely a non too difficult prediction should there be any substance to the rumours earlier in the thread to which I was referring.

:rolleyes:

[Sheepslagger]

I think what my Bral mates are trying to say is that we cannot believe the whole of the BA concept. Sure, we've envied some of your perks, but as someone else said, the mere fact that you guys can mention strike action in these days shows you are on a different planet!
We have nothing personal against you, but as anyone who speaks to our Company Council will confirm, you are trying to shaft us with your scope clauses. Did you learn NOTHING from all the talk, the promises, the sweet words you offered during the CFE takeover? Ask those guys how many of them would like to turn the clock back! BA f#cked a good company there, one with a similiar ethos to our own.
The point is that we didn't ask to be bought, but we couldn't prevent it. We are now watching our company ruined, we are deluged with new non productive management, and hey all of a sudden, we're losing money. Paperwork is created in a deluge of new routines and SOPs, a lot of which are then changed overnight as the BA overlord discovers this that or the other won't work, and just maybe we knew what we were doing before he started meddling, thankyou!
Let me guess, what comes next. BA loses pilots because it can't make a profit, (for whatever reason) and the next thing is BA guys flying with us - but on THEIR pay scale. Now, I'd like more money, but not if it means redundancy in a short while. BA have got to recognise it is better to make a profit with an full Emb or a 146 with our cost base, than to keep chucking money away on partially full (and full is not a word to use) 73, 75, or Airbi.
It may well be that the costbase is not all the fault of the pilots, but when I see MY job threatened, don't expect me to vote for a cheeseboard for some complacent BA driver!

[Roobarb]

Any career in aviation requires an enormous amount of committed hard work, emotional investment, and considerable personal sacrifice. For those who join BA it is most likely because at the time of applying, a career with Nigel was seen as a personal pinnacle of achievement.

To have that dream destroyed in front of your eyes by cynical and inured Harvard Hardmen, who value your hard won qualifications no more than an HGV, is stingingly painful. They see our demise as some kind of great victory and get some kind of perverted gratification to see us on the back foot finally.

I face the possibility that my job will simply cease to exist and will presumably face summary dismissal because ‘September 11’ has somehow given them an opportunity to tear up all our agreements, and drive a coach and horses through past protocols. All against a background in which industrial action would be politically impossible.

I could believe they engineered the whole tragic episode themselves. There’s no sorrow, only gloating in the corporate palaces of Big Airways. ‘A unique opportunity’ is how our people have referred this to.

The Future Size and Shape Committee is likely to require 300 pilot redundancies I have heard from one senior source, and judging by the way they are currently emptying out one fleet of BA, they do not intend to operate LIFO. Why should they? Cheaper just to sack the pilots left on that fleet at the bitter end, why spend any money on retraining then for other aircraft, we don’t give a toss about them, do we? I imagine the other recommendation of the committee will be a desperate requirement for another 8000 managers.

I have never felt so undervalued, isolated, and betrayed by anything in my life. I feel physically sick. Everyday, I see greying Captains retiring after a rewarding and lucrative career saying 'Glad I'm going now!'. I remember on my joining day when one of the many people to address us said ‘Remember how you feel today, remember your sense of achievement, because you won’t always feel like this.’ How prescient he was.

That’s why Nigel is pi$$ed off.

http://www.sausages.demon.co.uk/ian/classic/thumbs/roobarb.gif

[Nosferatu]

I sympathise with both sides here. I too can see clearly how ridiculous and expensive some of our new procedures are. Clearly, I can't help but notice that we are now a lossmaking enterprise in the great tradition of BA.
On the other hand, why should BA throw away hard earned privileges and remunerations. The answer lies with management boys. It'll never happen of course, but if we could cut out even 50% of the dead wood in waterworks, we'd save a fortune, and I bet no-one would even notice they'd gone!

In the meantime, lets work together. Maybe if the BALPA CCs could actually work together instead of confronting each other, we'd come up with a sensible compromise. I shan't hold my breath!

[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: Nosferatu ]</p>

[Tandemrotor]

Soddit

Being from Belgium it is possible that you do not appreciate, a 'chip' is a slice of potato, (pomme de terre) invariably taken with fish.

[In trim]

A lot of talk about union pressures, terms and conditions, strikes, etc. Is this really the approach to save BA at LGW? I think not!

Tandemrotor, has that desert island sun been getting to you? - in your first post you effectively justify the takeover of CFE on the basis of pilot T+C's and scope clauses. I'm sure pilot T+C's could have been improved within CFE with union negotiation, without the need to integrate the entire company and lose the management expertise which was so successfully focused on LGW short-haul operations. Even with some added costs and BA burdens, LGW short-haul would be in far better shape if CFE was still in existence, and anyone close to the business would find it very difficult to argue with that assessment.

I honestly believe that the unions have brought BA to their knees, and where will it get those union members? Out of work? I am certainly not gloating as I have many friends who will be affected if this is the case, and I just feel anger and sorrow at what has happened for purely political reasons.

The CFE management fought tooth and nail against what was clearly a ludicrous business decision, taken for political expediency.

Many people with their own short-term interests at heart forced a business decision which people will probably live to regret....including many of the pilots who argued over a few quid and crew meals.

Inevitably there were many CFE pilots who were happy to jump on the BA gravy-train, but there was also a lot of uncertainty and concern, despite whatever problems there may have been at CFE, at suddenly being absorbed into a loss-making company.

In trim.

[ 19 December 2001: Message edited by: In trim ]</p>

[MaxAOB]

Haven't read so much bollox for ages!!
Merry Xmas to all of you!!

<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[CREW_INOP]

It worries me to hear so much poison and revulsion coming from those I consider to be colleagues. We all do the same job, just in different coloured planes.

In this ever changing world of aviation, I fear that one day I may find myself flying with someone who truly despises their employer. We almost have that at EOG with certain people already.

I have sensed sniping and bitching between EOG and CFE crews and am disgusted by it.

Whether we like it or not things have changed. Shut up and get on with your work. If it riles you so much get a job with ADI. Something which a self sponsored friend of myne has had to do having achieved his licence at the wrong time.

[In trim]

easyJet have today announced expansion at Gatwick, with a number of routes including up to 5x daily to EDI. This will triple the size of easy's LGW operation.

This could potentially signal the start of a downward spiral for BA LGW if they are not careful.....competition makes existing routes unprofitable.....BA give up more routes / slots which are picked up by low-cost operators.....new routes started in competition with BA....etc.

[mainfrog2]

If the arrival of easyjet means BA pull out of LGW then presumably they will move everything including longhaul. As a consequence everyone will feed into longhaul at Heathrow. That will leave a few US carriers and Virgin doing longhaul out of Gatwick. Since peoples main focus for longhaul would then be LHR,LGW then becomes a provincial airport again with a lot of capacity and only shorthaul. This talk of lowcost carriers pushing out the established operators who do longhaul flights could end up "poisoning the well" so to speak causing a reduction in passengers who actually want to travel through Gatwick. The only thing LGW has going for it is it's 30mins by train to London.

[Few Cloudy]

Mainfrog,

Something about tails wagging dogs springs to mind when I read this post. Established carrier relinquishes slot - low cost (also established) carrier takes slot. Where's the pushing here?

[euroboy]

...and LHR is only a 15 minute train ride from London.

[mainfrog2]

euroboy - maybe it is only 15 mins to LHR but I don't think easy are looking at LHR operations are they? In relation to their base in LTN it is better. This begs the question, when they are established at LGW will they pull out of LTN and will this cancel out some of the cost benefits of flying out of smaller slightly further away airports. Also weren't Barclays trying to push up their fees at LTN. Maybe easy are doing a better deal with BAA in the long term, if so why aren't BA turning the screws on BAA as well.

[euroboy]

EJ did announce rather quickly (and probably without much thought) that they would start operating BFS-LHR when BA pulled off the route.
That major announcement seems to have died a death.

As for the 15 minutes by train to LHR, this was to show its quicker to get to LHR than LGW, and without South London usual rail cockups.

[topman]

Mainfrog2.

BA are not bright enough to turn the screws on the BAA. BA pay substantially higher prices for many services such as crew hotac, transport, IT, catering, ground handing, etc.

The exceptions are insurance and fuel where BA have good management and use their buying power effectively.

[In trim]

euroboy -

Re the easy announcement regarding BFS-LHR....it was made very clear that this was "subject to obtaining the appropriate slots".

Realistically did easyJet ever expect to get the appropriate slots to mount a reasonable frequency operation at appropriate times of day?

Was it just a publicity exercise to paint easy as the good guys when BA pulled out?

I'm sure if they had got some decent slots they would have used them, but I'll let you make up your own mind regarding the above questions!

In trim

[whatbolt]

It would be nice to think that somewhere on that "blank bit of paper" where 5 managers are putting down their "think the thinkable" or was it "think the unthinkable" solutions to BAs problems that one of them might remember that whatever its faults CFE made money and had a commited workforce-that in its self might help BA deceid where it goes next-BA needs to change radically irrespective of the LH v SH argument and having a management and workforce structure thats not afraid of itself and can actually operate without being tied by every rule and proceedure invented by man cant be a bad start.

[The Original Geeza]

It would be nice to think even at this late stage BA could cut their loses by putting cityflyer back in their old portacabins seperating flight crew and engineers and running a low cost airline out of the south terminal, thus providing a bit of competition against the likes of the easyjets and the ryanairs. This also means that BA still has a competitve presence at LGW. Lets just hope the people in charge think the same way.

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Flyer Freedom Fighter ]</p>

[whatbolt]

FFF NOTE YOUR WISH-would that mean someone in BA admitting they got it wrong though.

[willy wombat]

Not only would BA have to admit it was wrong but over the last 12 months they have paid out lots and lots of money to the directors and managers who ran CityFlyer to leave the company and put their undoubted talents to use elsewhere!! CFE is like humpty dumpty now - you won't see it put back together.

[In trim]

Willy wombat - Very true....

1. A lot of key CFE staff now have reasonable jobs elsewhere.

2. Slots have been given back, and easyJet and others have been let into Gatwick.

3. BA have pulled off some key CFE routes (NOT the best decision given some of the BA loss-making routes which should have been dropped first).

.....even if BA could wind the clock back to re-invent CityFlyer, how many of the management would want to give up jobs elsewhere knowing that the old CFE they used to work for (secure, profitable, and expanding) was now to operate within this new environment, greater competition, with the whole BA LGW presence under threat. I thoroughly enjoyed my years with CFE, but there is no way I would come back, and I suspect I'm not alone.

As for BA admitting they got it wrong....can't see they'll admit it openly, but in 12-18 months I suspect EOG will be virtually non-existent, with most BA short-haul ex LGW operated by CitiExpress and GB Airways......if that isn't an admission they got it wrong, then what is??!!

In trim

[The Original Geeza]

I dont think it is a case of admiting that they were wrong, i think we all know that they will never admit that, with the Sept 11 th events being used as an excuse.

I realise that they have spent an absolute fortune in trying to intergrate the two companys. They must now look at it as a case of damage limitation, they can carry on the fiasco by throwing good money after bad or try and salvage whats left.

The best option would be to bring all the CFE aircraft under the Citiexpress banner and run it as a seperate airline and let EOG fend for themselves, they are a lost cause.

I think the management would score some serious points and make LGW into a money making centre, whether or not they consider this as an option is an other thing.

I never could understand how BA could justify spending 75 million pounds on a company that only makes 15 million pounds a year, Madness. Its a shame that we are all now in the same boat with the risk of job loses, that none of us asked for.
Keep your head up guys and girls and hope for the best. Happy New Year.

[ 30 December 2001: Message edited by: Flyer Freedom Fighter ]</p>

[Tandemrotor]

FFF

Mate, CFE IS EOG, and EOG IS CFE now!

You haven't quite got the hang of this yet have you!

[In trim]

Tandemrotor -

Afraid you've got that totally wrong. This might be true from a Pilot's perspective, but look at how CFE costs have risen as part of the integration....they were two completely different animals and CFE no longer exists.

I'm not going to start the debate about pilot T+C's again as we have agreed that this is only one element.

What made CFE successful was a management team who were experts in their field....short-haul LGW operations. They understood the economics, etc. better than most at BA.

You only have to look at how CFE (with dedicated Revenue Management teams for their routes) yield-managed their routes very differently from BA. You could compare any parallel route (CFE LGW-JER compared with BA LHR-JER, same for AMS, ZRH, NCL, etc.) The routes were managed subtly differently than the BA services from LHR, overseen by CFE commercial management, and the results were different....look at the costs and look at the yields! As soon as that dedicated 'CFE' yield management stopped, and the CFE routes were thrown in the pot with the rest of BA short-haul, with no focus whatsoever, results declined.

Handling costs are also an issue....whilst CFE did gain some benefits from the power of BA's buying, equally there were many stations where CFE got a better deal than BA....simply because the standard BA IATA Ground Handling contracts were so bloated with stuff that was not required for a short-haul operation. I have many examples of this.

Please please please understand that I have nothing against EOG, particularly the flight crews. However, do not think CFE made money only because we worked from Portacabins and paid lower salaries.....it took a lot more than that to make it successful!

[Blackball]

In Trim of course you made money so would EOG if it got paid the going rate. The problem is that now CFE is effectively EOG you will be treated in the same way. That is you will be credited with only a very small portion of the fare charged as the bulk of that fare will go up to Damppatch to be credited for Longhaul assuming the pax is a tranfer pax. GB gets paid the full fare regardless of wether the pax is a transfer pax or not and therefore is able to make a good profit.
I feel we must hope that come the result of the review in Feb we are able to be credited with the full fare and not just a small % of it.
Airrage is right when he suggests that the company should be split in two, I think that's what may occur, just be thankfull though that you are on the master seniority list, at least you will be able to escape at some point up the road.
Its the new boys who will be recruited directly into the new company we should feel sorry for.
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Recover]

FFF,

No matter how people want to dress it up, the reason BA paid 75 million for, what was at the time, a successful franchise operation was to stop Branston Pickle getting the LGW slots. It seems daft now, what with everybody cutting capacity, but at the time he would have loved to have bought CFE and got the slots that went along with the purchase. The only way BA could prevent that was to pay way over the odds. The franchise partnership was working very well, so why else would you want to turn it into a wholly owned subsidiary, with the associated costs and burdens?

And, not aimed at you, FFF:

The way people are talking, you'd think that CFE was the be all and end all of airlines. It would have been a VERY interesting exercise if, in the present climate, it was operating as a stand-alone airline, rather than as a BA franchise, which is when it started making 'proper' money. Sure, there were undoubtedly some good managers (if there is such a thing) but even BA has got some of those.I reckon you'd probably be looking at a Gill-type scenario if CFE hadn't done the franchise thing and the Sept 11 stuff had happened. Gift horses and mouths spring to mind.

Tandem Rotor is right. It's a new year and CFE continues to be brought into the BA fold, whether they like it or not. Whether BA admits it's wrong or not doesn't alter the fact that they are not going to U-turn and let CFE go and do its own thing, especially having forked out so much dosh. All CFE personnel are going to have to stop harking on how wonderful the portakabins were and try to help their new employer succeed. And, I have to agree, it will be interesting to see how the numbers suddenly change when the airline formely known as CFE has the longhaul costs imposed on its books, the way the rest of BA shorthaul does. it would be highly cynical of me to suggest that they stop making such a profit very soon, but I'll do it anyway.

Happy New Year to you all.

And.......

Recover

[whatbolt]

The figures I heard quoted were that in the last 3 months of 00 CFE made 3m - in the first quater of 01 it made a 5m loss-same planes- same amount of pax crew wages same routes etc -differant accountant-differant management. Great shame-nowt anyone can do about it and whatever efforts are made to help our current employer back to profitability many will still be shafted. Nice people most of this new bunch just incompetant.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Recover

I have always said that being a BA franchise was good for CFE, and I'd be surprised if you could find anyone that felt diferently (so your Gill scenario is irrelevant). The problems came about (and continue to come) ever since we were bought and more laterly managed by BA. I'm not going into details because I've done that before and it is not relevant at this juncture.

The reason you keeping hearing people say CFE was good is because it was. And the reason that I keep saying it is because I am fed up with BA people telling me I should be grateful.

My relationship with the rest of BA could be summarised as follows:

BA: You must be so glad to work for our amazing selves. Your life is to become so rosy, just wait and see!

Me: Actually, working at CFE had some good points. Fancy the BA pension though.

BA: Please stop whining about how brilliant CFE was!

Me: (Thinks) You brought it up......


CPB

[The Original Geeza]

I am not trying to say that CFE was the be all and end all, but it was a company that worked and made good profits.

You have to understand now that we have all moved to our relevant areas we can see how you work, and believe me it is an eye opener. All i see is a company pushed around by union bullying, under CFE we never needed a union and the relationship between management and underlings was great, but now youve only got to mention new coloured toilet roll and the management is blamed and the union is brought in, it pisses you off.

It is very hard to adapt to backward company, where people whinge about everything, how many companies do you know where every employee complains about everything, but has stayed at that company for 20 years. Hmmm. Every body i have spoken to so far would give back perks, conditions, money , to go back to the way they were, to actually enjoy going to work again.

[In trim]

Totally agree with CPB and FFF. No-one is suggesting that CFE would have got to where it was without the BA branding.....it probably would never have got the start-up capital at all without the initial codeshare agreement, and certainly I doubt it could have survived the early fare wars (with JEA, for example) had it not been for the strength of the BA brand.

So please understand....no-one is looking the gift horse in the mouth, and everyone at CFE appreciated the importance of the BA arrangement (despite some of the frustrations!).

[Jon Gulliver]

When is this crap going to stop? We have a situation, its been done, its over, its finished. None of us are any better than anyone else. We need to stop all this bickering and get on with the job in hand, namely saving our futures. I know there are people going around from EOG, and not just flight crew either, telling all that they are the real BA people, I know crew from CFE think that they could be doing the job better, I know that there are crew who have lost out, I,m thinking particularly of the senior FO's just coming up to commands. What is all of this proving? If we don't want another Dan Air type situation developing at Gatwick can it and get on with the job PLEASE!

Oh and just in case anyone is interested, I was chatting to a senior financial chappy the other day-a personal friend-"there is no way we will ever pull out of Gatwick". Apparently something to do with slots and access etc! What is being seriously looked at is racking up the utilisation of the airframes and creating a much more flexible product, all actions that lower costs providing you get the bums on seats. So lets get on with continuing the reputation of LGW as the friendliest, most fun part of the Birdseed empire to work and stuff all this we're better than you rubbish into the past where it belongs. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Big Dog's]

BB, as far as I am aware GB gets the same percentage of revenue from transfer pax as do BA at LGW. GB is profitable, even now, because they have a great commercial team and, most of all, because they have the BA franchise! Without the Franchise they would still be flogging from GIB to TNG in old 737-200s. There is no doubt that they can continue to make good profits where seemingly BA cannot, but people should be aware that without the Franchise companies like GB could not exist in their current guise. The question is whether BA BALPA will be strong enough to stop Rod farming out more, if not all, of the short haul operation at LGW to companies like GB?

[GustyOrange]

FFF

If BA paid £75M for a company that is earning £15M, that would make a P/E (Price/Earnings) ratio of 5, very attractive I would say. And a lot less than BA's fancy valuation.

Gusty

:) :) :)

[thewwIIace]

how ironic, we are constantly telling eog the difference between them and mainline and now it is natural for eog to 'pick' on another underdog ie, cityflyer, so dont take it personally, there is BA MAINLINE contracts (both LHR and LGW WW) and there is LGW (shorthaul). that is the concerned corner lock stock and barrell.

[relapse]

'scuse me BUT....

CFE IS NO MORE. gedit....

All this endless wastage of 0,s and 1,s is an insult to the binary code.

Whatever you say makes no difference.

It has happened so how about stopping this drivel and getting on with it.

[The Original Geeza]

TEMPER TEMPER relapse ,if your not careful youll do yourself an injury getting carried away like that.

<img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[Capt Pit Bull]

relapse,

Get on with what, exactly.

As the saying goes, those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.

CPB

[yaffel1]

Big Dog's, Apropos of nothing in particular, GB actually do slightly better out of transfer pax than did CityFlyer because of their route network. The sectors are longer and they get passengers transferring onto their services from the UK provinces. As a result, they get better revenue shares from SRP. For example, a MAN-LGW sector receives very little of the overall revenue from a MAN-LGW-LIS routing because of the comparative mileage involved. Of course, this creates a problem for the mainline and ex-CFE routes as they are penalised in comparison to the longer sectors. SRP was an AA initiative because of the lower costs per mile of US domestic travel versus European flights, further skewing an already poor European performance. SRP always was the bane of CityFlyer's life.

[The Little Prince]

My information is that we at BA CitiExpress are to receive all the CFE 146s to operate out of Manchester and Birmingham. I understand that the ex CFE pilots will be initially operating them, but will be replaced by our low cost equivalent as our guys come on line. The ex CFE guys will then be soaked up in mainline as the pilot shortage starts to happen again with the ongoing retiral bulge. I wasn't quite sure how to interpret the future for the LGW services, but presumably an earlier post referring to greater utilisation of the airbuses would acount for that. Again, presumably a gradual thing. One can see the sense in it as BA slowly lower their regional cost base courtesy of ourselves - assuming they can get away with continuing to turn the Ts and Cs screw on us. Mind you, we have now accumulated so many managers - none of whom are much good, the ex Brymonites in particular, - that our own cost base is surely going up logarithmically.

Anyway, lets hope '02 is better than '01.

Not holding my breath,

"The Prince"
:) :)

[The Original Geeza]

As a matter of interest what does the entire citiexpress fleet consist of and where are all these aircraft based?

[ 04 January 2002: Message edited by: Flyer Freedom Fighter ]</p>

[GearUp CheerUp]

Little Prince; may I ask, from where does your information come?

[yaffel1]

The reason the ex CFE aircraft have been deployed onto other BA routes is in order to reduce the capacity where there is insufficient demand. At the time of the switchover most of the EOG network (within range) was considered suitable for RJ ops, but of course there were insufficient aircraft for the desired deployment. At no point was there ever a suggestion that the RJ's be moved to CitiExpress in the regions because the need was greater at LGW.

Now it is possible that BA would decide to bring the RJ fleet under the auspices of CitiExpress whilst remaining at LGW, although that would beg the question as to why merge CFE in the first place. The other alternative would be to redeploy them if LGW was being wound down to a much greater extent than is already the case. Should that happen all options are open, but if not, then there would not appear to be any rationale behind moving them out to the regions.

Of course, that doesn't mean they're not stupid enough to do it...

[fox_trot_oscar]

With the level of speculation at fever pitch concerning BA SH Ops at LGW, does anybody actually know when an official announcement is due to put everyone out of their misery?

FO

[BluffOldSeaDog]

CitiExpress currently operates the following type and numbers

BAe 146 x5 (1xINV,1xIOM,3xMAN inc x2 from 03/02)
Emb 145 x29 (2xEDI,10xMAN,6xBHX,2xCWL,4xBRS,4xSOU,1xMaint)
BAe ATP x13 (1xEDI,4xGLA,1xBHD,2xIOM,3xMAN,2xMaint)
DHC -8 x13 (3xABZ,1xNCL,3xMAN,4xBRS,2xPLH)
BAe J41 x11 (1xNCL,1xBHD,1xIOM,4xLBA,3xCWL,1xMaint)

Total Aircraft 71 <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ 05 January 2002: Message edited by: BluffOldSeaDog ]

[ 05 January 2002: Message edited by: BluffOldSeaDog ]</p>

[RVR800]

..

[fox_trot_oscar]

I think RVR800's last post says it all, really!

:) :) :)

[speed check]

Another angle on the CFE merger is that the food is much better at J.H. No more roll vans, snacky foods or lost lunches. Even the C.Pilot has been seen tucking in to his early morning Big Breakfast with relish.
" Who said mergers were bad pass the ketchup"
<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Deadleg]

Actually there are 15 Dash-8-311's in Brymon(soon to be BACX).G-BRYI,J,M,O,P,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,NVSA&B.
OK thats enough plane spotting for one night!(Could get me arrested in Greece!)