Willie swings his axe

[The SSK]

BA has just announced a 30% cut in its middle management level, and 50% of senior managers - 597 jobs in all.

94 senior managerswill leave by March 31

Ouch

[Bearcat]

I told you he'd do it.....city boys love will this.

[tewkesbury]

Could this mean the demise of the manager's in charge of bread rolls and lettuce? Me thinks not, he could not be that heartless, could he!::confused:

[Team Player]

And you know what?
No-one will even notice they're missing.

The number of (office) ground staff in most airlines is way out of control, and are a drain on profits - their productivity being a negative, their necessity only padding to their superiors' self-importance.

[lasernigel]

Shame he didn't take on the National Health Service,he could be doing wonders.:ok:

[CaptainFillosan]

And..............those self same managers who are going are the ones who overloaded the staff in the first place! That is not management. So called managers reap what they sow.

[woodpecker]

Quotes from a recent party with Waterside types present...

"On my flexy working (two days working from home, three at waterside) I make sure I go in on a Friday so I can do my weekend shop at Waitrose (at waterside), arrive about ten, log onto waitrose, shop, and collect order about 4 to miss the traffic going home"

"My husband, on arriving home, asked if I had had a good day. I responded I had been playing with the kids all day. He looked rather puzzled and then stated but isn't today one of you working from home days? (part time worker, 50% at waterside, 50% from home) Oops!! Ah well, they will never notice!!"

"I love hot desking, I can go to work, wireless log on the laptop at waterside, out of site of my immediate manager, put the laptop in a locker and go off to Hounslow shopping!"

The last time there was "a night of the long knives" every manager was given an A4 sheet of paper and told "justify your job". Many couldn't.

I think the above might just (hopefully) fit into the same category.

[BahrainLad]

: "This is not a decision I have taken lightly but I believe we must re-structure the airline to remove duplication, simplify our core business and provide clearer accountability. Managers will have greater accountability for making decisions, delivering results and leading our business.

"We begin by looking at the number of managers we need to lead the business towards a sustainable profitable future."

By George, I think he's got it.......:ok:

[Boy]

I trust you will all be as happy and buoyant when he eventually goes after the pilots - which he most assuredly will.

[Bus429]

...and perhaps aircraft maintenance staff?

[Rainboe]

Boy
I trust you will all be as happy and buoyant when he eventually goes after the pilots - which he most assuredly will.
It will be most interesting to see him do so- already BA pilots are as productive as anybody in the industry- most pilots are up against the annual 900 flying hour legal limit. I was constantly concerned about having to drop trips (and lose pay) because I was close to the legal maximum. I can't say that I'm sorry for managers who rush around doing pretend jobs and attend 'meetings' losing their positions. There are flying staff in BA who need to be tackled into proper productivity, and they ain't pilots!

[Hansol]

There's Gatwick and BACX first !

[Skylion]

"BA pilots the most productive....."

Erm... there is the small matter of more unproductive, and expensive, heavy crewing compared to some competitors and that's worth a look at.

[M.Mouse]

I trust you will all be as happy and buoyant when he eventually goes after the pilots - which he most assuredly will.

I should have been going to work today but couldn't because I would have exceeded the 100 hours in 28 days limitation.

How might he come after me?

[lomapaseo]

The last time there was "a night of the long knives" every manager was given an A4 sheet of paper and told "justify your job". Many couldn't.

That reminded me of one of the efficiency/productivity reams that came through my place one time.

They asked you to justify your job and what you actually do and found out that many took the time to write their job descriptions in such a way that it made others to seem redundant. This was very helpful to the efficency experts in determining the amount of wasted jobs or duplication, of course there were some surprising losers here

I found out that there were at least three other guys doing my job :)

[Scottie]

How might he come after me?

Simple - Sheraton -> Holiday Inn Express

But you've BALPA so that'll stop him :) :)

Personally I don't think he'll come after the pilots or the cabin crew. Far too unionised.

He picked a very soft target in order to create an image for himself. Cost Slasher Walsh.

The bus driver et al will probably disappear with the move to T5 will they not?

[Jet II]

I told you he'd do it.....

I'll believe it when I see it. We had this rubbish about job cuts before, lots of publicity about job cutbacks and what happened - most of the 'jobs' that went were 'manpower equivalents'

Not that he wouldn't get my full support if it actually happened - its about time someone in senior mangement carried the can for their mistakes, like spending close to £300 Million on a computer system that doesn't work or a restructuring that has now created two departments - the 'Front End' and the 'Back End' - yep thats right just like a pantomine horse :sad:

[MarkD]

well, here on pprune since willie arrived from EI the cry has always been "get the waterworlders first" - seems he is taking that and running with it.

the danger with him is when the shareholders start cheering him on, like when he sold EI's paintings (good) and then outsourced without squaring the unions (bad) and killed the 146 fleet and tried to shaft their pilots (worse).

[ETOPS]

Don't worry guys HZ123 will be along any minute with all the latest ;) rapidly followed by our favorite (sic) American........

[Avman]

FINALLY! A staff cut which starts with the management. Never thought I'd see it. I hope the idea spreads :E

[Flightrider]

A staff cut which starts with the management. Never thought I'd see it. I hope the idea spreads

I think you've hit the nail on the head. If the staff cuts start with the management, it makes it rather easier to force through staff cuts elsewhere because you've removed the normal "what about the overstaffed management" line of defence.

And in response to M.Mouse, there are plenty of things that Willie can have a go at in flight and cabin crew. It is not just about flying 100 hours in 28 days. How's about:

1/ Moving to airport hotels for nightstops instead of usually more expensive in-town hotels which also incur transport costs

2/ Getting rid of the various additional allowances in the allowances scheme for silly things like sitting in Central Area for an hour or two between flights. Last time I looked, CSDs were paid £54 for this two-hour wait. Barking mad.

3/ Throwing bidline/carmen in the bin

4/ Crew food

5/ Taking out the chauffer-driven limos for LGW crews to get to the simulator at LHR

6/ Tightening up the crew and aircraft scheduling so that the ratio of flying hours to duty hours reduces, i.e. you conduct the 100 flight hours in less duty time and thus earn less duty pay. If combined with binning Carmen rostering, you could probably achieve this quite happily.

That's six things to start with which would cut costs and not require you to exceed the legal maximum on hours. Productivity and cost-effectiveness can be measured in all sorts of ways....

[Bearcat]

some one said he wont go after the pilots/ cabin crew. The name BALPA was mentioned. Don't flatter yourself.

WW is the most cunning, sharpest and devious you'll find. He'll get a wave of support from the shareholders for this move. You've banned fox huntng in the UK but union hunting is open season now for young willy.

Once the managers issue has been dealt with he'll go for working conditions and especially ccm working conditions. He'll also bounce pilots/ccms working condts off each other when dealing with the unions. Again watch this space.

[Fargoo]

Someone mentioned Engineering earlier. The axe has been swinging there for a long time, shame no one else in BA noticed.
I'm never normally happy to see any jobs under threat but I do like the idea of a few Cheese Procurement Managers and the like getting the boot :ok:
I've never been to Waterside but from what i've heard of the place some serious questions need to be asked.

[Pilot Pete]

Flightrider

I don't work for BA, but;
1/ Moving to airport hotels for nightstops instead of usually more expensive in-town hotels which also incur transport costs All well and good and would make a great saving on hotac and travel costs, but just watch the other areas get impacted by crews not being fit for duty due to lack of sleep......

2/ Getting rid of the various additional allowances in the allowances scheme for silly things like sitting in Central Area for an hour or two between flights. Last time I looked, CSDs were paid £54 for this two-hour wait. Barking mad. I'm sure allowances are always being pecked away at by successive management, but wholesale cuts without negotiation could be more expensive than the possible cost savings.

3/ Throwing bidline/carmen in the bin Again, could prove extremely problematic to just 'bin' the things that give lifestyle options. Lose the goodwill factor of 'onside' pilots and just watch the costs spiral with 'offside' pilots. You can't make BA into Ryanair, that's why the lo-co's try to start with a blank sheet of paper. Equally, you can't sustain a working career in the likes of Easy when the pilots feel they have no lifestyle, hence the turnover of pilots. Look at the retraining costs and all of a sudden retention doesn't look quite so expensive.

4/ Crew food Don't feed 'em and they won't fly. Again, it's one of those areas that most other airlines have been chipping away at already for years. Staff morale comes into it and I refer you to the 'onside'/'offside' comments of a previous answer.

5/ Taking out the chauffer-driven limos for LGW crews to get to the simulator at LHR Many airlines provide crew transport (and rightly so) if they require you to report at somewhere that is not your normal base. This transport has to be of a certain standard and it is not acceptable to just call the local cab office and get a (possibly) uninsured driver in a car that is not fit to be on the road. Employer's Duty of Care comes into it and I guess you mean a company like Hallmark when you refer to 'chauffer' driven 'limos'? Many companies use them as the cars are half descent quality (Mercs or big Vauxhalls), not exactly 'limos', and the drivers wear a suit, but are not chauffers, just professional taxi drivers.

6/ Tightening up the crew and aircraft scheduling so that the ratio of flying hours to duty hours reduces, i.e. you conduct the 100 flight hours in less duty time and thus earn less duty pay. If combined with binning Carmen rostering, you could probably achieve this quite happily. Don't think you'll find too many pilots complaining about an efficiency saving like this if it means they spend a little more time at home........

PP

[Scottie]

The name BALPA was mentioned. Don't flatter yourself.
WW is the most cunning, sharpest and devious you'll find. He'll get a wave of support from the shareholders for this move. You've banned fox huntng in the UK but union hunting is open season now for young willy.

Bearcat, I was on these boards when Rod Eddington appeared on the scene.

All the usual stuff was trotted out "he's going to massacre you", "you're doomed - look what he did at Cathay".

End result he didn't achieve much. Why? Well Cathay although being unionised was in China which didn't have quite the same labour laws.

Willie Walsh got away with what he did at Aer Lingus because it was on the verge of bankruptcy.

BA is the most profitable airline in the world at the moment I think (I'm easyJet) so the case isn't as solid. In addition the unions are in a fairly strong position.

Anyway cost cutting in the short term makes the share price look good and creates an image of a ruthless Willie. But you can't keep cost cutting and he's going to have do some serious work to grow the company which is where more profit can be generated.

He's come in with a reputation and doesn't want to look like a damp squib so he attacking a fat and soft target to look tough.

[G-CPTN]

>A staff cut which starts with the management.

It's 'usual' to ask the seniors to justify retaining their subordinates (hurts their empire-building ambitions and frightens the seniors) before moving up and decimating the levels as they go. Last man to leave puts out the lights.
However, if you start at the top, who is there to decide what further 'wasteage' is possible and to issue the dismissal notices?
Unless, of course, it's an autocracy . . .


> All well and good and would make a great saving on hotac and travel costs, but just watch the other areas get impacted by crews not being fit for duty due to lack of sleep......

You mean that there's even MORE opportunity for socialising in airport hotels?

[notkahouse]

And in order to get those remaining managers back onside , how many workers will he have to fire.

[anotherworld]

According to the Financial Times business blog - "It cannot be entirely coincidence that Walsh is taking on managers before the move to Terminal 5"...

Of course, there will be more to come after the move..

[Hand Solo]

I love the way that every time the subject of cost savings comes up that people start talking about airport hotels. Perhaps if these doom sayers tried to book themselves a night at an airport hotel they would be dispelled of the notion that they are vastly cheaper than city centre locations. Perhaps if they tried to book 100 or more rooms per night as is required in some locations they´d find the airport hotels weren´t interested at all. They´d also find that many áirport´hotels still require transport to the hotel, and the transport firms don´t work on a ´per mile´basis like a taxi does.

[Banzai Eagle]

Pilot Pete - I think Flightrider means crews make their own way to the sim or get the bus....The perception amongst any airline Management or ground staff is that there is one rule for Flight Crews and one rule for the rest. At this stage the new CEO is going after Middle Mgmt, no doubt crews will be targeted sooner or later.

[Farrell]

It always takes an Irishman to sort you guys out anyway. :p

[BA-BEANCOUNTER]

Please try to remember that whatever their job title, these cuts affect real people. Also that most managers such as TMG's are in place to do a real, technical job not just to sit back and watch others do the real work.

That said, this is probably the right move for BA if its serious about cutting £300m from its employee costs.

Just to correct a previous poster, we've been told that any senior manager who fails to secure a post by end of March 2006 will be out, no careerlink no BRS, just OUT!

[TopBunk]

BA-BEANCOUNTERJust to correct a previous poster, we've been told that any senior manager who fails to secure a post by end of March 2006 will be out, no careerlink no BRS, just OUT!

Don't get me wrong - everyone has commitments and family etc.... but I say GOOD, ABOUT BL00DY TIME. The company does not owe anyone a living, let alone people not contributing to the bottom line. Keeping people on, on gardening leave etc does the remaining employees no favours at all. I say give them their contractual notice and pay them the statutory minimum severance and thank them for their past service and wish them well in the future. This company has been held back by its lack of bollox in having a no compulsory redundancies policy.

[RoyHudd]

Many BA managers are very lazy. And there has been little pressure for them to change their ways, just to hold onto their jobs. I should know.

Anyway, good luck to you, Willie.

[RRAAMJET]

Hand Solo - you're absolutely right about airport hotels. When will this myth go away? I have worked in hotac bookings, and believe me, when the wx goes down you have a nightmare with crews at airport hotels. It's simply too irresistable for hotel managers to ignore a contract for a small penalty and sell some top-end priced rooms to pi$$ed-off pax.

Airport hotel myths spring from two management irrationalities:
1. Because you're nearer work they somehow think you'll be more available on a freebie 'reserve' - notwithstanding that crews refuse to answer the phone on layovers.
2. Envy. Pure and simple. The 'fun-detectors' have to bust-up the fly-boy morale. Why should crews enjoy Wanchai when they're stuck back at Waterworld?

No, you don't necessarily have to stay at the Beverly Hills Hotel, but nor will a flea-pit by LAX porno-land do, either. :hmm:

[Team Player]

I know how much my (airline) company pays for our hotel rooms, because the crew are required to sign the bill, on check out, at many of the them.
The price ranges from USD30 - USD60 between hotels. This is at hotels where the rack rate is double and triple that which my company pays for us.
These hotels usually provide crews with a free buffet breakfast (which is extra again, for John Citizen), to try to keep the crews happy in order to retain the contract.

A month or so ago, our usual hotel in one port was fully booked, due to regular seasonal group bookings (which pay close to the rack rate), and several crews were overnighted at an airport hotel for the month.
The cost to the airline was almost 50% more than our regular stay hotel.
Airport hotels generally have a very high occupancy rate at any given time, and by accepting an airline contract for their crews, are going to cut their profit margins considerably if they do accept.

Willy's actions are going to send a shudder through the ranks of many of the bloated middle "management" levels in many of the airlines throughout the world.
These people have delighted in reducing the levels and conditions of the average, hard-working, productive employee, upon whom revenue is dependant, whilst at almost the same time they have swelled the numbers of their "assistants"/secretaries to garnish their own sense of import - but WITHOUT adding any more income to the company.
It was well overdue in BA, and is still overdue in the majority of other airlines.

[RTR]

Some of the very senior flying staff had better watch their backs now too. And a good few prima donnas. This is a big axe which is falling at a slow rate but it won't miss anyone who is surplus to requirements.

Call it big time Willie waving!

[Anti-ice]

Not nice before christmas, but SO overdue - even Ayling should have got to grips with this one ,let alone Eddington or Walsh. :rolleyes:

If just 600 managers are going to save £50MILLION , then some of them must be disgustingly overpaid.

I knew a senior manager in BA who took 3 months to do an Excel spreadsheet that would have taken anyone else an afternoon to do.

Being a large airline brings some safety, but it also means expensive people conveniently lose themselves in the system - this costs a fortune.

The frontline has suffered enough cuts already - hello - we are already suffering very poor ontime perfromance due to very tight turnarounds/insufficient resources , and just look at the catering fiasco which has left the best part of shorthaul with NO catering for 4 MONTHS now - ridiculous.

He's hit hard with his first action at BA , but he really should take a close look at what is important to BA's customers now , any impact his future decisions could have.

Airline customers walk very quickly and are not stupid.

Invest in your frontline Willie and don't let your farepayers down......

[Diverse]

If somebody gives you a piece of A4 paper and tells you to justify your job you simply write,
"I can't do this because I'm too busy doing proper work."

[Gin Slinger]

Can this thread be renamed 'Willie swings his chopper'?

[Capt.KAOS]

· 'Slasher' says three-year reductions will not be last

· Airline sets its sights on £50m of annual savings

Terry Macalister
Thursday December 1, 2005
The Guardian

Willie Walsh, the new chief executive of BA, reinforced the cost-cutting reputation which earned him the nickname "Slasher" at Aer Lingus by announcing 600 senior job losses yesterday.

Almost 50% of the airline's top executives and 30% of middle managers are to be made redundant in a move designed to save £50m a year as the airline battles against high fuel costs and competition from no-frills flyers such as Ryanair.

Mr Walsh, who took over at the beginning of October, said the reduction in his management team, to be achieved by 2008, would not be the end of job cuts. He refused to be drawn on future numbers.

Already 3,000 people a year are leaving the business through normal turnover but he said "some" were being replaced as BA tries to reach its target of saving £300m in labour costs by March 2007.

"I said when we reported our second-quarter financial results last month that our costs were up in most areas and that, as a result, we need to re-energise our efforts to deliver a competitive cost base," Mr Walsh said.

He denied there was any change of strategy and insisted it was no indictment of the way his predecessor, Rod Eddington, had run the business. "His track record was exceptional. BA was one of the few companies that really did face up to the challenges after 9/11."

Reporting second-quarter results two weeks ago, Mr Walsh played down the importance of job cuts as a way of reducing costs. Yesterday he insisted he had flagged up the need to tackle costs, and there was "absolutely no panic and to my mind no surprise" in the announcement of 597 senior staff cuts, which will cost the company £50m.

BA hopes most of the reductions can be achieved voluntarily but he accepted there were likely to be some compulsory redundancies. Top managers have salaries of about £86,000 while the middle ranks are on about £45,000. The company believed most managers would understand the need for changes and Mr Walsh foresaw no problem with unions, because the cuts would be done in a controlled and structured way.

The moves would not affect safety and should make the business more effective, BA said, using similar arguments to those voiced by the airport operator BAA when it cut middle management jobs recently.

The senior job cuts will come in three phases, with 94 top executives to leave the airline by March 31 2006 and further reductions over the next two years.

Reuters quoted a source familiar with the situation as saying that Mr Walsh was considering a 15% cut in the total workforce of more than 46,000 over several years as part of its move to a single new terminal at Heathrow. But the move could exacerbate relations with the unions after three summers of industrial strife at Heathrow and ahead of planned changes in work practices there.

Mr Walsh cut a third of the workforce at Aer Lingus, while Mr Eddington shed 14,000 jobs over the last five years at BA, Europe's third-largest airline.

Kevin Egan, a national officer for the Amicus trade union, said: "We are still waiting to see the detail from BA but our priority will be to ensure that alternative options to compulsory redundancies are offered."

Equity analysts said the move was in line with the strategy of making £300m of savings but one pointed out its unfortunate timing in the run-up to Christmas - "the kind of thing investment banks do".

Shares in BA rose 1% to 355p.

[RevMan2]

Talk about chiefs and indians....
BA's got how many employees? 40,000?
And 1715 middle/senior manager to run the outfit?
The LH Group (not the most efficient outfit on the planet - yet) runs close to 100,000 and does all that with 800.
You do the math.

[Scottie]

My point about hotels I think has been misunderstood.

I was not talking about going from say the SAS Radisson in central AMS to the Sheraton at Schipol Airport.

I meant going from the SAS Radisson/Sheraton whatever to an Ibis, Days Inn or a Holiday Inn Express etc.

[Bearcat]

Scottie.......rule out nothing. It was on the cards in AL before he left.

[Team Player]

Generally speaking, small hotels/motels of the type you have named, Scottie, are unable to provide:
* reliable 24 hour contactability to allow airlines to advise crew of schedule disruptions, crew changes, or for crew to contact the local station manager to advise of crew unavailability;

* security that will ensure the crews' safety (thus ensuring their next assigned flight gets away);

* check-in/check-out around the clock;

* guaranteed minimum noise levels to rooms allocated to crew (nighttime and daytime);

* checkout times that suit the motels' room servicing time guidelines.

Motels and small hotels of the sort mentioned by Scottie usually charge a cancellation fee for no-shows. The larger hotel chains which secure airline contracts don't.

The contracted rate, paid by the airlines for their crew accommodation is usually considerably LESS than that charged by motels and the smaller hotels.

Finally, crew accommodation costs are a tax deductable employee expense for the employer.

Edit
Scotty had a post - now deleted - indicating that "his loco might like to put him up in nicer places"

So are you saying those places you suggested are not nice, Scotty?

Unlike your loco (I suggest), airlines are able to offer a large volume of supply on a daily basis, year in and year out - bread and butter that the hotels which have the crew contracts can count on as REGULAR income.

Is there some petty envy of working conditions of flight crew flavouring your posts, Scotty?

[Scottie]

reliable 24 hour contactability to allow airlines to advise crew of schedule disruptions, crew changes, or for crew to contact the local station manager to advise of crew unavailability;

Holiday Inn Express, Ibis etc are all open 24 hours.

check-in/check-out around the clock;

Again having stayed in them this is not a problem.

guaranteed minimum noise levels to rooms allocated to crew (nighttime and daytime);

Having stayed around Europe in hotels in a previous life this a joke right?! Nobody can guarantee minimum noise. Depends on your neighbour and who is walking down your hall, the area of the city etc etc....

checkout times that suit the motels' room servicing time guidelines.

Ibis/ HIE are hotels although 2 star. If they want the contract they'll bend to it.

Motels and small hotels of the sort mentioned by Scottie usually charge a cancellation fee for no-shows.

I'm sure with a big contract this can be negotiated in.

The contracted rate, paid by the airlines for their crew accommodation is usually considerably LESS than that charged by motels and the smaller hotels.

I'm sure if they were getting such a large contract it could be negotiated in.

Stand firm and keep that BALPA membership up :ok:

As a regular user of this grade of hotels it really make me aware how little my company values me. Normally stuck in the middle of no where.

Edit
Scotty had a post - now deleted - indicating that "his loco might like to put him up in nicer places"

So are you saying those places you suggested are not nice, Scotty?

Unlike your loco (I suggest), airlines are able to offer a large volume of supply on a daily basis, year in and year out - bread and butter that the hotels which have the crew contracts can count on as REGULAR income.

Is there some petty envy of working conditions of flight crew flavouring your posts, Scotty?

[Last edited by Team Player on 1st December 2005 at 11:06]

*** I deleted the post as I wanted to say more but needed to delete it in order to see the rest of the thread (if you follow).

Teamplayer you're damn right the places easyJet puts us up are not nice. They're bare minimum, just on level of acceptance.

However we can supply the volume of business and do to a hotel call the Ramada Jarvis near Luton. This hotel is a pit. Affectionately known as the Rwanda Jarvis or Ramharder Jarvis. We probably have 40-60 rooms there a night used, maybe more. However there are nicer hotels around but we end up there.

Is there petty envy? Well I don't know about petty but there is certainly envy. However I in no way want BA to be put up in such hotels which is why I said stand firm and don't let WW pick you off.

Better conditions in BA mean better conditions for the rest of us.

However for a Teamplayer you sound off like a pointscorer.

[Team Player]

Holiday Inn Express, Ibis etc are all open 24 hours.Now you know as well as I, that the "open 24 hours" means there is usually (only) ONE person, somewhere on the premises - generally zzzzz'ing in a lounge chair.
And that "24 hour reception/switchboard" means the answering machine intercepts all calls during those zzzzzzzzzzzz hours of the sole caretaker.

check-in/check-out around the clock...........Again having stayed in them this is not a problem.Check-in late = your key's under the door mat in front of your room.
Check-out early = leave the key in the drop-off box, and we'll post your company the bill for the extra telephone calls, mini bar, and room service.

guaranteed minimum noise levels to rooms allocated to crew (nighttime and daytime).............Having stayed around Europe in hotels in a previous life this a joke right?! Nobody can guarantee minimum noise. Depends on your neighbour and who is walking down your hall, the area of the city etc etc....Larger hotels can guarantee that you NOT be allocated a room that's going to have a wedding reception, or birthday party in the next room - which in cheap motels is often only a 1 brick thick wall.
Other considerations are garbage collection, and the usual "disco", or function room, above which the cheapies are placed.

I'm sure ...I'm sure ...I'm sure....I'm sure..Well the BIG hotels go further than "I'm sure" - they GUARANTEE, because they have the flexibility.
Most of the types of hotels/motels you have mentioned, Scottie, are single owner Ma and Pa franchises, relying upon immediate settlement rather than 6 monthly account billing.

[Scottie]

You won't be surprised to hear I beg to differ :)

Holiday Inn Express are 24 hours, aren't ma & pa, have a central HQ for 6 monthly billing etc.

Have stayed in many Hiltons, Radissons etc where there has been a wedding reception or next door bonking until the small hours etc etc. Paper thin walls etc.

I think you're confusing motels with hotels. I never suggested that one should stay in motel.

Anyway I shall bow out at this point as this debate is futile ;)

[batninth]

Interesting thread but a couple of comments if I may.

I suspect that BA senior/middle managers affected will have the benefit of serious training schemes paid for by BA and will most likely be able to tick all the right boxes when it comes to applying for new jobs. -

I would also suggest that management help will be required back at BA, but under consultancy terms. For many it will probably be the best thing that could happen, out plus package, then back in as "NewCo Consultants".

As for the hotel debate - don't forget that the large hotels do fabulous block book rates, so staying at an SAS Radisson in central XXX is probably no more expensive for BA on a block rate than the HI Express but with all the benefits of those lovely stars.

All WW is doing is much what is happening in other industries, and that's why the city analysts looks for this.

[WOD-DET-DVR]

If he is cutting costs the next thing he should go for is the nonsense of crew allowances. Paying crews $50 for lunches that crews spend $15 on is crazy. It does not happen in any other industries.There are still lots of costs to be taken out of BA and this is one of them.

[Human Factor]

WOD,

Allowances as you suggest above ended for flight crew a couple of years ago. We're now paid a small hourly allowance for time away from base (£2.50 ish) and incentive flying pay (£10 per flying hour ish). The TAFB is about normal for airline flying although BA insisted on flying pay to make us turn up, rather than just add it to our basic based on 900 hours a year.

For the time being, mainline cabin crew remain on the previous allowance system although I expect that to change to something similar to the pilots sooner rather than later.

[Dockjock]

Assuming a 3 or 4 star hotel could match prices with a 2 star, logic dictates that you go with the higher quality as there is better value. Its a small token that crews recognize, and goes a long way towards quality of life without costing a cent more.

[bealine]

All this wittering on and on is sheer stupidity! I, for one, will not gloat over those unfortunates who are having to reapply for their jobs!

Like most large companies, we have managers who deserve their UB40's - and others who are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, Willie Walsh's axe will not, I fear, swing the cutting stroke in the right direction to p-prune the dead wood!!!

I fear for my own safety too - we've seen these management cuts before! The only trouble is, two years later, the management numbers remain the same (or greater) and the front-line staff numbers are cut!

If Willie Walsh was serious about saving BA's cash, he could, and should, start by slashing his own £12000 a week pay - until he's achieved something to deserve it!!!

[sixmilehighclub]

There are flying staff in BA who need to be tackled into proper productivity, and they ain't pilots!

Rainboe. I'm wracking my brain to decide who you could mean. BA no longer have flying spanners, do I assume you mean the cabin crew? Now Rainboe thats not a good demonstration of effective CRM!!!

As you may know the CAA has minimum requirement for crew on board and BA increase this to tailor to the service, so customers are better cared for by ratio.

Now if you were implying flying hours are less than pilots, thats a whole different story. Infact I'm sure that if a pay deal was offered to the cabin crew too which agreed increase of hours........

Don't forget the cabin crews job is both physically and mentally tiring.

If you mean the days and hours available that crew can work and within the agreements already in place are not used productively, well then yes I agree.

I meant going from the SAS Radisson/Sheraton whatever to an Ibis, Days Inn or a Holiday Inn Express etc.

The negotiated discount on the rack rate makes the costs for accommodation surprisingly low.

Also I worked for an airline where there were 2* hotels used. Morale was terrible onboard. Crew didnt want to go away. They couldn\'t sleep as the quality was poor. Food poisoning was often an issue....

[maxalt]

Hi Bealine,

If Willie Walsh was serious about saving BA's cash, he could, and should, start by slashing his own £12000 a week pay - until he's achieved something to deserve it!!!

While he was CEO at Aer Lingus, one of the major newspapers did a survey of CEO pay in Ireland. They created a 'league table' based on company profitability relative to CEO salary.

Guess who was the BEST PAID CEO in Ireland on that league table? Yes, you guessed it, oor Wullie!

Given that Aer Lingus was a loss making venture at the time you might say Wullie would have figured high on the list, no matter what he was paid. But he topped the CEO's of succesful Irish globalised companies on multi-million pound packages.
I seem to recall even MOL couldn't touch his position!

And meanwhile he was slashing workers salaries and conditions while still sticking his own snout in the trough to the tune of 400K per year plus bonuses - not bad given that just 3 years before he was a lowly pilot, where top of scale would have been around 100K after 26 years service! In 2001 he had 20 years served.

While he was (famously) selling the paintings off the boardroom walls, couldn't he just have been satisfied with the salary he'd have earned if he'd ever made it to a senior captains scale?

Sadly, no.

Not exactly a 'leader by example' then. Hence the massive strife that accompanied his tenure.

The FAT CAT label fits Wullie snugly. He has a small-man complex to beat the band.


Edited:

[concorde cadet]

Don't forget the cabin crews job is both physically and mentally tiring

I agree:

Mentally - playing sudoku all day
physically - sitting on the ar$e all day getting piles

Now you mention it, our job is pretty tiring, mentally and physically, with the added burden of responsibillity.

70 pax/7 CCM is not a hard days work

[ShortfinalFred]

W squared told a recent pilot joinee at BA that "he knew what he was signing when he joined", on being told at a pilot's 'meet the chief exec seminar' that the pension he could expect after 30 years with BA was about £10,000 a year with BA's new pension plan, BARP. (Is that acronym a bad joke or what?).

W squared has news inbound. Those of us who joined BA in NAPS, the previous DB pension scheme knew what we were signing when we joined too.

Whilst BA has long been over-managed whilst underperforming I have sympathy for anybody made redundant at Christmas. Its such a devious, viscious Harvard Business School tactic: 'lets stick it to 'em at the season of Joy when everyone's too preoccupied with their own families to care about other's misfortunes'.

But I'd take heart if I were you. If BA ram the pension cuts down the throats of the workforce that they have in mind it wont exist for long in anything like its current form anyway.

[heatthepots]

i see slasher walsh is up to his usual tricks, starting his campaign with a bang. instead of in fighting amongst yourselves about who has been targeted this time, you should have a cohesive plan to prevent him using you to make his name as some sort of corporate wizard. despite the media frenzy he generated in ireland as ceo, most of the newspaper reports overstated his achievements. he seems to thrive on sensationalism to achieve his ends. dont forget, just like aer lingus. you are a unionised company and he can only take from you what you allow him to. also, ba is a very profitable company. i will be interested to see what fear factors he will attempt to introduce to achieve his ends. the one thing he did do during his tenure in aer lingus was destroy morale but under our new chief executive pride in the shamrock is once again in evidence.

[ShortfinalFred]

"Slasher" will be in charge of a Big Fat Zero soon. Spending our pensions may make sense to him, but those of us who saw B@b 'dont-call-me-Robert' A@ling blow BA's money on a pile of cr@pola are not about to sit here and see the chickens finally come back to the barn with our pension scheme being raided to fund the accumulated losses.

If "Slasher" thinks he's got an easy win here he is woefully mistaken. People will resist till BA is no more - its the only thing that makes working there tolerable, as does bidline. Take them away and the lifeblood, people, will follow.

[unmanned transport]

I get a chuckle from reading some of these threads. Sometimes I wonder if Willie might end up being a loose cannon, possibly turning into another Frank Larenzo, going hog wild, busting unions and end up endangering his own existance.

Remember an Irishman isn't happy until he has a good fight on his hands.

An Irishman from the bogs of the wee Emrald Isle running BA!!
Well I guss some of our leaders out here had their roots bogged down there as well.

[Dan Winterland]

Don't forget Willie used to be a pilot before he became a manager. This could explain why management were the first in his sights.

[Krystal n chips]

batninth-----You raised a couple of interesting points here re "ticking all the right boxes"---I am sure they can and will---however---for many this will be all they can do. Working within BA as a manager is not the most arduous job in the world and the culture shock for those fortunate enough to get a new position may well come as a traumatic shock----even more so if they have been at BA since the year dot. Quite a few will actually be unemployable actually as they may have attended all the courses ---but would be incapable of implementing the training anyway !. And for those for whom accountability is an unknown or simply cosmetic concept--helps if you are "protetected" by an arcane system that always supports a "manager" no matter how inept--the "we did is this way in BA" approach is not likely to be well received in other organisations.

As for returning as consultants--possibly in a few cases--but I would think WW is astute enough to negate this potential gravy train. Anyway, I am sure those who remain can manage quite adequately. :rolleyes:

Be interstesting to see how much the refreshment outlets profits drop in "the street" at Waterworld though ! :E

[BahrainLad]

THE PILOT'S TAKE ON WILLIE WALSH
Published: December 2 2005 02:00 | Last updated: December 2 2005 02:00

Comments from pilots posted on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network at www.pprune.com

*'I told you he'd do it. . .city boys love will this' - Bearcat

*'And you know what? No one will even notice they're missing' - Team Player

*'And. . .those self-same managers who are going are the ones who overloaded the staff in the first place! That is not management. So-called managers reap what they sow' - CaptainFillosan

*'I trust you will all be as happy and buoyant when he eventually goes after the pilots - which he most assuredly will' - Boy

*'Personally, I don't think he'll come after the pilots or the cabin crew. Far too unionised. He picked a very soft target in order to create an image for himself' - Scottie

*'It's about time someone in senior management carried the can for their mistakes, like spending close to £300m on a computer system that doesn't work' - Jet II

*'FINALLY! A staff cut which starts with the management. Never thought I'd see it. I hope the idea spreads' - Avman

*'If the staff cuts start with the management, it makes it rather easier to force through staff cuts elsewhere because you've removed the normal 'what about the overstaffed management' line of defence' - Flightrider

*'WW is the sharpest. . .you'll find. He'll get a wave of support from shareholders for this move. You've bannedfox hunting in the UKbut union hunting is open season now for young Willy' - Bearcat

*'Please try to remember that, whatever their job title, these cuts affect real people' - BA-Beancounter

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1c3f818e-62d8-11da-8dad-0000779e2340.html

[deathcruzer]

management bieng cut.....

What is this fresh wind of common sense blowing ........?

Take a look at Human Resources next......

About time. :E

[Brakes...beer]

ShortfinalFred is right. There will be blood on the carpet over the final salary pension scheme next year, either Willie Walsh's or ours. Most people I fly with are, at the moment, confident they would strike over it, although we have not seen the proposals yet. Willie Walsh will no doubt frame the options to divide the community, but at the end of next year either:

a. The pilots will have a final salary scheme still.

b. They will be on a career average scheme and BALPA will be utterly broken and discredited.

c. BA will be no more.

[maxalt]

Don't forget Willie used to be a pilot before he became a manager. This could explain why management were the first in his sights. Sorry Dan Winterland, you'll soon be proven wrong.
Walsh WAS a pilot in ALT - but in order to prove his credentials as a MANAGER and CEO he demonstrated his divorce from his previous career through a sustained campaign of gratuitous and vicious attacks - not just on just his ex-colleagues pay and conditions - but even on the very status of their profession. He never missed a chance in a media interview to tell the world how "boring" it was being a pilot, and how much more mentally challenging and varied his new position was.

As to him being Irish and running BA....I'm Irish, and I couldn't give a toss. I hope he goes down in flames.

[HZ123]

I do not think we have much to worry about. This is just a spin for the press and shareholders. The press has fallen for it big time as indeed have some oy you. Many of the people that leave will already be identified and will no doubt have better roles to move to within the industry. I believe there is a managers job somewhere in Portsmouth.

[The Little Prince]

:D So which of our deadbeat management team is Willie going to get rid of first?
PH? DD? CP? (Very likely I reckon), it will be good to see. Hopefully, Willie will supply some much needed basic business sense on how to run a regional low cost model, probably bring us to LGW to show how it can be done (Like CityFlyer did before they were fu##ed byt mainline management). The future suddenly looks a lot brighter. I larf and larf to see the furrowed brows and the extra meetings between the numpties at the top of BACX.
Best single move - get rid of Evans, followed by CP.:yuk:

[Tandemrotor]

I have to ask (because I don't know) How many of those you have mentioned have a mainline contract? Presumably if they are employed by BACX they are not affected by the new announcement??

[False Capture]

Tandemrotor, the answer is none.
Best thing Willy could do is sell BACX to PH, DD and CP in the form of a management buy-out. DE would get a nice hand-shake prior to his retirement. Willy and BA could then concentate on LHR and LGW.:ok:

[acbus1]

Mr Walsh is going to have a field day over the next couple of years, I'm confident of that.

Why so confident? Because BA is the fattest, laziesy, most inefficient airline in the UK and most of Europe! There is such a vast layer of flab to hack away at that Walsh is in no danger of reaching any vital organs for some considerable time.

As for the confidence expressed by pilots on this thread that their lifestyles are safe, they're in for a big shock. Walsh is from the real world. The real world is clearly not something many BA pilots are familiar with. Some hints of that ignorance are on this thread. Much blatant, sickening evidence has been posted over the years. Well brace yourselves, it's all going to change soon!

[Scottie]

Well brace yourselves, it's all going to change soon!

Yawn......exactly the same was said about Rod Eddington.

[screwdriver]

Here we go yet again! The overpaid ad cossetted primadonna pilots point at the bloated and lazy management structure who point at the overpaid preening cabin crew who point at the blah blah....

[HZ123]

I have to take exception with a number of commentators. We at BA in general will continue to live of the fat of the land for a number of years to come. Little is going to change as the Board is already concerned about the transition to T5. This can only be deemed a sucess with the staff on board. For WW to come down hard on all the staff would be suicidal and cannot be achieved with the current junior and middle management, who would have to be honest with themselves first of all. As one said little will change in the next few years.

Lets us not forget there is still no catering on some flights the 'Gate Goumet' yet to be resolved. The union reps that allegedly caused the strike still sitting at home on full pay. If WW wants put up get these things sorted and sack a few people to ensure staff focus on their future?

[Carnage Matey!]

Here's an alternative scenario (in case you did'nt read the article in The Independent last week). With T5 about 800 days away the ramp staff need to be very wary. Their working conditions simply will not apply in T5. They need to be re-written by the end of 2006 and WW is in no mood for appeasement. BA have got the TGWU by the balls. The three suspended shop stewards, sitting at home on full pay, have been singing like canaries, telling BA that Tony Woodley personally told them to strike. BA can sack them any time for gross misconduct, ridding themselves of three trouble making employees. If the TGWU attempt a legal strike BA can sue them, and Tony Woodley, for £45M pounds in damages for the illegal strike and they'll break the TGWU. Or, they can simply keep on squeezing those balls and force through all sorts of unpopular changes that'll make the ramp staff actually earn their pay whilst the TGWU is too scared to oppose them.

As for Gate Gourmet, the game is up there. It's over 90 days since the staff were sacked and now GG is free to hire replacement staff. Catering is normal on long haul flights and on many European flights. Only the shortest routes and the domestics remain below normal levels and that situation is due to be resolved very soon. Most of the sacked staff remain sacked, Tony Woodley has failed to get them their jobs back, even the pickets have left the roundabout and gone home. All round it's been a very embarassing period for the union.

[Panman]

I'm sure that Accor Hotels (the largest hotel conglomerate in the world - the chaps that run IBIS) and the Intercontinental Hotels Group (the chaps that run Holiday Inn Express) will be pleasantly surprised to know that they are being deemed "small hotel/motels"

[arismount]

>>posted 30th November 2005 12:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I trust you will all be as happy and buoyant when he eventually goes after the pilots - which he most assuredly will.<<<


Don't know who the big wheel you are talking about is, but if he's getting rid of dead wood management, you guys should be glad you've got him.

Over on this side of the pond, our so-called "management" goes after pilots, FA's, and mechanics first....then they themselves pop their golden parachutes and voila ! Another carrier down the tubes.

And here's the good part: These geniuses take a year or two sabbatical in the Caribbean and then come back and do it all over again at another property.

[Witraz]

For Acbus 1

Why so confident? Because BA is the fattest, laziesy, most inefficient airline in the UK and most of Europe! There is such a vast layer of flab to hack away at that Walsh is in no danger of reaching any vital organs for some considerable time.

OK when did you fail your BA interview?
One of the most profitable airlines under current times cannot also be the most inefficient.
With WW there will be change, some good and well needed, some bad. No one will dispute that. Historically when BA catches a cold other airlines can suffer pneumonia. You are obviously extreme confident of your position...good luck.

[L337]

... and with Longhaul pilots, in vast numbers, up against the 900 hour limit.

Acbus 1: Your post tells us nothing about BA. What it does do, is tell us loads about you.

L337

[northwing]

I know nothing of BA but all we have heard about for years, if not decades, is news of staff cuts which are sometimes in the 10s of thousands. How overmanned was this set-up in the first place? The best of luck to all the dedicated employees of all skill types who make it all work while having to live in the uncomfortable atmosphere of cuts.

[BahrainLad]

Didn't Lord King once say that come what may, the ideal size for BA was 35-40,000 employees?

How many is it now....56,000?

[bealine]

I take no delight in seeing people about to lose their jobs - why are these announcements always made at Christmas??? I lost my job three times under Thatcher's government (which is why, although a Conservative at heart, I will never vote Tory as long as one member of her government remains in an influential position) - always at Christmas - so sympathise with those who are about to be given the bad news!

If you operate one aeroplane, you need a couple of pilots, a handful of crew and a handling agent to tug your machine around and look after your pax/cargo. If you buy a second aeroplane, you need to double your staff. By the time you get to a dozen aircraft, it starts to become economically viable to employ your own ground handlers / check in staff.

What British Airways seemed to fail to grasp under any previous leadership is that, given its size, Waterside and its plethora of bureacratic departments is completely unjustified to "the core business" and puts a tremendous financial burden on the operation. (Just how much is taken for "Head Office Support Costs" from each ticket sold???)

To get back to "core business", almost every person working for BA should be involved either in selling tickets, negotiating preferential supplier rates, moving aeroplanes or passengers or maintaining equipment. Every other function for the airline is a direct cost "support" role and the jobs in this area need to be kept to the bare minimum.

I think this is what Messrs. Ayling and Eddington hinted at and what WW has identified. Whether the BA Board will let him have full rein remains to be seen!!! They have always shied away from compulsory redundancies and wholesale bloodletting before!

[issi noho]

Once WW defines what your "core business" is or will be, then BA pilots can decide if they need to worry.

Also you can be profitable and inefficient, you simply have to have the imagination to see what you could have made without the costs detailed on the large pile of paper in the mans office. One of those costs is pilots, but dont panic this side of christmas, he'll wear down your pay and T & C's over time like any other boss (except he will be more effective and ruthless because, after all he works for BA).

[mini]

To get back to "core business", almost every person working for BA should be involved either in selling tickets, negotiating preferential supplier rates, moving aeroplanes or passengers or maintaining equipment. Every other function for the airline is a direct cost "support" role and the jobs in this area need to be kept to the bare minimum.
Spot on there.

I think this is what Messrs. Ayling and Eddington hinted at and what WW has identified. Whether the BA Board will let him have full rein remains to be seen!!! They have always shied away from compulsory redundancies and wholesale bloodletting before!
If they don't, he'll walk - they know that, hence they will cave in.

[Faire d'income]

We shook our heads when you said he won't touch us on his appointment. We are shaking or heads again reading some of these hopelessly naive posts.

He will fire some of your managers and you will cheer.

He will close other sections and you will rationalise that it had to happen.

There will be a cull in maintenence and cabin crew and you will say we must accept this.

He will then turn on you.........

Some will cheer, other rationalise that it had to happen. Everyone will say you must accept it.

If you and every pilot you know are not averaging at least 820 hours a year I would recommend organising a march in support of those being let go asap. You will need friends.

[L337]

If you and every pilot you know are not averaging at least 820 hours a year

The problem that many people on this board have no understanding of, is the one of LHR. Rod Eddington called LHR a "Just in time" Airport. The slightest problem and it all grinds to a halt. To get a short haul pilot to fly 8-900 hours is, at the moment very difficult.

I could get a 4 sector day, done and dusted, in 7 hours at BHX. 20 minute turn-arounds. And off again. No problem. A bit behind? Ask for a visual. At LHR u have slots, congestion, and hours spent in the Lambourne hold. The airport is so congested it is impossible to do anything quickly. The infrastructure makes it very difficult to operate. Full stop.

Then u add in, Cabin Crew industrial agreements, The CAT lounge. No tug driver when u need it. Bus Drivers that appear when the lunch break is good and finished. A pier that won’t work, and a splash of snow, and it all grinds to a halt.

Willie can say.. You will all fly 900 hours. We can all say "Yes Sir". But without an awful lot being fixed first it will never happen.

L337

[ETOPS]

If you and every pilot you know are not averaging at least 820 hours a year

Er .....837 hrs this year and 3 trips still to fly including PEK !

[crazypilot]

...so the next thing to do is lift that 900 hours pa limit haha. Then we'd all be screwed!

Airline pilot in 2020... flying hours limit per year = 1,800.

[Roobarb]

You have to try shorthaul at LHR until you acuse Nigel of swinging the lead. Almost everything is politically impossible. It takes forever for one simple request.

Face it, they can't even sort out the bloody sandwiches six months later!!

I'm damned if I'm going to do 2000hrs duty to fly 900hours. It's just not feasible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/410000/images/_411783_roobarb.jpg

I'll take on the opposition anyday. It's my management I can't beat!

[HZ123]

L337 makes a very valid point but he is to polite. LHR is a third world dump, T5 in many respect will not streamline the operation to the degree that many will hope. You only need to look at the numerous problems experienced at T4. On another point T5 will require a lot of new ground equipment as designated by HAL. As with our aircraft aquisition there appears to be no money for any new investments (excluding First & Club), that at present is one of the key issues for WW. Offloading of staff will not help that issue in the immediate future

[issi noho]

So I guess short haul out of LHR isn't your core business or even worth continuing then,...

So give BACX your Airbuses and see if they can make it work, or BMI or let Easyjet have a crack. Why not put in a fast rail link to STN and LTN virgin trains can join the party.

Face facts; no matter how tough it is from LHR, passengers want to fly to/from it.

It is not important, and nobody cares, how many duty hours you put in to achieve 900 flying, provided it was the best anybody could achieve in the circumstances (which are the same for all LHR operators).

The most likely scenario is that your short haul product will change, and lets face it you've kindly been trialling not feeding passengers. No doubt there was a down turn in pax figures which by now will have returned to seasonal norms. welcome to the start of the low cost model.

Pilots are not first on the agenda of cost savings but you are on the agenda. Over time you will get shafted in all areas of pay and conditions to make the operation pay, if it doesn't pay it will be cut out because the competition from outside can do it without your overheads.

[Tandemrotor]

issi noho

"because the competition from outside can do it without your overheads."

"welcome to the start of the low cost model."

BA does not operate in a vacuum. It competes with virtually every carrier I can think of.

It has a business model of it's very own.

That business model recently made it the most profitable airline in the World!

Are you getting the hang of this yet???

[issi noho]

It is not enough to be the most profitable airline in the world, airlines don't perform well in terms of turn over, staff levels overheads.

Stop comparing yourselves to other airlines and feeling smug, look at other similar sized businesses and what can and will be acheived.

The future is bright but not for all of you, and there is little you or any post here can do about it.

[The SSK]

BA have just announced their November figures - decent market growth, stonking load factors, huge growth in premium traffic.

The analysts are loving it.

[marlowe]

Has anybody got an insight into the BACX roadshow that Evans and his mates are supposed to be unveiling around the bases this week ? the new direction of the company is supposed to be revealed to the masses so anyone any credible info?

[ShortfinalFred]

Thats right, all you doomsayers, make BA an even more anonymous and crap place to work and there will still be a queue right out the door to get spat-on from on high by the likes of the current management team, who hold the pilot workforce in open contempt!

I kind of doubt it somehow.

With no pension to look forward to, no bidding rights if the rumours are to be believed, an "attendance management policy" that flies in the face of the ANO, (premise: go sick, trigger an AMP "stage", require "improvement" = if your body lets you down again within a specified period = you are on the fast track to dismissal = so people fly when they are sick because their improvement plan compels them to), no career prospects as command time lengthens out, and flying 850 hours or so a year in a shorthaul, fixed-link, multi-sector touring environment, or 900 hours per year longhaul; then I am sure that the screw can be tightened some more and new joiners induced to join AND STAY with BA - not!

BA's employee relations with its pilot workforce are like something from the last century but one, and getting worse as they try to emulate the "success" of the Ry@nair "employee relations model", (scare the living daylights out of the workforce using lies, intimidation and deceit), into creating a cowed and abject workforce.

If you aspire to be an anonymous "cost problem", (recent pilot manager description of BA pilots), then come on down. Best you remain anonymous too, for if they do know your name you can expect its either because you are in a shee@ load of trouble or they want to force draft you (compulsory working on days off to cover pilot number shortfalls deliberately created to wreck the bidline agreement.)


Why do BA pilot management hold its pilots in open contempt? Because we are clinging - on to the pension and scheduling agreement that we signed on for as part of our contracts and this is stopping the upper echelons from reaping 350% bonuses if they bust our contract by getting rid of them.

Any idea that you are joining a "team" is pure fantasy. The guys and girls on the line are great - the camaraderie of the oppressed - but the BA team is not one where morale or a sense of joint purpose is going to be engendered by your employer.

I kind of doubt that the gleeful cries of the BA naysayers is going to cut it either. BMI, for example, are losing P2's as they treat them even worse than we do!

[woodpecker]

Well said Fred, or Fred said right, or Right said Fred.

Hang on to your Bidline, your Part Six, your downtown hotel. You owe it to the next generation of Pilots within (and outside) BA.

There seem to be so many that would like to see BA conditions go down the tube. Could it be simply envy?

Forget the standards that the low cost carriers management have imposed on their pilots. Leave you packed lunch at home. You are the best, make sure you maintain the conditions you deserve.

[PAXboy]

ShortFinalFred... scare the living daylights out of the workforce using lies, intimidation and deceit, into creating a cowed and abject workforce. I am sad to hear of another company going down this route but it is nothing new, that does not make it any better, but you can look around and learn from those who have suffered and decided whether you fight, limp to retirement or get out.

Some 11 years ago, I was working for a multi-national (a global name that you would all know). I had been there less than the statutory two years for protected employment when I upset my manager [even without reporting his alchoholism]. Subsequently, HIS manager AND Humourless Remains believed his trumped up story. I asked an 'old lag' at the company what I should do. Fight this rubbish and seek compensation for unfair dismisal - or take a month's money in lieu and walk out to find another job and save myself the heart ache. He said, "This is what they do and they always win." So I walked and have no regrets. True I had much, MUCH less at stake but please do not think that BA is some kind of new and special nasty employer. Any big company must, sooner or later, come to this.

[Skylion]

Some of these exchanges look pretty depressing. There appears to be no sense of BA folk feeling that they all belong to one company but rather that all of any other group are underworked,- unnecessary even, overpaid and largely superfluous. " Management" is a very broad term. Like any other business BA relies on people to both operate it and to sell, market, organise, negotiate ( there's a big world out there , all competing for its business), recruit etc etc. It needs excellence and efficiency in all it does or the competitors will finish it off ( and not all have to make a profit). It will only attract investment if it is a good commercial risk. If it isn't, folk will just lend money to and invest in other businesses instead. BA may be profitable as an airline but it's returns as a business are still not great. For each group to be at loggerheads with every other is a recipe for disaster. Changes in all sorts of things will be necessary to keep the company's head above water. Remember Pan Am, TWA and scores of others?
Factionalism is a disaster to any organisation,- just look at what has happened to political parties who have over indulged in it. There are good and bad managers, pilots, cabin crew, engineers etc etc. All should be sorted and any unnecessary ones thanked and sent on their way. Screaming " all managers are bad unnecessary etc etc" belittles the huge contribution made by many.

[issi noho]

qte

BA does not operate in a vacuum. It competes with virtually every carrier I can think of.

It has a business model of it's very own.

That business model recently made it the most profitable airline in the World!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tandemrotor

that's why you're a pilot not the CEO

BA has some excellent people and products but it is also out performed in some areas of your your business. In significant KPI's you are massively behind the competition. Skylion tells it well.

This thread is not named Willie surprises everybody by maintaining the status quo, nor is he ever likely to be quoted as saying if anybody needs me I'll be in my office checking out my new Laurel chair.

One of the objects of the current exercise is to reduce the cost base, pilots are part of it. If willie could pay you as bus drivers with bonuses for OTD or timely QRH drills and maybe a fellowship of the RAeS for a well handled V1 cut he would prefer it, you/we are necessary evils within the commercial aviation industry. He has said being a pilot is boring, even airbus call the 380 "uncrashable" (I know this is a misquote but it's the way it will be remembered); phrases like this devalue the profession. we are being attacked by our employers (as you would expect) but our status in the eyes of the general public has never been lower. Boys and Girls want to be celebrities not pilots. I, like you I'm sure, place great store by my professional conduct and achievements and I'm sadened when I see us brought into disrepute, but we should be united by and as a professional body to ensure standards, both professional and financial remuneration, are maintained, for the good of those in the profession today and those who will follow.

Unusually we should be taking advice from the health service. Doctors have only just demanded pay and conditions representative of the time and services for years provided on good will, the result being their status as a profession is now on the ascent. Our status needs to be raised, for heavens sake Actors give themselves awards continuously where once they were considered jesters and no hopers.

As for BA and the swinging axe, Willie has a team of people defining your core business, it no doubt runs to hundreds of pages, what you should do is sit down and decide where the seat you occupy sits within the multi-faceted business that is BA. Is it core, is under performing, is it savable or will it be axed. It is no good just saying the November figures look great, break them down and see where your problems are to identify where, if at all, the axe will fall. Be prepared and armed with the answers to the questions the business faces.

Willie wants BA to be profitable, so do you; it's a matter of degree. Justify the considerable cost you are for the sake of the rest of us.

Ta

[PAXboy]

BA finds itself in the same position as many others: it is old and that means that it is near to the end of it's natural life. Whils the company has undergone several major 'D' overhauls, basically, the airframe is getting close to the natural time limit.

All companies (and govts and institutions) face this. In the UK at present, we have Marks & Sparks and Boots on the way down as well. They might be able to merge and meld or they might not. Any company that has a long history will have accumulated more baggae than it can carry. If they can negotiate themselves into a good merger (like Boots is trying) they might last a lot longer. Companies die for many reasons, some of which are:[list=1]
They made a colossal financial gamble and lost
They broke the law
They were overtaken by younger competitors
Old age
[/list=1] You just have to judge which one will apply and how long to go before it happens. As I indicate, every employee should be considering their employer in this light at least once a year and more rapidly as the noose tightens.

But one of the most consistent reasons for a company failing and losing everything (pensions included) is that the managment think that they can buck the trend and outsmart all the others. Mostly they can't and so, rather than a measured and managed merger, they hit the wall and some lucky company picks up the pieces for peanuts. Currently, M&S is in this category. Where BA is - I cannot be sure, for that will depend upon WW and the Board.

[HZ123]

Paxboy makes some very good points and I agree entirely with his views on BA being outdated and having undergone a make over too far. It will indeed have to reinvent itself in the next decade or await a takeover if it can make cost saving improvements. Survival at its present levels with regular tampering is not good enough for the shareholders or the financial markets. It is noticeable that the new a/c orders do not emrace BA but innthe main are from Asian / Middle East carriers who innthe next decade will cause the western airlines a great deal of grief.

[Joetom]

BA will be having a strange time over the next 2/3yrs.

1. They will reduce numbers, many fine staff will leave and many slackers will remain.

2. Staff will be worried about all the changes and focus will be lost/confused.

3. Staff will not accept pension changes.

4. Terminal 5 will open and Heathrow will be hard work on a good day, horrible if it rains,snows or is windy.

5. Other cash rich airlines flying bigger and bigger aircrafts to Heathrow and other UK Airports.

It will be like getting Married, have a Baby, change Jobs, move House, get Divorced and a Family Member being advised by the Doctor they have Cancer. Not a nice time.

But it will be Fun To Watch.!!!

[bealine]

I fear you're right, joetom. The Masonic Order used to have a double-entendre message when ending a meeting with a non-Mason..........."May you live in interesting times!"

It sounded like a compliment but could actually have been construed somewhat differently!

All of us at BA are indeed "living in interesting times" and, thanks to the blasted Gate Gourmet fiasco, our properly elected Trades Union representatives are virtually powerless!!!

[Carnage Matey!]

BA finds itself in the same position as many others: it is old and that means that it is near to the end of it's natural life........In the UK at present, we have Marks & Sparks and Boots on the way down as well

I'm I the only one living in the real world here? IIRC BA is currently one of the most profitable airlines in the world and possibly the most profitable airline in Europe, despite being in an intensely competitive market skewed by state funding and loss-leading lo-cos scrambling for market share. Can someone explain to me how that is considered 'on the way down'?

And for whichever plonker said short haul pilots will have to do as many duty hours as necesary to reach 900 flying hours, well I'm sorry to inform you that they won't. Duty hours are invariably the limiting factor on shorthaul, not flying hours, and no matter what WW does there's still only going to be 365 days in a year. If he wants more duty hours he'll have to get the CAA to change the rules.

[manintheback]

quote:
__________________________________________________
I'm I the only one living in the real world here? IIRC BA is currently one of the most profitable airlines in the world and possibly the most profitable airline in Europe, despite being in an intensely competitive market skewed by state funding and loss-leading lo-cos scrambling for market share.
__________________________________________________

True - unfortunately BA are a PLC. So need to be compared to business as a whole not the Airline Industry only as its the markets that determine their future. And a £3.3 billion debt allied to a rather large investment needed for fleet renewal and then that little pension problem.

They still cant pay a dividend and somewhere down the line a price will have to be paid. Thats why WW needs those annual (large or huge - you decide) cost savings.

[Carnage Matey!]

As I'm sure has been mentoined elsewhere, the pension deficit could be paid off in a little over a year if they chose to. The pensions regulator certainly won't let them pay one whlst they continue to pay off debt (which is now down below £2bn) rather than deficit. Fleet renewal is a red herring. We have a brand spanking new fleet of V2500 powered Airbusses, the oldest of which is just 6 years old. LGW won't get any new aircraft until it makes a profit, which is at least two years away. The oldest 777s are only about 8 years old and the oldest 744s are only 15 with a minimum 5 years of life left. Fleet renewal is not a short term prospect, and even it would only be with a few extra 777s and the release of some 744s. The 747 -800 is still on the drawing board and theres nothing to say we'd buy them in any large quantity any time soon. Management bonusses and dividends - thats the real goal of the efficiency drive.

Suggesting that because BA is a PLC it should be considered in the context of business as a whole is a rather moot point. If you want to make money these days you don't invest in airlines. Even if you do consider it in that context were still doing better than M&S!

[no sponsor]

The car and IT industries are a good indication for what BA will face in the next few years.

Air travel is mostly a commodity for the vast majority of travellers. As with any commodity (seats in this case) you survive only by cutting costs to a margin where you can be profitable. As everyone does this, you can’t differentiate on price, so your differentiator will be customer care.

But, simple as it sounds, those companies lumbered with pensions, health schemes, and highly unionised workforces make change difficult and add to your cost base making it hard to adapt and reduce margins.

If you look at Ford, GM and other US car companies, they are all nearing the end of their lives - if they continue to operate in the US. They all have cost bases which make competition impossible with the likes of Honda, Toyota and others without the legacy of 50+ years of operation. I guess the Honda equivalent for BA is Virgin, Emirates etc.

18 years ago who would have considered that IBM would be the company it is today? One of the most respected consultants at the time wrote a book called 'In search of excellence' promoting IBM as the case study for all companies to follow. 3 years later IBM posted the biggest corporate loss of all time. Now its main business has little to do with personal computers. But, the PC market is still alive and well; Dell could start from scratch and produce PCs at a fraction of the cost that IBM could.

A deregulated airline industry will face the same challenges. It will be interesting to see how the management of BA will face it.

[Hotel Mode]

The Emirates competition is overstated, the only places they can serve with less stops than BA is Australasia and the smaller cities of the Far East/India. Business pax will never fly LHR to NRT/HKG/DEL/SIN via DXB when there are direct options. They will take more low yield tourist and VFR market but BA fill from the front not the back. VS are similar they have been going 21 years now not quite the new startup anymore, they are even getting strike threats from crew. They have some mature routes that they still cant get the loads up enough to go double daily, and they pulled off ORD which is very profitable for BA.

[Carnage Matey!]

Dell already does produce PCs at a fraction of the cost IBM does. So why is IBM still one of the worlds largest and most profitable IT providers? Because it sees IT as a service rather than a product and tailors its business to suit that. Dell produce the commodit and once its shipped thats the end of it. You got a problem? Call the helpdesk in Bangalore where they won't be able to help you. Dell can ship to the public at cheapo prices but if you need an integrated IT solution with support and flexibility you go to IBM. Which is actually a very good analogy for the airline industry. You want cheapo commodities then go to Easyjet. If your doing business in 4 continents in 8 days and you need back up when the schedule goes awry who are you going to go to?

You can look at Ford, GM and other US car companies all you want, but when did they last make any money? BA has followed and occasionally bucked the airline trend. When they lost money, nobody made any money. When the people were making profits BA were raking it in. Virgin provide competition but they ain't no Honda. They can do the product more cheaply but they don't necessarily do it better as many an airline award will testify. Whilst they make much of their 'innovation', many of their ideas are simply following other areas of the industry. 4 years to get a fully flat bed doesn't sound much like innovation to me.

These arguments always seem to boild down to the idea that some people think that cost is the only differentiator. That may be true if you travel in the low yield economy classes. The reality is that the money is up the front end of the aircraft where publised prices bear little relation to the actual fares paid and price is but one of many differentiators. Anybody can take Joe Bloggs from A to B. Its the service standards which differentiate the airlines.

[no sponsor]

Exactly CM, when cost has been done to death, everyone has to differentiate themselves on something else. Cost reduction is only ever a short term gain, and never a customer retention strategy, as most companies who outsource their customer care to India are finding out. Once you've all done it, then where do you go? Most head towards better customer experience strategies to differentiate. This is what Easy Jet are attempting to do, and BA have always made a claim for that crown, (although as an ex-Gold card holder I think they are very mistaken, ever since you got rid of the customer care group based in T4...)

Incidentally, there is no cost difference in a Club World ticket versus a Upper Class ticket to Boston, LA, Jo-Burg, Cape Town etc...so it's what lounge you prefer, schedules, ease of check-in etc.

Anyway the point is that you have to evolve, as IBM did. But, how easy does your legacy allow it, and can you do it in time?

[manintheback]

quote:
__________________________________________________
Suggesting that because BA is a PLC it should be considered in the context of business as a whole is a rather moot point. If you want to make money these days you don't invest in airlines. Even if you do consider it in that context were still doing better than M&S!
__________________________________________________

And I would suggest that is THE point. BA have to convince the markets else no-one will invest (and given the rise in share price over the last 6 months, very short term at least they are doing it). No investors, no BA.

Somewhere down the line they need to return dividends otherwise whats the point?. The market against BA at the moment is skewed, with some of their major competition in bankruptcy protection of one sort or another, illegally subsidised airlines in Europe (Alitalia and its one chance last chance funding that now appears to be one chance last chance until the next chance for example. How many times will Olympic be saved, and as for Air France - enuff said)

Whilst I disagree with the debt levels mentioned, WW and the board most certainly have their work cut out over the next 5 years or so.

[MarkD]

carnage matey

there are indeed 57 reasonably shiny v2500 Airbus 32x.

but needing replacement sooner or later will be:
10 CFM56 A320 - BUSB FF was 1987.
33 B733/4/5 - LGTH FF was 1988.
13 B752/752ER - CPEL FF was 1989.

- so pretty much half the European fleet. There are only 7 more A32x on order at present but Willie likes cutting types.

Hopefully WW's contacts in Airbus are still good from the EI order - although they might not be too pleased at his public poohpoohing of the 380 :D

[derekl]

Couple of points:

Carnage: IBM have sold their PC business in its entirety to Lenovo, a Chinese Company. Turns out IBM didn't make a penny out of PCs in the last five years.

Outsourcing: Dell outsourced all their support to India, but the customer backlash was so strong in the US that all US support has now been repatriated. Dell won their position by being a 'clean sheet' operation that held no inventory of parts and used customers' credit cards to finance operations.

In both cases, traditional business models no longer work. That's why BA must change -- ailines are having the traditional model challenged. However, what the LoCos can do on short-haul won't necessarily work on long-haul where the customer profile and the challenges are different. No cabin service on an 11-hour flight to the West Coast? I don't think so.

[PAXboy]

Carnage Matey!Can someone explain to me how that is considered 'on the way down'? Not because of short term profits but long term history. BA has had a horribly mixed life - due to politicians - and I suspect that the enforced BOAC/BEA merger will yet be one of the causes of its undoing. They have to find a way for mainline and CitiExpress to live and work together. As an outsider, I see no evidence of that, for each side seems to to dislike the other and common ground is small. But there is more history that will affect the future. As with any hull loss, the death of a company can be traced back to often small and disparate failures that eventually link up. VS is not a direct competitor for BA in all areas and, as I understand it, never set out to be so. In another 50 years they will also be looking for parachutes!

no sponsorthe point is that you have to evolve, as IBM did. Yes!!! The way in which IBM managed to pull success from disaster is a text book case. BUT the advantages for IBM were:[list=1]
The disaster was of their own making (the PC) rather than politicians (Nationalisation and enforced merger) and so they could unpick it.
I.T. was developing into new areas, whereas the carrying of bodies is, essentially, the same as it always has been.
The I.T. world has little regulation of the product itself (as opposed to business practise) but the airlines are regulated for every inch that they move.
Computers may be the cause of national esteem but not the frenzied cries of 'flag carrying' that so badly drags down all mainline carriers.
A failure of IT causes irritation but only occasionally the loss of life.
[/list=1] Accordingly, the opportunties to evolve/develop (or any other buzz words) is very small.

manintheback is dead right to point out the skewed market. Once Olympic is gone (in it's present form), one of the US carriers goes bust and if AF/KLM ever get themselves sorted, then the world will be even more uncomfortable for the likes of BA.

To give them credit, they saw all this coming and have tried mergers but failed. They cannot afford to go it alone (no main carrier can) and they must find partners. In the short term, cutting costs is all they can do and removing types or replacing airframes is all by the by. The strategy has to be, first, to fix the CitiExpress/Mainline problem and - concurrently - Find a good partner. That, however, may well mean a change in the law of more than one country. But laws can be changed and most govts would prefer to have some sort of airline biz than none.

[Carnage Matey!]

I'm really struggling to see how you're forming your conclusions here PAXboy because they really don't seem to be supported by the facts you present. You are harking back about 30 years to the merger of BOAC and BEA and claiming that that is the albatross that will sink BA? If that was going to happen do you not think it would have happened a long time ago, given Lockerbie, Mid East terrorism, oil shocks, Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2, 9/11, Foot and Mouth etc etc. I remember reading these forums towards the back end of 2001 and again during Gulf War 2 and the message was the same - BA is doomed, too expensive, no more than two years to live. But here we still are, most profitable airline in Europe.

They have to find a way for mainline and CitiExpress to live and work together
Easily achieved. Mainline do LHR & LGW, BACX do everything in the regions. The dismal performance of BACX has nothing to do with their inability to operate out of LHR or LGW, where their aircraft are too small to effectively utilise valuable slots, and everything to do with an utterly inept management team who screwed up the operation and wrecked BAR before them.

Once Olympic is gone (in it's present form), one of the US carriers goes bust and if AF/KLM ever get themselves sorted, then the world will be even more uncomfortable for the likes of BA.
Now that statement I find totally bizarre! Are you really suggesting that once the subsidised competition goes bust and the relentless downwards pressure on transatlantic yield is eased things will get harder? I'm sorry but the logic of that escapes me completely. As for AF/KLM, yes they'll have some big efficiency savings when the merger is complete (assuming their 'history' doesn't create problems as you believe it does for BA), but how will they tackle productivity. The benchmarking data shows BA pilots are flying about 150 hours per year,or nearly 20% more than AF pilots. Do you think they'll take to a similar increase in their productivity? We're doing a lot more than KLM too.

The strategy has to be, first, to fix the CitiExpress/Mainline problem and - concurrently - Find a good partner.
I agree with finding a partner but then it's no secret that the board have been longer at that for years. However I do think you have something of an obsession with what you call CitiExpress/Mainline problem. Whilst BACX may be the biggest regional airline in Europe, it's revenues are a drop in the ocean to BA, and its losses totalled about £30M last year, which is even moer money than the accountants would have you believe short haul lost. Fix the BACX problem by all means - replacing the management would be a great start - but don't try to claim some huge synergy remains untapped because they remain seperate organisations. They're different types of operation for different types of flying.

MarkD - age is but a number in aircraft life terms and one of many factors. If the 757 fleet goes how do you think that will affect operating costs for the 767/757 fleet as a whole. As for Gatwick, like I said, they won't be getting anything new until they can turn a proit, which is at least a couple of years away.

manintheback - your estimate of the debt levels is significantly too high. Trust me, we get the debt levels rammed down our throats each week in the company newspaper, by e-mail, by mailshot DVD presentations, by management presentations and by very large posters at our workplace. It's all part of the propoganda campaign surrounding the pension issue. Even they don't claim the debt is at £3.3Bn.

nosponsor -
Incidentally, there is no cost difference in a Club World ticket versus a Upper Class ticket to Boston, LA, Jo-Burg, Cape Town
With that statement I think I know where you are getting your information from, and I think its the current big red advertising campaign by Virgin which says just that. The real world, as ever, is rather more complex and when you factor in corporate discounting the difference in fares and service could be quite different betwee carriers. It all depends who you've got the best deal with.

[Swedish Steve]

Just a small point but only 4 of the B757 are old, the others are much newer around 1998. I was told by our Planning Director that these would stay till 2014, which is about the replacement time for the B767 as well. So they will probably be replaced by one type?

[Sunfish]

IMHO, Britain has an entrenched class system that does not seem to produce large, well managed organisations. I note the latest appointee as leader of the Conservative party as a shining example of what's not needed - no life experience outside politics, and born with a silver spoon, no experience of adversity.

If you want to know what you are likely to be confronting in terms of business models, have a look at Googles "Seven Rules" (reprinted below lifted from Newsweek, but available elsewhere anyway). I would like to suggest that the first airline that can come up with an equivalently striking and appropriate model will crush BA, Ryanair and all the rest.

I do not think that a British Airline (or any British business) could run this way.


"At Google, we seek that (competitive) advantage. The ongoing debate about whether big corporations are mismanaging knowledge workers is one we take very seriously, because those who don't get it right will be gone. We've drawn on good ideas we've seen elsewhere and come up with a few of our own. What follows are seven key principles we use to make knowledge workers most effective. As in most technology companies, many of our employees are engineers, so we will focus on that particular group, but many of the policies apply to all sorts of knowledge workers.

* Hire by committee. Virtually every person who interviews at Google talks to at least half-a-dozen interviewers, drawn from both management and potential colleagues. Everyone's opinion counts, making the hiring process more fair and pushing standards higher. Yes, it takes longer, but we think it's worth it. If you hire great people and involve them intensively in the hiring process, you'll get more great people. We started building this positive feedback loop when the company was founded, and it has had a huge payoff.
* Cater to their every need. As Drucker says, the goal is to "strip away everything that gets in their way." We provide a standard package of fringe benefits, but on top of that are first-class dining facilities, gyms, laundry rooms, massage rooms, haircuts, carwashes, dry cleaning, commuting buses—just about anything a hardworking engineer might want. Let's face it: programmers want to program, they don't want to do their laundry. So we make it easy for them to do both.
* Pack them in. Almost every project at Google is a team project, and teams have to communicate. The best way to make communication easy is to put team members within a few feet of each other. The result is that virtually everyone at Google shares an office. This way, when a programmer needs to confer with a colleague, there is immediate access: no telephone tag, no e-mail delay, no waiting for a reply. Of course, there are many conference rooms that people can use for detailed discussion so that they don't disturb their office mates. Even the CEO shared an office at Google for several months after he arrived. Sitting next to a knowledgeable employee was an incredibly effective educational experience.
* Make coordination easy. Because all members of a team are within a few feet of one another, it is relatively easy to coordinate projects. In addition to physical proximity, each Googler e-mails a snippet once a week to his work group describing what he has done in the last week. This gives everyone an easy way to track what everyone else is up to, making it much easier to monitor progress and synchronize work flow.
* Eat your own dog food. Google workers use the company's tools intensively. The most obvious tool is the Web, with an internal Web page for virtually every project and every task. They are all indexed and available to project participants on an as-needed basis. We also make extensive use of other information-management tools, some of which are eventually rolled out as products. For example, one of the reasons for Gmail's success is that it was beta tested within the company for many months. The use of e-mail is critical within the organization, so Gmail had to be tuned to satisfy the needs of some of our most demanding customers—our knowledge workers.
* Encourage creativity. Google engineers can spend up to 20 percent of their time on a project of their choice. There is, of course, an approval process and some oversight, but basically we want to allow creative people to be creative. One of our not-so-secret weapons is our ideas mailing list: a companywide suggestion box where people can post ideas ranging from parking procedures to the next killer app. The software allows for everyone to comment on and rate ideas, permitting the best ideas to percolate to the top.
* Strive to reach consensus. Modern corporate mythology has the unique decision maker as hero. We adhere to the view that the "many are smarter than the few," and solicit a broad base of views before reaching any decision. At Google, the role of the manager is that of an aggregator of viewpoints, not the dictator of decisions. Building a consensus sometimes takes longer, but always produces a more committed team and better decisions
* Don't be evil. Much has been written about Google's slogan, but we really try to live by it, particularly in the ranks of management. As in every organization, people are passionate about their views. But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies. We foster to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes men.
* Data drive decisions. At Google, almost every decision is based on quantitative analysis. We've built systems to manage information, not only on the Internet at large, but also internally. We have dozens of analysts who plow through the data, analyze performance metrics and plot trends to keep us as up to date as possible. We have a raft of online "dashboards" for every business we work in that provide up-to-the-minute snapshots of where we are.
* Communicate effectively. Every Friday we have an all-hands assembly with announcements, introductions and questions and answers. (Oh, yes, and some food and drink.) This allows management to stay in touch with what our knowledge workers are thinking and vice versa. Google has remarkably broad dissemination of information within the organization and remarkably few serious leaks. Contrary to what some might think, we believe it is the first fact that causes the second: a trusted work force is a loyal work force."

[ShortfinalFred]

Well by those standards BA is doomed indeed! Decade and a half in BA and all I've seen is the antithesis of the above post, and now we have, DA DA:- WW with his bonus scheme for upper upper management designed to scr@w everyone else royally. We are on a hiding to nothing. BA staff are expected to give and give whilst he and the wrecking crew take and take. Not a prayer. Sell your shares now or look for a new job - I will be doing both.

[Joetom]

I remember about 17/18 years ago getting stuck at Heathrow and looking at the aircrafts landing or taking off.

I noticed many BA aircraft types. from memory. 1-11/Trident/Tristar/Concord/737/747/757/DC10.

I was talking to a BA pilot later the same day and mentioned what I had viewed and advised that I thought so many types of aircrafts would be awkward and cost much money to operate, he advised me that in future BA will fix the problem.

Over time I can see how well they have done. various config 737-3/4/500's/744/757/767 with RR(only operator me thinks)777 with two eng types/320 family with two eng types.

I hear they looking very hard at 747-800 and 777-2/300ER/LR, but also thinking of 787/350 and 380 with all different engine types.

I know the saying eggs for eggs, but just may be a lesson from Ryan or Easy could be passed on to WaterWorld

[Rainboe]

Sorry, but garbage. BA are large enough to achieve savings in quantity. They can then go to match capacity to routes and achieve further savings. Virgin got large enough to be able to mix 2 types- 340 & 747. BA is several orders up and the fleet mix is good.

[Carnage Matey!]

But if you consider what is necessary to crew these aircraft then the fleet consists of:
737
A320
757/767
747
777

Just five aircraft types for short, medium, long and ultra long haul travel. Reasonably efficient I'd say.

Compare that with:

Virgin: only 23 aircraft and 744s, 343s and 346s in there.
Lufthansa: 737, various 320s, 330, 343, 346, A300, 744, MD11.
Air France: 737s, A320s, 330s, 340s, 777s, 747s, possibly A300s still?
KLM: 737, 767, 777,743(?), 744, MD11
SAS: 737s, MD80, MD90, various 320s, 330, 340, 767

[DarkStar]

The problem about BA's numerous fleets and sub-fleets is that BA has historically conducted mods that make the aircraft very difficult to sell on to other operators. BA has finally cottoned onto this and are trying to reduce the number of 'BA specific' mods.

BA is overloaded with Senior Managers, in fact, you could easily say its overloaded at all staffing levels except during Wimbledon and Henley when the CC seem to develop serious illness's for a few days.

The cuts are small beer really, I think HZ123 has hit the nail on the head though. T5 has major problems already in place with massive coaching demands required and outdated working practices and agreements amongst the Ramp staff and Aircraft movements.

[PAXboy]

Carnage Matey! I agree that BA has survived a great deal but – looking in from the outside – the consistent theme has been the variance between long and short haul. If the company thinks that it is no longer a problem, then fine. But it looks to me as if this is an old sore that may open again. My comments about BACX were also about their management and how several profitable companies have been boiled down into a loss making one.

With regards to the changes when the next wave of closures and mergers has taken place: As I often say on PPRuNe, I am not an airline analyst just a UK worker and rider. But, if BA thinks that, once their rivals die a natural death, their life will get easier – then I think that they are wrong. Firstly, because you cannot rely upon another company failing for you to succeed and secondly, because by the time that wave is complete, another five or seven years will have rolled by and all savings will have been taken and the shareholders will want MORE money. You can only squeeze just so much. Ask the UK National Health Service.
Fix the BACX problem by all means - replacing the management would be a great start - but don't try to claim some huge synergy remains untapped because they remain separate organisations. They're different types of operation for different types of flying.
Indeed they are and that is what I have been saying, possibly badly! The company exists as two sub groupings who (it appears) challenge each other – rather than looking outward. It is a long standing mgmt ‘technique’ to get divisions to compete for the attention of the CEO and Board. In the long run, I aver, it tends to do more damage.

Sunfish: The Google quotes are interesting but not really relevant as the two companies are startlingly different.[list=a]
One company is 10 years old and the other is between 40 and 80 years, depending upon your starting point.
One company has "4,183 as of June 30, 2005, many of whom are technical/engineering" (Google.com today) and the other has considerably more, I cannot find the reference off hand but think that the last time it was mentioned, it was about 56,000?
One company sells software that does not have a shelf life and the basic code can be developed further into something new and the other sells seats that cease to have a value, the moment the flight closes and they can never be sold again.
One company sells software delivered on CD or downloaded with only conventional business practice to worry about, the other sells a product that has to fly through the air at +550mph in total safety and are subject to thousands of regulations across the globe.[/list=a]
Need I go on? There is no comparison.

Whilst I agree that there is still a class system in the UK (just as there is in every single grouping of humans around the globe!) you may be sure that, in commerce, it only applies in small areas. In my view (27 years in commerce here and abroad) the broad swathe of 'class' no longer applies.

[MarkD]

CM

Your comments re fleet may be so but it is not WW's philosophy - otherwise EI's 737s wouldn't be flying around Russia now. While there might be cause to say 321 and 757 can coexist, given 752s better range, the 733/4/5 fleet is an unnecessary duplication with the A319/A320 fleet (or vice versa depending on your POV). The 767s and up do not overlap in terms of pax carried etc and thus truly serve different purposes.

WW has likely taken Southwest's "It's 25+ or it's none" philosophy to heart. Of course, he could be waiting for Boeing to produce 737-4G or Airbus the NG 320...

[HZ123]

I cannot see the correlation of BA to IBM anyway. The upshot of all of these threads still comes back to BA having to overcome competition and the possibility of a depressed / low fares market which is increasing in volume daily. The headcount can be reduced by thousands and maybe some / all of the ground operations - check-in, ramp plus others needs to be outsourced. At present surely our fleet age and type is not a major issue. We need to ensure that the seats are taken and the yields increase. Over the next few years you will witness BA emerging as one of the most profitable groups again, just watch the share price.

[Carnage Matey!]

MarkD - you overlook the fact that Aer Lingus was, and still is, a very small airline. There are few economies of scale when you're operating 15 Airbusses and 11 737s. Even with rationalisation the entire fleet now consists of just 27 short haul and 7 long haul Airbusses! Compare that with BAs LGW operation which is 30+ 737s. We get greater economies of scale from one sub-division of BA than Aer Lingus could get from their entire fleet!

When the savings from type commonality and engineering and crewing costs exceeds the cost of replacing 30+ 737s then I'm sure the LGW 737s will be replaced. Until that time the 73s are staying because nobody will be driven by dogma to replace them just because it makes the fleet look nice.

[bar none]

At last maybe a glimmer of hope. It is rumoured that the 757 fleet will not be retired but deployed outside London to operate niche routes.
The first, and most unexpected, niche route is expected to be Man Amm to connect with new one world carrier Royal Jordanian who will be providing a multitude of easterly connections.
Emirates watch out !

[brian_dromey]

All the noise about BACX????

BA, IMO, needs to have an assertive presence at regional airports around the british isles, obviously they all nee to be profitable as well. BA have simply walked away from european ops. That all very well while the LOCO's are operating on low yield intra european services, but what about if they spread their wings? Will BA just walk away? Will it have a choice?

If I were WW i would scrap BACX, give shiny new embraer 190/195s to independant operators,(unless BA can operate them at a lower cost,with better service). Then add a select few 170s for LCY, etc, consolidate the A32X to london, and send the Boeings to the regions, eventually replacing them with A32x or 190/195.

Then dump the 757/767 for a350 OR 787, replace the 744 with 773ER and volá 4 types, all perfectly tailored for their market, comfort improved, costs reduced. Only problem....its expense!

[cirrus01]

The BA 737 fleet is already reducing , several -400s have gone in the last 12 months. I believe that the leases are all up by 2008. So BA S/H have to re-equip or change or disappear by then.

Even if every BA LGW short haul flight departed on time, had every seat filled, had nil defects and ADDs..............LGW would still be in the firing line to lose flights/people as a sacrifice to the "nationalised industry " ethos that pervades BA ( Protect LHR at any cost )

One option that BA want is 3CC instead of 4 on the smaller 737s........this suggestion has been greeted with horror by the lemon slicers, who might then have to work as hard as their counterparts in the orange machines...............:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[Da Dog]

cirrus01, I would,nt if I were you knock the LGW SH lemon slicers;)

Maybe their LHR counter parts might want to help them out by doing 45 sectors a month, 25 minute turnarounds and 9 days off a month.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree:zzz:

[Carnage Matey!]

Hey you can't call them lemon slicers! The lemons come pre-sliced these days.

[MarkD]

Carnage - true but there are three subtypes (733/4/5) in that 33. Of the 27 A32x in EI's fleet, 21 are 320s and there are rumblings of more to come. In fact some would say EI needs a little more fractioning with 319s or 318s to make some of their newer routes make sense.

Looking at the Fact Book BA had 47 319 options (at least some convertible) at 31.12.2004 but surely some delivery positions will have to be taken soon if 2008 deliveries are contemplated. As for the existing a/c, 733s and 735s are leased (as are 30 of the A319/320s) but only 1 734 is down as leased in the Fact Book.

[flyer55]

The decision to replace the 737's @ lgw will not be made until March 2007

[Hansol]

I still think Willie will take the low hanging fruit first, BACX and Gatwick. BA has made great strides recently but it still has a long way to go, as long as Willie stays motovated and empowered I am confident he will do the job. But this is a big if, he needs to take on the unions at all levels and reach an accomodation. Interesting times indeed.

[PAXboy]

I have just heard a succinct encapsulation of the current busines culture that, I think, holds, irrespective of the line of work: Apropos another large UK plc ... "Others stayed with it and became part of the recurring half times two times fifty percent culture. In other words, you get half the people - to do twice as much work - for fifty percent more money. :uhoh:

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[flyer55]

What ever WW has planned he will do but personally think he will go after LHR and Waterside!

[Yak97]

I think this was covered somewhere else after a well known Irishman's remarks but....

Does BA @ BHX have a long term future? With BA appearing to only be interested in LHR & T5, what does the BA operations at BHX add to the great scheme? With other UK destinations there are at least flights to LHR, but there's nothing from BHX, so no feed to the profitable(?) long haul flights.

Is WW sharpening his axe??

[Bomber Harris]

Breaking news on BBC world that BA have just sacked a union representative who was 'involved' somehow in the most recent baggage handlers strike. More reps under investigation.

Is this Willie upping the ante? Or is it a genuine disciplinary measure for orchestrating an unofficial strike?

It's not on the website yet so can't paste in the report for you.

[Carnage Matey!]

Try here (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/15122005/325/ba-says-sacks-employee-heathrow-strike.html)

If this was anything other than a genuine disciplinary measure BA would be exposing themselves to legal action for unfair dismissal.

[Bomber Harris]

Thanks Carnage.....now I can include the report. They said on the news he/she was a baggage handler. Is that correct anybody?

LONDON (Reuters) - British Airways, Europe's third-largest airline, said on Thursday it had dismissed one of the three of its employees facing disciplinary action over a strike at Heathrow this year.

"The dismissed employee has been found guilty of gross misconduct for playing a leading role in the walk out," BA said in a statement.

BA said a second employee had been issued with a written warning and suspended without pay for a month. Proceedings against a third employee continued.

[groundbum]

it seems mad to antagonise the unions a week before Xmas when fares are three or four times what they are in January. One out all out time, or work to rule, or call sickies or whatever the ground handlers are planning even now? This would be more poor publicity for BA.

You'd think all those clever managers could have arranged it that this fella received his dismissal news Jan 5th or sometime when traffic is down to a winter low!

S

[Carnage Matey!]

Yeah but who's going to organise the illegal walkout? Of the three who did it last time, one is now unemployed, one is suspended without pay for a month (handy for paying those xmas bills) and one is suspended on pay whilst still being investigated. It'll be a brave shop steward who organises a walk out now. BA still have the TGWU by the balls since the previous strikes organisers have claimed Tony Woodley personally told them to organis the action. Once sniff of a legitimate strike and the lawyers will be banging on his door with a demand for £45M!:E

[leander]

I agree with CM

This is no sign of weakness.

Illegal strike = sack.

Next.

[Jetstream Rider]

There is not much the union can do, unless BA didn't follow the disciplinary process. If they did, its all fair and square and open for inspection. Any strike due to that will by definition be unofficial and people risk thier jobs, as demonstrated.

[GOAROUNDMAN]

BA has sacked one of the organizers from last summers LHR strike and may sack the other two. What could come of this another strike?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4531556.stm

[normal_nigel]

The TGWU said if anyone was sacked they would ballot for strike action.

Willie must be rubbing his hands.

The very people he wanted his first fight with, no doubt.

He wanted them at the time but got overruled by Eddington and Street

[GOAROUNDMAN]

Correct me I am wrong but I get the impression that it's 'seconds out' and the bell has rung. It's looking like another strike but even other ground crews could walk as well this time. And just before Christmas. I have also heard that a lot flights out of LGW are being cut next year. Is this the beginning of the concildation to T5?

[Hotel Mode]

Where do you get this information from, surely the ground staff know they'll be out on their ear faster than you can say "outsourced" if they do it again, and T+G know that BA will be after them for the lost money from the last strike.

As for Gatwick, they are pulling out of HAJ and MUC but adding at least 4 new destinations instead.

[MarkD]

Let's hope BA have better policies in place than in Jessica Starmer's case.

[Joetom]

Very strange they sacked staff just before the xmas time, I belive this was due to problems in the summer time.

Can only guess managers are daft or enjoy a bun fight at a time when airlines take lots of cash of those customers, or option 3, managers are worried about own jobs and have lost the plot.

I think I know an Airline that makes its own trouble.????

[Hotel Mode]

Or a master stroke? The summers strikers know damn well that willy is not rod and will lock them out if they walk out unnoficially, and do they really want no pay in december. Any official action (unlikely given the loaded gun BA have at T+G's head) will take at least a month to organise taking us nicely into the quietest time of year.

[leander]

I really can't see why the BA bashers think this is a mistake. WW is just setting out his stall for the New Year.

The illegal strike caused untold damage to our reputation and balance sheet. For the management not to react would be completely irresponsible. BA seem to have decided that these shop stewards were responsible. They and the union have to decide whether they were acting in an official or personal capacity.

Personal = sack. Go bully someone else.

Official = legal action against the TGWU. Cough up.

Either way BA has laid down a marker to the militants that the door mat days are over. Some of us are keen to earn a living and provide the service our customers expect.

If there is a problem with this decision then I am sure that it will be settled at the Appeal. After that everybody will have a better appreciation of WW's mettle for the changes to come.

[HZ123]

I am not sure than I share the same enthusiam as many of you do for getting shot of the ramp staff. WW is only to aware that the shareholders also have to be accounted to. They have recieved nothing in the last five years. To lock out the ramp staff would bring BA to a standstill. There are no other companies that could could take on this task (staff nos on ramp about 2200). None of the present Handling companies could fulfill the functions or do it much better. The only consideration would be TUPE of ramp / customer service, but I doubt there are any companies that would want to take on a workforce of this size, with the conditions that BA would impose. In January there will be the completion of a review of ramp activities and how this may relate to the T5 start up.