Gb Airways Meeting

[HORKA]

Rumours of an important meeting, including the big cheese from BALPA at GB HQ. Not SCOPE rearing its ugly head again?

Any one know ?

[Mouser]

Who or what is SCOPE

[Piltdown Man]

SCOPE is where another bunch of your colleagues (maybe same union) but working for a different employer puts the brakes on your progression, carear prospects, company's financial status because you can appear to provide a similar service for less cost than they can. I know about this because my Ring Piece is still healing.

[Mouser]

Hang on, I know little about your industry, but let me get this straight, are you saying that a Nice little Airline like GB are about to get shafted buy some union bloke.

[yachtno1]

Tell us more Piltdown !:confused:

[Carnage Matey!]

Alternatively, SCOPE is where a group of pilots meet with their employer and agree that another airline will not be permitted to fly routes with identical aircraft painted in identical colours that the first airline can profitably operate. This helps to prevent the original airline farming out it all it's flying, and by default its pilots jobs, to A.N.Other operator.

The other airline is at liberty to do any flying it wants to, unhindered by a SCOPE agreement, so long as they do it as a seperate corporate entity and not masquerading as the original airline.

[Mouser]

So does that mean BA pilots are going to try work it right up GB pilots.

[Re-Heat]

Alternatively, SCOPE is where a group of pilots meet with their employer and agree that another airline will not be permitted to fly routes with identical aircraft painted in identical colours that the first airline can profitably operate.
Or alternatively employee group A shafting shareholders of A and employee group B, where although profitable a greater profitability can be achieved by other means. Especially where company B is prepared to take the risk and increase the size of employee group B, while company A cannot afford investment. Meanwhile employee group A have some warped belief that they own logo A, which is in fact owned by the company and shareholders.

Management A meanwhile take a reasonable decision to try to expand the exposure of logo A by taking codeshare partners under their wing - so to speak. Expanding the presence of the brand in the market beyond where A could reasonably afford to operate, and where B holds greater information about the route market.

Finally company B grows so large under the SCOPE agreement, that it decides to shed the logo A, and move to operating as a successful indepedent entity, ultimately competing agianst the bloated higher cost base of company A, which never had the chance to come down to a reasonable size being protected from the market by the wonderful union. aaah - the wonders of the socialist union concept - defended to the hilt by Tory voting pilots...

Ironically the largest shareholders are fund managers, whom are largely owned by pension funds. Funny that - unions shaft UK plc, and ultimately their own pensions...

[ShortfinalFred]

Re- Heat = load of simplistic twaddle.

[Re-Heat]

So you want me to break into some full-blown free market economics?

What are your credentials to call it twaddle then? Member of the union? What a surprise.

[Carnage Matey!]

Then in ten years time employee group B discover that employer B has realised employee group C will do the job for half the price. Company B starts farming out work to employee group C, whilst employee group B see their career prospects and commands go down the tubes because by using employee group C company B can make fractionally more profit.

Moral of the story: there's always somebody who'll do it cheaper.

Meanwhile the bloated high cost base company A remains one of the most profitable airlines in the world and continues to operate several times the number of shorthaul aircraft company B do to a more diverse range of destinations with a feed to longhaul, established frequent flyer program and a huge customer base. Company B become a poor mans bmi and probably flog their LHR slots.

[Tandemrotor]

Fantastic

Here we go yet again!!!!

The truth is, there is no right or wrong, just two differing perspectives on the subject of 'scope'!

From my point of view, if it weren't for scope, what would stop the largest employers from consistently recycling flying jobs to the lowest bidder?

Anybody REALLY think that would be a GOOD thing for ANY pilot's terms and conditions??

The added complication is that airlines (BA in particular!) have been keen to 'expand' their brand by using franchises. In other businesses, I believe this situation may be akin to 'flags of convenience'!

As it happens, although I have no personal experience, it is entirely likely that GB provide a perfectly adequate version of the BA brand to the paying public. So if they can indeed "appear to provide a similar service for less cost" One has to ask:

Firstly, why they cost less?

And secondly, why they wish to be branded as BA at all?

Can't they survive as simply GB???? Can't they COMPETE with BA????

Anyway, don't panic, I'm sure the meeting had nothing to do with scope at all! And certainly nothing to do with GB filling the void at MAN left by the virtual withdrawl of BACX!!!

Edited to add:

Wow, I misssed out on a number of posts as I composed my response!! Mine looks a little out of date already!!!

All I can say is this: How do you think the people at BACX (a wholly owned BA subsidiary) would feel if the routes they have recently relinquished from MAN, are restarted by an independent company (GB) and immediately show a profit???

That has liitle (now) to do with scope. Do you think the guys at BACX will be happy? They worked very hard, and were certainly NOT paid a fortune! I ask again; is this a good thing for ANY pilot's T&Cs?

[Re-Heat]

Either way, if company A had been exposed to the market and not strong-armed by the union, the cost base would be appropriate and no company B and C situation would arise.

So what if someone will always do it cheaper - everyone has their own price, and you obtain enough staff to reach a market equilibrium. Company A is way above that equilibrium at the moment.

The truth is, there is no right or wrong, just two differing perspectives on the subject of 'scope'!
No - BA may be the most profitable, but it is sitting on a protected position in the most important financial capital in the world at the moment. Even then - if a greater profit can be made through company B - the shareholders are still being fleeced by the union whom prevent this element of greater profit.

Are you saying that you defend a cap on entrepreneurial spirit?

From my point of view, if it weren't for scope, what would stop the largest employers from consistently recycling flying jobs to the lowest bidder?
I nominate you to go down to the flying schools around the country and tell that to all the hardworking individuals who have decided to pay for their own training and have low bid rates on their labour. Of course the employer will employ at the market rate anyway - not the lowest rate on offer. Actually I can see it now - yield management for pilot labour - matching wages to the supply on an individual basis. I like it.

Tell me why you should not be exposed to the market if someone else is prepared to do it for less to the same level of skill?

Nice discussion chaps - apologies for hijacking the thread.

[Carnage Matey!]

No, you feel free to show your naivety anytime Re-Heat. I'm particularly intrigued by your suggestion that company has not been exposed to the market, given that it is exposed to competition on almost every route it operates from it's main base and further competition from other competitors operating from nearby airfields. Many of those competitors enjoy the benefit of state subsidies.

I'm also intrigued by what you consider to be a 'staff equilibrium'. Any particular group of staff your thinking about? How does subcontracting to company B help to achieve this staff equilibrium? Could it be that your idea sounds good but is in fact utterly meaningless?

How much profit do company B provide? What proportion of the overall company A group profit is that? Is it more than company A stands to lose with the loss of goodwill from its staff.

Company B can be as entrepeneurial as they like. They just have to do it on their own.

As you are so keen on market economics then perhaps you'd appreciate that scope is an ideal model of market economics. BA need a large body of pilots to fly their fleet. The incumbent body offer to continue flying on their current rates subject to an exclusive contract. Anybody on the market can come along and underbid and BA will have no problem operating their fleet.

Now if you want wages matched to supply I'll be the first to support it. Given that BA can't get hold of any type rated 747 or 777 pilots andthey're struggling to find 320 rated pilots I'll be loooking forward to the pay rise. Obviously missed the bits about wages going up by 20% in Asia and Emirates needing 1000 more 777 pilots.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

I'm really getting a bit tired of all this....I happen to work for GB which is a great little company to work for. We all know that without the BA franchise, the company wouldn't be in the position that it is. However, I do think that we offer a product that meets the standards that BA set - in fact we take great pride in the service we provide. It's a 2-way street - we enjoy the benefits of being under the BA flag and BA enjoy the expanded route network and extra connecting pax that we provide (win/win?) There are places we go to that mainline would never touch and we're not looking to "take jobs away" from our colleagues at mainline.

There's enough competition out there without all this infighting.....I bet they're having a good old chuckle every time this one rears it's head!

[Tandemrotor]

Hi Re-Heat

I could probably agree with you on a number of issues.

And I wouldn't wish to see a "cap on entrepreneurial spirit"

So any time GB wants to sell tickets to passengers as 'GB', and not 'BA', I think you will find many people would be very happy to see customers make their choices accordingly!

Just a thought. When your representatives are involved in negotiations to 'improve' your T&Cs, however do they justify it???

If you are GB (or indeed any of the franchises) I believe you probably already do better than your competition!

Will you just wait for the 'flying school desperate' to catch up???

Edited (once again!) to add

Scarlet Pimpernel

Excellent post! Let's have a beer!

[Carnage Matey!]

A quick look at Re-Heats profile reveals he's an accountant. Perhaps we should have guessed! What was that about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing? No doubt if he ever gets his ATPL he'll be squealing about how unfair it is that he can't pay back his loans because all the jobs available then pay peanuts.

[LatviaCalling]

Having flown GB at least umpteen time, I can say that their service and attention to passenges far surpasses BA. As far as booking on line, the GB site will automatically switch you over to BA.

[Tandemrotor]

LatviaCalling

If I were to entirely agree with you, that "their service and attention to passenges far surpasses BA"

Wouldn't you agree that it is time for them to capitalise on their superior service, and continue without the BA umbrella?? What would they have to lose? They are a WHOLLY separate company! Let the passengers have their free choice.

Re Heat

You appear to imply that BA's inflated cost base is entirely due to their pilots productivity, or salaries. What if someone were to say to you that pilots in BA (by and large) accept that BA's cost base is indeed too high, but don't see pilots T&Cs as being out of step with market rate???

Indeed pilots have recently subjected themselves to a 'benchmarking' process with other similar airlines, and compare favourably on pay, and are exceptional in terms of productivity!

Sadly, other areas of the business do not, and are not!!!

[Re-Heat]

You appear to imply that BA's inflated cost base is entirely due to their pilots productivity, or salaries. What if someone were to say to you that pilots in BA (by and large) accept that BA's cost base is indeed too high, but don't see pilots T&Cs as being out of step with market rate???
On the contrary, however a union prevents the flexibility required of a business. This was a discussion about scope - something forced on the company by the pilot's union, therefore some justification to direct such blame on BA pilots is therefore in order.

As you are so keen on market economics then perhaps you'd appreciate that scope is an ideal model of market economics. BA need a large body of pilots to fly their fleet. The incumbent body offer to continue flying on their current rates subject to an exclusive contract. Anybody on the market can come along and underbid and BA will have no problem operating their fleet.
Hardly ideal if it is ongoing and has no expiry being renewed each pay deal. Exclusive contracts normally last only a short set period. Scope is enduring with each and every pay deal. Not sure how you can justify it as being ideal liberalised market economics.

We are all well aware of the shortage of longhaul widebody experienced staff globally. I think the focus was somewhat on the scope restricting the franchises, so that is somewhat off point

[Hotel Mode]

How you can suggest GB's growth is being restricted is beyond me. Time to command is 2-3 yrs tops, mainline its 8-10 min. Hardly anyone leaves GB so that must suggest expansion. Maybe if its all such a one way street you should suggest chucking in the franchise like Maersk/Duo did, they did really well on their own.

Theres space for both, BA will never fly to Hurghada/Tenerife but dont expect FRA and CDG to be given away.

[Jet II]

So any time GB wants to sell tickets to passengers as 'GB', and not 'BA', I think you will find many people would be very happy to see customers make their choices accordingly!

But the customers wouldn't be able to make a 'choice' as BA (Mainline) will not (cannot?) fly to the same destinations as GB.

Unless BA (mainline) get their costs down low enough to be able to compete on the type of routes GB operates, the only way to have a BA presence on those routes is to sub it out to an outfit who can make them pay.

[flyer55]

Actually got to disagree with you R3hard regarding the staff are better than the average BA Shorthaul Granny, their are alot of excellent crew in BA Mainline !

[Carnage Matey!]

So R3Hard would like to see the UK pilots T+Cs improve but also seems to find glee in the fact that BA pilots will see their 'six figure pensions' become worthless. A somehwat contradictory position I think. He also fails to explain how we are going to improve UK pilots T+Cs by allowing airlines to contract out their flying to lower cost operators, which is inevitably going to put downward pressure on those very T+Cs in order to win the contracts.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'freedom of the skies' but Easy and Ryanair have been free to start up long haul services to the USA and many other places for a long time. They choose not to do so because the long haul low cost model is unproven and doesn't fit with the short haul model. If you want to start the routes bring 'em on, just like EOS and Maxjet. Haven't seen them making a big dent in our premium yield to New York.

Anyway you don't say who you work for but are 'beating BA on just about every route' which I find rather hard to fathom because only bmi and the Europeans are competing with BA to LHR and market share is holding on the LGW routes. Perhaps its for the best that you hardly visit this site anymore.

[Bootylicious]

I'd just like to see an end to all this BA (Mainline) nonsense....

BA is BA. GB is GB. It's like being told to "Line up after the company-coloured 320". What a load of hoo-ey!

[Sausagehead]

Where we should target our joint efforts is to ensure that british people from british airfields are being flown in british registered aircraft flown by british pilots

totally agree......and to be maintained by British engineers would be nice.

[ShortfinalFred]

Hey GB are a fine outfit, no problem there, but look at the overhead comparison. GB lives at the beehive, dont they, whilst BA create the castle in the air for Re - Heat to sit in and play at office politics - Waterside. BA employ tens of thousand of non- front line staff doing who knows what, whilst GB dont.

Re-Heats' comparisons are loaded to prove the point he hopes to make, (i.e. all mainline pilots are overpaid etc etc), and doubtless reflects BA's new management incentive policy, whereby demigods such as he can earn up to 350% of salary as bonus for screwing over their employees. Eighteenth Century Economics meets a twentyfirst century industry. Thats going to build a world class company offering a service product - not!

All the best Re-Heat old boy, keep cracking the whip!

[HORKA]

Many interesting comments, but no one answered the question.
If there was a meeting, then how come few if any pilots knew about it. More important what was it about. I smell a big rat.

[Meeb]

So here we have Re heat showing his colours again in this thread, the anti union stance... when will you wake up and see unions have moved since the 80's you silly boy... :mad:

If you think GB should go it alone, great, but I have one word for you Re heat... Duo... :rolleyes: You probably dont know who they are because you have only been interested in Aviation for 5 minutes...

I will tell you again what I said in the other thread, if you want to become flight deck crew... better change your views, otherwise you are in for a short sharp shock, I ahve seen it before, and you are no different sonny... :mad:

[Re-Heat]

Your assumptions are wrong - as is your assertion that I have not heard either of Duo or been interested in aviation for more than 5 minutes...perhaps you have little substantive retort to my points to add? Might I mention Eastern perhaps as a successful independent that - while not with a history as a BA franchisee - effectively operates on many former BA routes with former BA aircraft and successfully so.

Your point is irrelevant anyway, since Duo did not fail on having poor routes or levels of booking, but were unable to find funding in time to cover costs to creditors.

My points are loaded to impress that the whole cost base of BA is excessive - I stress that it is not solely restricted to pilots - scope does not however help any company.

[unablereqnavperf]

Apparently the GB CC boycotted the meeting. Is this shades of a previous general secretary ie no effective communications and being ditant from the hard working troops on the ground?

[LatviaCalling]

Tandemrotor,

If GB were to suddenly pull out of the pool, they would become just another one of those dozens of holiday airlines going down south.

By staying with BA and its colors, it gives them respectability, codesharing with BA, and good connections from other incoming/outgoing BA flights.

How many passengers actually know that they are flying BG instead of BA? I believe most of the holidaymakers believe they are flying BA. They have not read the fine print.

[Jet A1]

I think the point of this thread has gone astray ---

OK...without BA GB may well find it difficult...Without GB BA would find it difficult to operate to the GB destinations at the same cost base...

The point is what was the meeting about and why did the GB CC boycott it ??

A few years ago BA tried to get the GB pilots to join the mainline lst and operate from LGW but this was kicked out then...

[ShortfinalFred]

Thinking further on Re-Heat's costs obsession, even making comparisons between BA and GB pilots is futile. GB is a small, friendly company with a specific route network with stage lengths that are, in general, longer than the average BA shorthaul one and where nightstops are, at a guess, relatively rare. Multiple sector days beyond an out and back are relatively rarer, and "touring" the exception rather than the rule.

They operate from LGW, which has its own challenges, but not, by and large, from LHR where a great majority of BA's shorthual operation is based.

BA operates predominanantly from LHR on many short stage lengths, with multiple sector days ending in multiple nightstops ("tours") where you drag a suitcase around europe for five days at a time whilst dashing from aircraft to aircraft at LHR or herding the fixed link turnaround process like crazy to keep some semblance of a schedule together at an airport where a combination of endless building site, extraordinary ramp practices and straightforward overcrowding (airport running at limit capacity most times of day) makes for a debilitating environment.

Despite this, BA shorthaul productivity in terms of hours flown per pilot is better than almost any benchmarked competitor.

This is not to denigrate the GB operation one bit, but to wonder aloud just how attractive the BA contract will seem shorn of either a FS DB pension at the end of it, which, although Re-Heat may not like it, is the deal 99% of pilots signed-up to when they joined, and bidline which gives some semblance of control over your life at work when being tasked to be away from home so much.

Without these two items, factoring-in BA's time to command and the constraints mentioned above, then BA becomes a very much less worthwhile prospect at all.

Current management like Re-Heat, (hello PoD!), blithly assume that because people are still applying all must be well, however the wiser ones are realising that we are now going to have to bond people as well, as a slow flow of joiners gets a free type rating, experience on type and then say "sayonara" and goodbye.

I would go as far as to say that if the FS DB pension is closed or turned into a career average one that then, especially for the co-pilots who will be worst affected by it, the slow flow of departures would turn into a debilitating stream. The end of bidline, origionally called "incentive bidline" would have a very similar effect.

[ETOPS]

ShortfinalFred

BA operates predominanantly from LHR on many short stage lengths, with multiple sector days ending in multiple nightstops ("tours") where you drag a suitcase around europe for five days at a time whilst dashing from aircraft to aircraft at LHR or herding the fixed link turnaround process like crazy to keep some semblance of a schedule together at an airport where a combination of endless building site, extraordinary ramp practices and straightforward overcrowding (airport running at limit capacity most times of day) makes for a debilitating environment.

What a clever and succinct piece - exactly why I left shorthaul ;)

[Tandemrotor]

Re-Heat

You have a rather interesting perspective on BA, and it's cost base.

You said;

"the whole cost base of BA is excessive - I stress that it is not solely restricted to pilots"

If you are asserting that the PILOT cost base is excessive; may we ask, to whom you are comparing them, and what SPECIFICALLY you mean?

You may of course already be aware that a recent benchmarking process showed that, until the new pay deal, BA pilots had been very significantly UNDERPAID in comparison with all other similar airlines!

You also said;

"scope does not however help any company."

I accept, scope can seem necessary, or can seem unnecessary. It depends on which side of the fence one sits! However, since BA (the management) have signed up to it, it would seem THEY at least accept the principle, and are happy to work within it....

End of!

[HORKA]

JetA1

Why did the BALPA CC Boycott this meeting. Was it the company they didn't like, or was it the agenda?

[Dr Pepper670]

Carnage Matey! - you post like "normal_nigel"


GB will move on in 2010.

Two 'fun in the sun' millionaire ex-pat families joining together sounds too good to be true ;)

Face it, quite a few Big Arses would join Virgin right now if it wasn't for the seniority list. :suspect:

Merry Xmas
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/liebe/love-smiley-028.gif

[Autobrake Low]

R3 Hard you come across as such a loser - whilst posting comments such as:

"You guys write so much crap its no wonder i hardly ever visit this site anymore."

... you still have no qualms putting your 2 cents into the mix. Why do people like you feel like you are superior to others whilst it is blatantly obvious you are inadequate to post any kind of reply whatsoever?

[behind_the_second_midland]

Ladies please.

Many points to answer but I am short of time.

However can I just set the record straight about "scope", a word plucked out of the air by the likes of HORKA who I very much doubt has the forst clue of it's meaning and is obviously rabid with anti-BA vitriol.

Scope does not, and never has, applied to Franchise airlines. If it did then BMed would not be operating A321's out of LHR in BA colours. It does not stop GB expanding in BA colours, although many think it should.

Scope is an agreement between BALPA and BA that for BA and all subsidiaries any aircraft with over 100 seats will be flown by BA mainline pilots.

GSS is a different agreement again.

The only exception to this are the RJ's (named by registration in the agreement), in exchange for some secondee positions in the regions.

So when we use the word scope for a little dig, can we get our facts right first please?

[HORKA]

"it does not stop GB expanding in BA colours, although many think it should"

Well you just identified the reason why I asked the first question.

What cozy little deal is being negotiated without the GB pilots at the meeting. It might have been SCOPE, it might not, but without pilot representation how do we know.

[behind_the_second_midland]

Many** think it should but have no power to stop it as franchises are not covered by scope.

** most of the ex regional pilots who have been forced to LHR will not want to see their former routes operated by anyone but themselves.

However they and the BACC are powerless under current agreements to stop it. If BA allow the route under franchise that is it.

Bur just so you can get your facts right in subsequent posts scope does not apply to franchise airlines.

[HORKA]

And so therefore no one talked about SCOPE and Franchises ever ever ever again, and they all lived happily ever after.

[behind_the_second_midland]

Marvellous. Utopia.

[7373]

So....Does anyone actually know what went on at this meeting other than those who attended?

Could it be for pay discussions, T & Cs, future and direction of GB or what?

[Barber's Pole Bob]

Long haul ??????

[ShortfinalFred]

Care to add to that one Barber's Pole Bob? If GB management want to do long haul I think I'll grill my airline hat!

[7373]

Yes, Barbers please dont leave us in suspenders!

Have you heard a whiff of something?

[normal_nigel]

Yeah right! Wind up

[lgw bean flicker]

I hear GB pilots work to 770 hours PA, and I think the new boss is keen to work the pilots harder to 900 hours.

I think GB pilots are about to get shafted, in a rather large way

:ugh:

[fiftyfour]

Actually, pilots work to a maximum of 775 hrs. Any extra is on a voluntary basis and is paid at overtime rates.
The new manager might well be keen to get more compulsory hours/extra hours without overtime, but he won't be getting it. The pilots, who are mainly Balpa, already do fair work for fair pay and the management know that 775 is the absolute limit - the subject has been tested on a number of occasions in the past.
So the pilots will not be 'getting shafted in a rather large way.' T he company will continue to get a loyal and committed professional pilot force working up to 775 hours for fair pay, trying to make sure that the company franchise with BA is a success.

[stormin norman]

Interesting to see (Flight) that GB is looking to outsource their Heavey Maintenance checks overseas next year.
what next pilots ?

[Jet A1]

Crew-room rumours rife about A330's -- management are not denying it either.

[Sausagehead]

Interesting to see (Flight) that GB is looking to outsource their Heavy Maintenance checks overseas next year.

Not driven by GB. More by the fact that bmi who do their heavy maintenance are pulling out of the market.

[beauport potato man]

The A330 may well be just a rumour, or 'horse manure' as you put it.

But given GB's route structure, and the dominance of Easy/Ryan in the main european market, surely the only way that they can safely expand is outwards......

The charters perform this long/medium haul mix with the common A321/A330 rating so why is it so Pie in the Sky for GB?

Otherwise their future is pretty static..... don't tread on the toes of the big LoCo's, and don't go long haul..... so where do you go?

Perhaps the answer lies in WW's assessment of the whole LGW operation.

BPM

[Carnage Matey!]

I was once told that a significant proportion of the seats on GBs flights are sold via the controlling groups holiday firms, firms which cater for the upper end of the market. If GB find themselves with a fleet of A330s they've now got to sell a lot more holidays to a lot more chavs to fill the back end up, plus they've got to start selling some really expensive seats up at the front. Most of the mid to high yield sunshine routes are already served by BA, and the likes of Havana, Cancun and the rest have plenty of competition from Virgin and the big UK charter carriers. I'm not sure I can see where GB could find a niche in the market.

[Curious Pax]

Long haul from Manchester always has lack of high yield pax cited as a reason that some airlines are not keen to operate such flights from there. GB with their low cost base, but tie in with BA, would seem like ideal candidates to make a success of such routes, especially with their new(ish) MAN base. Pure conjecture, but you heard it here first......

[flyer55]

Have heard BA Looking at going back into ex AML Routes such as Havana, Cancun , anybody else heard this?

[Craggenmore]

Dr P...

You mean GB Airways as in Gaggero/Branson Airways?

:confused:

[Skylion]

BA has little chance of returning to ther AML routes in the next 3 years unless they drop other destinations or frequencies. They are strapped for long haul capacity and apart from the 4 short haul 767s being reconfigured to longhaul this winter they are almost unique amongst their major competitors in having no additional aircraft on order. The leasing and new market for 777s and A330s is very tight with little availability over the next 2 years plus. Emirates meanwhile continue to expand at a steady rate, as do Etihad, Qatar, Cathay and Qantas to mention just a few.
If GB could find 2 or 3 A330-200s to lease ,the dropped AML destinations would be a possibility under their franchise, but they would need high density configurations to make it work. (AML 777s were 10 abreast and tighter than mainline on legroom).
One would assume that BA mainline would have other priorities for investment if they had any money,- but at the moment debt /future liability reduction seems to be their ovveriding aim so their current future long haul fleet investment , apart from the cabin renewal is.......nil.

[HZ123]

SLion is spot on GB more likely to be investing in some Shorts 330's. Even if the a/c were availible those routes do not provide enough yield.

[Zulu]

Who/what was/is AML?

[Globaliser]

A joint venture, called (IIRC) Airline Management Limited, that operated some of the low yield bucket-and-spade routes ex-LGW. Aircraft and tech crew were provided by BA, but cabin crew were "brought in". AML started with some other aircraft, but changed to flying some of the LGW-based 777s in a special configuration - some Club World (this was in the cradle seat era) but mostly a high density Y configuration, 10-abreast and what looked from the seat maps like a "charter" pitch as well. The bad part of it (IMHO as a shareholder) was that the flights were still sold as BA, the aircraft still wore full BA livery, and the sardine-like Y was still branded "World Traveller" - thus diluting and contaminating the full-service brand image that BA was trying to cultivate on the mainline routes.

[BOAC]

Memories of all that thankfully faded, but IIRC there was some 'tie-up' with Bob Ayling - either Mrs A was a director of AML, or he was, or summat like that. No doubt a Nigel will be able to recall?