BA to make 5,800 redundent and cut 50a/c.

[Mad-Air]

Rod is on BBC Radio 4 talking about about it now.....

R.I.P BA

[Jonty]

On BBC breakfast they were talking about pilot losses in the 100's and cabin crew in the 1000's. I wonder how they are going to achieve that through "voluntary means"

Worrying times for all those at BA

[Lucky Angel]

What about the ten routes that are cancelled ,anyone knows which ones?

[Mooney]

50 a/c from last summer? Nothing to worry about then surely! The 20 odd Classics have left- 767s have started leaving- virtually no change apart from a small reduction in routes. Can't see how BA will pull them out of this one without radical action. Low fares to compete with easyJet? I can't see BA offering seats for 5 quid!

. .From the BBC ;

British Airways is to axe 5,800 jobs, cut routes and lower fares to combat losses amid a fall in passenger numbers. . .The job cuts, which will see one-in-three head office and support posts go, will take to 13,000 the total number of staff axed by BA since August.

The move, part of a package aimed at achieving cost cuts of £650m a year, follows a wide-ranging review by chief executive Rod Eddington designed to return the airline to profitability.

Ten routes will also be cut, and the number of BA aircraft reduced to 305 by mid-2003, from 354 last summer.

The carrier is also from June to cut fares on shorthaul European routes in an effort to boost passenger numbers.

"We must transform British Airways into a simpler, leaner, more focused airline so we can thrive and prosper in an increasingly competitive market," Mr Eddington said.

'Worse than expected'

Bill Morris, general secretary of the Transport and General Works Union, said the job cuts were "much worse" than had been expected.

But he told Radio 4's Today that the union would do its bit to ensure BA returned as a major forced in the aviation world.

"We will not be rushing to the barricades, but we will certainly be rushing to the negotiating table," Mr Morris said, calling for "managed" job cuts.

BA in Wednesday's statement pledged to work with union leaders to achieve the job cuts target through "voluntary means".

Competitive pressure

BA admitted the decision to lower fares on shorthaul European flights was prompted by competition from low-cost airlines, which have thrived despite the industry downturn stemming from the 11 September attacks.

The firm will also mimic budget carriers, such as Easyjet, in offering lowest fares to passengers who book through the internet, and slashing commission to travel agents.

Mr Eddington said BA would neither become a budget airline, nor "launch one".

" We will compete profitably and intelligently alongside them by adopting what they do well - online bookings, high aircraft utilisation and pricing simplicity," he said.

[Gaza]

From the BA press site - <a href="http://press.britishairways.com" target="_blank">http://press.britishairways.com</a>

The 10 routes for the chop have not yet been revealed. The release confirms another story on PPRUNE that 2 777's are being sold.

Very interesting point is the RJ's are heading for MAN & BHX.

[quote]FUTURE SIZE AND SHAPE UNVEILED

Major package of measures to restore profitability

£650 million of annualised cost savings

5,800 further job losses in addition to 7,200 announced previously

Total head office and support staff to be reduced by more than a third

Significant restructuring of short haul business to compete with no frills carriers

London, Wednesday February 13, 2002: British Airways today unveiled a major package of measures designed to return the airline to profitability, following a wide-ranging analysis of its business led by chief executive Rod Eddington.

Mr Eddington said: “We started this review with one clear objective in mind - to turn this company around. We will remain true to our heritage of being a full service network carrier committed to customer service excellence and world class products. But we must transform British Airways into a simpler, leaner, more focused airline so we can thrive and prosper in an increasingly competitive market.”

The conclusions of the review - known as ‘Future Size and Shape’ - signal a significant change to the size of British Airways as it takes further steps to address its cost base and sets the company on course to achieve a 10 per cent operating margin. This will be supported by an annualised cost saving of £650 million achieved by March 2004, with £450 million of this secured by the end of the first year (2002 - 2003).

There will be a further 5,800 job losses over the next two years, in addition to 7,200 announced in September 2001. In total, this amounts to a manpower reduction of 13,000 or 23 per cent of the airline’s workforce of 56,700 in August 2001. Head office and support staff will reduce by more than a third (36 per cent). The company wants to achieve the manpower reduction by voluntary means and will work with the trade unions to achieve the target. The airline is making a provision of £200 million over the next two years for restructuring costs.

British Airways will restructure its European short haul business to provide a competitive response to the no-frills carriers.

This will include a change to its short haul pricing structure - giving business travellers and holiday makers lower fares, greater flexibility and more choice - a simpler short haul fleet and higher aircraft utilisation. The new pricing structure will be rolled out from June 2002.

The airline will cut its global distribution costs to generate £100 million of savings, including reducing payments to travel agents in the UK for short haul bookings. This is also being introduced in June 2002 and will result in British Airways’ lowest fares being available on the internet.

Mr Eddington said: “We will not become a no frills airline nor will we launch one. We will compete profitably and intelligently alongside them by adopting what they do well - online bookings, high aircraft utilisation and pricing simplicity. We will mix it with what we do well - providing a great network with frequent flights from convenient airports, as well as delivering world class customer service.

“Our premium and frequent customers remain as important as ever and we will continue to invest in products and services that they value.”

The Future Size and Shape review has endorsed the airline’s existing fleet and network strategy unveiled in 1999. Since then, the airline’s fleet and network strategy has cut capacity by downsizing and simplifying its fleet and reducing its exposure to unprofitable transfer markets. From summer 1999 to summer 2003, the airline’s overall capacity reduction will total 21 per cent.

Today, the airline announced that - as part of the strategy - a further eight routes will transfer from Gatwick to Heathrow by summer 2002 - four long haul (Mauritius, Buenos Aires, Lagos and Abuja) and four short haul (Bucharest, Kiev, Riga and Zagreb). By summer 2003, Gatwick capacity will have reduced by a total of. .60 per cent, since summer 1999.

The airline also plans to cut a further 10 routes - five long haul and five short haul - as part of the overall reduction in capacity and will announce the details of the route cuts once consultations have been completed.

Through increased aircraft utilisation and network restructuring, the UK-based fleet has been reducing steadily. From summer 2001 to summer 2003, it will have reduced by 49 aircraft - from 354 to 305.

Since December 2000, the airline has been scaling back its operation at London Gatwick to transform it into a base for point-to-point short haul flights and a limited number of long haul routes. By summer 2003, long haul destinations will have reduced from 41 in summer 2001 to 15 destinations through the suspension of unprofitable routes and moving others to London Heathrow.

A major part of the fleet simplification plan involves the transfer of 16 RJ100s based at Gatwick to the airline’s regional bases in Manchester and Birmingham. In turn, eight A319s at Birmingham will move to Heathrow to join the existing fleet of 25 A319s and 11 A320s. Four B737s will move from Manchester to Gatwick joining 29 B737s already there.

Mr Eddington said: “Simplification is key to removing cost from the business. These fleet moves mean our operations at Gatwick will be flown by just two aircraft types - Boeing 737s for short haul and Boeing 777s for long haul. For our regional bases, a simpler fleet helps to deliver operational efficiency.”

Two Boeing 777 aircraft are being sold and will exit the British Airways fleet in Spring 2002. The company will seek to sell a further five aircraft from its long haul Boeing fleet.

British Airways subsidiaries are conducting their own Future Size and Shape review, which will be announced by Spring.

Chairman Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge said: “The Board is fully behind the review and has been working together with Rod Eddington to ensure the best possible outcome. We believe that this has been achieved. The Board has no doubt that the British Airways team can deliver reform and revival in the most effective way, to the benefit of customers, shareholders and employees, alike.” <hr></blockquote>

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Gaza ]</p>

[Mad Mitch]

From BA Website

16 RJ100 a/c from LGW to Bham/Man and 319s and 737s coming the other way to both LHR and LGW. Not sure the ex Cityflyer crews will be too pleased with that.

BA subsidiary's to conduct own FSS and report in Spring.

[relapse]

BAR: Last one out switch off the light...

"A major part of the fleet simplification plan involves the transfer of 16 RJ100s based at Gatwick to the airline's regional bases in Manchester and Birmingham. In turn, eight A319s at Birmingham will move to Heathrow to join the existing fleet of 25 A319s and 11 A320s. Four B737s will move from Manchester to Gatwick joining 29 B737s already there."

So that is it for BA in the regions. Scotland first now MAN and BHX to follow.

[CharliePaps]

The webcast is live NOW on <a href="http://www.ba.com" target="_blank">www.ba.com</a> (goto inside BA, investor relations), Lord Marshall is talking at the moment, no real details as yet.

You can listen to it whilst browsing but it's gonna be a long day!

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

Well, so that's it? Forgive me for my incredulity! I judge that the initial Stock Exchange response will harden into a further downgrading of BA shares.

The nettle needed to be grasped by our 'well-recommended' Aussie when he arrived. 'Future Size and Shape' should have been done THEN. It is now 'Past Size and Shape'. The share dividend should have been witheld then. Routes and aircraft mix needed to be looked at properly then. The excesses of the Ayling era could easily have been trimmed by a bold, new chief. It is freely admitted (even by RE) that this review was long overdue and had it been done properly, in a timely fashion, the company would have been in a far better shape to survive.

The '7000' job losses so far are, as the city knows, only paper losses, BA call them 'MPE' - 'man-power equivalent' - ie part-time working, and voluntary unpaid leave. So they 'lose' 5800 'more'? A 'REAL' total of..........5800........? By my calculation that, coupled with a 50 aircraft fleet reduction, does very little to the staff to aircraft ratio in BA - already the highest amongst its peers.

Moving 'loss-making' LGW routes to LHR from a lower cost base airport to a higher cost base? The likes of RyanAir, Go and Easyjet make money out of some of the routes BA label as 'loss-making' to and from far less attractive airports than LGW and LHR. Come on! The 'newcomers' to BA, recently taken into the fold, have seen their operating costs go through the roof, and profit turn into forecast losses, along with what can only be described as an explosion of managers. Now, the 'wise' decision to absorb CFE into the LGW operation must be in severe doubt and major problems and costs will arise in the move of the BAE fleet there plus the changes to the rest of the regional operations.

To summarise, a lot more needed to be done, a lot more focus on what an airline NEEDS as opposed to what it HAS. Expensive HQ are a (nice) luxury, loads of 'Gucci-suits' (as my friends call them) very nice to have and it is impressive to show the lovely HQ to the visitors (I know!), but............

Others airlines reacted to 11/9 far more quickly and positively, and are now being able to 'back-track' eg - furloughs being 'rethought' in the US and SIA rumoured to be putting some schedules back on etc. BA will, I think, have to go the other way before long. 5 months was far too long to take to come up with a dicky little plan like this - and it is not going to be in place for a few more!

It will be interesting to see how the unions and employees react to all of this, but I don't think they will be impressed! Management will delude themselves (and try to do so to others) into thinking that the unions are the problem, whereas with them on-side and a sensible attack on excessive overheads, I think BA could have done a whole lot better.

Good luck, buddies.

[Miles Magister]

It may be naive of me, but higher aircraft utilisation rates coupled with the forcasts of the number of BA pilots retiring in the next year or few must be good news for those of us looking for jobs. Any BA managment pilots wish to comment?

[Doodles]

I would wait a little while to see the real stock market reaction - it all takes a fair bit of digesting and yes, the shares are down this morning but so are EZY

[brain fade]

Oh Dear,. .Is that it?.. No Waterside closure? No mention of a sig reduction in the HUGE management overhead? Only less staff, less a/c, less routes?. .Sorry, nettle not grasped. There may be trouble ahead!

[Diablo]

Just out of interest, what would be an educated guess to retrain the regional 737 crews on RJ's. I am an engineer at MAN until 31st March and my colleagues who will remain (if any) will need a good 4 months each before they can start certifying.

. .I know its not as simplistic as this but £200m / 5800 gives the ex-occupants of waterside a nice £35k payoff.

Too little too late ................

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Diablo ]</p>

[Aerostar6]

I'm not sure if Mooney works for BA or not, but he's right on. It's a pathetic 'tinkering under the hood' exercise, not a strategic review. I'm sure the city will be decidedly underwhelmed. Looks like death by a thousand cuts then (except management).

[zoru]

Future.....still orange!. . . .Size.......bit smaller but still obese!

Shape......still pear!

I heard around another 400 pilot jobs to go.good luck guys you dont deserve it.

[Gaza]

[quote]Oh Dear,. .Is that it?.. No Waterside closure? No mention of a sig reduction in the HUGE management overhead? Only less staff, less a/c, less routes?. .<hr></blockquote>

According to BBC Breakfast News the vast majority of the new cuts will come from "BA's Heathrow HQ". So contrary to the speculation here is does seem that management and support functions will be cut. You do not have to be a Harvard graduate to figure that cutting routes and aircraft means less support staff.

[Lucifer]

Job losses which involve "a third of head office and support staff" (BBC website) is surely doing something to address the huge overstaffing in that area. I can't help feeling however that those behind the plan are the ones who would be in line for redundancy, and even if it shaped up in the future, it would simply start going bad again. What BA need is a whole new culture in the non-flying operations - it is still acting like a state-owned monolith in my opinion.

[brain fade]

Gaza......pleased to hear it.. .Lucifer.... i agree. turkeys rarely vote for x-mas.. .No one likes to see redundancies but BA's top heavy management will take the ship to the bottom and we'll all be going with them. It would send the correct message to the City if they sold Waterside. The city types might be windy, but they are not simple. Methinks they see FSAS as halfhearted. As i said before, nettle not grasped.

[brain fade]

Visual.. .Of the 13,000 do you have first hand knowledge of anyone who has been 'let go' in management?

[Hand Solo]

Yeah but the toal breakdown of job losses is 8800 opertaional, 4200 head office and support. Not quite addressing the staff/aircraft ratio, but a step in the right direction. The decision to transfer the RJ100s to MAN is an unwelcome if not unexpected one, particularly as a recent business study concluded it was much more cost effective to keep the 737s there. We'll also now be paying for a shiny terminal at BHX with 16 jetties, even though we won't have a single aircraft in the regions that will fit on them. But thats BA management for you.

[pdashley]

According to BA's own figures the staff reductions represent a 1/5th reduction in operational manpower from 44,900 at the end of August 2001 to 36,100 by the end of March 2004 (hence 8,800) and a 1/3rd reduction in support/head office manpower from 11,400 to 7,600 (4,200) over the same period.

According to BA 3,200 people currently work at Waterside and applying the support/head office reduction of 1/3rd then about 1,100 jobs will go by March 2004. The most worrying aspect is that, as many other people have stated these are 'manpower equivalents' any many people are being offered part time work or a period of unpaid leave of up to 1 year.

BA states that it has already acheived a reduction of around 5,000 of the planned 13,000, but alot of these jobs are people who have gone on unpaid leave under the 'Business Response Scheme'.

My worry is that all BA is doing is putting off the problem, because if significant numbers take up the unpaid leave option, within a year these people will return and will there be jobs then for them?.

edited for dodgy spelling!

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Pash ]</p>

[huw stunn]

Hand Solo

Whats wrong with the BHX jetties ? The RJ fits them very well at LGW, DUB etc etc

[Posh boy]

I'm afraid this will be it. Even if Rod decides to pull his head out of his back side and realises that aircraft with passengers is the way forward, it is now too late to recover. The ratio of staff per aircraft is laughable and working practices archaic. If Rod did something about it only a couple months ago BA would not be in this mess now. I hope I'm wrong but something tells me I may not be.

[dumiel]

Huw Stunn

The jetties at LGW do NOT power down to the RJ's only two will do this out of approx 23 this causes great difficulties for staffing re extra needed to board/disembark for safety etc. Don't know about DUB. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[relapse]

Zoru....t0$$er.

Anybody out of work needs luck...What people don't need is **ses like you.

I hope your next ones a porcupine....

[Al Capone]

BA cannot compete with Low Cost airlines, Ryan and Easy. If it does, it will go bust. BA will not survive unless they re-vive a new lowcost carrier solution. To achieve this, BA needs to turn around aircraft faster and faster, use cheaper airports and go no thrill. It will not manage with current LHR and LGW, even if traffic is reduced at LGW.

Again, this is the perfect example of airlines becoming too big too hot to handle. Keep it simple, efficient but like flying an aircraft, the golden rule is to keep control!!!

And as for Easy and Ryan, watch out for your eyes are bigger than your plate.

Aloha

[Hand Solo]

Do you really believe thats the case? If so then why do the American majors continue to operate short haul services in competition with Southwest. As I've said before, if price was the only consideration then Skoda would ahve put Mercedes-Benz out of business a long time ago. BA do need to shape up, we need better aircraft utilisation for a start, but the problems are much more deep rooted. Our management need to lose their corporate arrogance that the passengers will fly with us come what may. It seems they've only just realised that they won't They also need to start competing. For too long the standard response to competition from BA has been to run away. They don't want us to look like we have to chase the economy end of the market, but we do. I've lived near BHX for two years and have never once seen or heard an advert for BA in the local media. Plenty of ads for franchises, British European, Ryanair etc. Result: the others grow in leaps and bounds and we decline because people don't know we're there. Same deal in London, for years Ryanair and Easyjet have been running ads about BA 'rip-off' fares, but have you ever seen those rebutted by BA? Have they ever made the case that you could fly with us cheaper. Not once. So it's time for a wholesale change in strategy. This company needs to be as aggressive as the low-costs in marketing itself, and as aggressive as they are in cutting out the dead wood of the operation. We're not competing in the same market as they are, just like Sainsburys and Kwik Save don't compete, but it's high time we stopped allowing the low cost carriers to take the passengers who'd like to fly with us but don't realise they can afford it.

[On the skids]

Somebody should suggest to RE that he should buy Go

[Gaza]

[quote]Do you really believe thats the case? If so then why do the American majors continue to operate short haul services in competition with Southwest. As I've said before, if price was the only consideration then Skoda would have put Mercedes-Benz out of business a long time ago.<hr></blockquote>

Very, very true! Contrary to what some sections of the media and this board will have us believe, not everyone wants, or has too, fly low cost. As I have said before, a certain part of the market wants allocated seats, Executive Clubs, through check-in, on-line check-in, etc, etc. The low-costs cannot provide these and still maintain the low cost. BA has to get itself in shape to continue serving the less "price sensitive" end of the market. When I am traveliing short-haul I will generally look for the lowest fares. If that means low cost, then so be it. However, when travelling long-haul I will happily pay the extra for Biz or even First. I do not pay anywhere near the price levels of full fare biz class as I will use consolidators or Round the World tickets. People think I am mad but to me the journey is as much part of the holiday as what I do when I get there.

Good luck to all at BA. I'm sure you will pull through!

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Gaza ]</p>

[wryly smiling]

Visual. ."of that 400 are flight operations staff, which includes pilots and groundcrew....". .I think the 400 are flight crew only,groundcrew come under engineering who are due to lose 1500

Excuse the name it was picked in happier times

[NigelOnDraft]

My understanding is that 400 are to go from Flt Ops post 9/11. That figure was the target prior to FSS, and does not seem to have changed. It included Flt Engrs, and the majority of it was allocated through upcoming retirements.

LCGs letter refers to "300" less pilots. Again, the BALPA forum has pointed out that pilot numbers are already down by ~200 (?) from their peak, and falling still with no recruitment v retirements.

So not much effect I can see. Even the Mgrs Q&A had a posed qu. about "Why are so few Pilot Jobs going?" !!

NoD

[Lou Scannon]

Probably, too little,. .Certainly, too late.

[Brae_Cwynd]

As an outside (of BA) observer but one with several decades in the business, I sincerely hope that no flightcrew are affected. What has let BA down over many years is the enormous burden of 'back-office' or support staff. Let's face it guys, the overhead cost that this creates is far too large and successive managements have failed to deal with it. Now RE has made a start but it's probably not enough. The airline should be able to be run with about 7 support staff for every pilot. This means the headcount should come down to about 25,000 which means cutting ANOTHER 20,000 on whats been announced today. Then the airline would really be able to compete.

[Joystick Incider]

I understand that five Senior Managers who led the FS&S Review basically divided BA Staff into 'Frontline and Support'. Just how did they define such groups? Some so called 'support staff' directly control, influence and work as part of the 'frontline'. Allegedly, some of BA's crucial Operations departments could suffer severe staff cutbacks - anything around 25%...is this really true?? Worldwide disruption, bad weather and industrial problems are not going to go away. Very deprssing scenario... and in the end, how many Waterside suits will actually go???

[Antigua]

Antigua . .Just another number

Member # 25117 . . posted 13 February 2002 14:23 . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------. .'DECKCHAIRS'...... A FARCE...STARRING CAPT SMITH & R.E.(CX WHITE STAR LINES). .THE SCENE... PROMENADE DECK..'RMS TITANIC'

CX - 'Hey you - yes you with the four rings... move this deckchair I'm sitting on three inches to the left, will you? And whilst your at it, I'll have another large G & T'.

Capt S - 'Certainly Sir. Don't you mean six inches to the right, Sir? To the left will put you over the side?'

CX - Do as you're told. I know about ships, at least I have several thousand collegues who say they do. Ships have no sides. Anyway there's all that shiny cold stuff that is just as good as this deck thinggy. Looks damned inviting'.

Capt S - But, Sir ... it's more than my job's....

CX - JOB? JOB? Call what you do a job? What exactly do you do anyway?... Oh never mind...it doesn't matter... 'CROMWELL.....come here and explain to this idiot about discipline. Damed fine thing discipline... where's Miss Floggit's phone number????'Oh, I forgot..wrong day... she's half a person these days... mind you she doesn't HALF know about discipline....ha-ha.. WHERE'S MY G&T?????

Capt S - I'll see if I can find a crewmember to help shift you, Sir. I think it's his annual day off.

CX - AGAIN... He had one last year!!! CROMWELL -- you're not running a tight enough ship. More of the lash if you will....'

Capt S - Would you like some of that shiny stuff in you're G&T, Sir?

CX - Damed right.. if we have any on board. Do we..?

Capt S - Errr.. No Sir.. I'll try to get some uploaded,Sir.

CX - Don't you dare...non of your damn business.. we have people to do that who know what they're doing... lots of them...

Capt S - As for your drink, Sir I'll arrange a meeting immediately with the Stewardesses Senior Communicating Manager (Western Routes) to ensure a speedy request to the Performance Executive and their sub-departments, to release an operative to liase with Delivery on your request. Mind you the half of the H & S department that covers this is being unemployed for statistical purposes today... so I don't know if it's possible.. Anyway, there'll have to be a surcharge to your Stateroom for the drink... about £693.46 ....plus tax. Shall we call it a round £1000? No service included.

CX - That's a bargain!!! How DO we do it for the price?

Capt S - About your drink, Sir. No availability for about a year, Sir, I'm afraid. We've stopped uploading Gin to enhance 'THE PRODUCT'. You could always try EasyDrink... they'll send a rowing boat with one for 95p , I believe. Or MickBev.com, they will have one waiting for you in Valpariso when we arrive in New York....

CX - New York, NEW YORK? God do we still go THERE? I thought I told them to stop going anywhere near those popular places. Too many damned passengers. Get in the way of efficient management, you know!!!

Capt S - I'll report it immediately, Sir. Once I've had the order translated into Hindi, we should have action in a year or two...

CX - Dammit, Smith, I think you're getting the idea... Smith....!Smith...!

Capt S - Sir?

CX - You know about these things, Smith... what was that CRUNCHING noise????

Capt S - Nothing that need bother you, Sir....

EXIT - STAGE LEFT, STAGE RIGHT, STAGE EVERYWHERE

Sigh.... .ANTIGUA

. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------. .From: Hampshire UK | Registered: Dec 2000 | IP: Logged . . . .everybody . .Just another number

Member # 33149 . . posted 13 February 2002 15:04

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Antigua ]</p>

[electricblue]

any ideas on how the LGW-DUB service will be affected... My thinking is that it will be dropped given the moving of the ARJ's , competition from FR and the fact that a codeshare with EI already exists for LHR-DUB and a couple of LGW-DUB services.

[high & fast]

Well Zoru, how is the old orange pilots pension scheme these days. I don't even work for BA but if I had the choice between BA and Easyjet i'd choose BA every time and so would most of your colleagues!! And you know it.

[toontartcart]

One route rumoured to be for the chop is LGW/NCL, currently flown by a ARJ. Route has suffered since GO came on the scene flying STN/NCL? <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[Hand Solo]

Well I wouldn't bet my house on that given you're recent form on predictions Toontartcart. Now remind where those Airbusses are that you said would be given to BACE? The only reason LGW-NCL would go is because of the reducing transfer possibilities now that routes are moving to LHR, which also happens to be well served from NCL.

[PinPusher]

Engineers outside of London watch out!

737's to LGW and A319's to LHR, RJ's to BHX/MAN. What Mainline BA does that leave flying to the Regions - Shuttle from LHR and a few a day from LGW.

I seriously doubt if any BA engineers in the Regions will be given an RJ course so that could be the end of BHX Engineering altogether, a further big cut at MAN who will be left with the Shuttles and LGW flights to cover and likewise for EDI and GLA (Shuttle/LGW).

Third party work will not secure any jobs either, BA work is all that is budgetted for.

I reckon the same will probably apply to flight crew as well. Your aircraft type is moving so you will have to move as well.

Pretty annoying considering we live away from London because that is where we want to live but if that is where the work is ..... the choice is yours.

Be interested to hear what management briefs said in the Regions.

[Hand Solo]

Sadly the regional management have stated on the record that their decisions are based upon 'feelings in their waters' rather than a formal business plan, so our engineers had better hope that DE has a kidney stone soon!

[Plane*jane]

I really think RE needs a bit of support here. Firstly for picking the poisoned chalice of post Ayling BA. Secondly for actually DOING something. "Bias for action" It would be interesting to compare the staffing levels pre Ayling with what is proposed now. The same perhaps? Short haul has always been a mess and leaching money with only the long haul shoring up the bottom line. All Sept 11th did was focus the mind on sorting it once and for all.. .The guy was never going to win popularity stakes... who ever does having to lay people off. But as one who was on his side of the business many years ( now flight deck!! so I can see both sides) and having to restructure businesses because of economic crises, it's never a happy time and not pleasant.. .Just remember, he is honestly streamlining the company to safeguard future jobs and business in the best way he knows how. This should ALL have been done 10 years ago. He wouldn't be attracting such derision from you guys if BA management had done just that. Manage.

[Tandemrotor]

Zoru

Could you clarify your earlier comment. I think it could be read in either of two very different ways.

What did you mean to say?

[Cayman]

I can just see the pretty young things rushing around Waterworld in their £30,000 pa Armani suits wondering if it is them next, how could BA survive without them.. . Manager Bread Rolls South now that BA has reduced the catering budget and instead of a hot meal the bread rolls now have to be filled bread rolls. OH MY GOD !! can I have an assistant ? Why yes the Manager Operations Control (Mocon) is out of work could he help ?

One day BA you will get right, today was not the day though.

C

[Apollo 1]

Obviously from the majority of post's, there has been trouble brewing for quite some time in BA. Canada had it's second largest airline shut down in a matter of weeks after Sept. 11. Although not quite a comparison to BA's size, It was doing very well for itself. Aquiring several new a-330's and an A-340 only weeks before Sept. 11. One of which is still parked at Manchester if I recall. Would BA be in the same position if the events in the US had not taken place? Or was all of this inevitable?

[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Apollo 1 ]</p>

[BahrainLad]

From the BBC (Teletext), BA's workforce will be reduced to 42,000 - this is only 4,000 shy of LH (38,000) who fly the same number of people and make more money.

All I can say, is that is a step in the right direction - based on previous experience, this is the first of many BA job cuts. Look at the reaction from the Unions - can you imagine what the reaction would have been if RE had announced 15,000 cuts? It's a shrewd political move to announce 7,000 now and 8,000 later.

RE is finally doing what should have been done 7 years ago....bravo to him for having a go...

[Secret Squirrel]

Plane*Jane,

You're wrong of course, but don't let that ruin your day. Longhaul at LGW wasn't shoring up shorthaul. Remind yourself to engage brain before openning mouth. Do the words creative accounting mean anything to you? Has the thought that a good proportion of those passengers who flew the LH came in on feeder flights, often, I might add, given the SH flight for free,crossed your mind? Between my Dad and myself, and spanning four years, we went once each to HK and Jakarta on BA from Barcelona and were given the Barcelona flights free. I suppose we could have been the only ones; what do you think? Many people here in Blighty (let alone EOG employees!) don't really know that this went on because, let's face it, how many of us lived abroad and had need to buy a LH ticket via London?

To the chap who thought that we at Ex-CFE might be less than happy at losing our 'beloved' RJ: That really depends on the consequences. It may be that those F/O's at BA bidding for early commands at EOG on the 737, or even a LH RH seat might be the ones who are going to be less than happy with the lack of positions available being as they have to put us somewhere.

I suppose they could put us on the dole queue - before someone else comes out with it! - but some senior bods have been asking for weeks now how long it would take to train the RJ crews onto the 737 so I don't think (also read hope) that that is their plan.

Still, 'Life is a box of chocolates' afterall.

[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Secret Squirrel ]

[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Secret Squirrel ]</p>

[sirwa69]

Living in Bahrain we fly back to the UK frequently as do all of our friends. We are normally heading for Glasgow or Edinburgh. The additional charge for the short haul leg is virtually nothing. :) . .It shouldn't need a professor of Accountancy to be able to work out a fair cross charge between the two. BA would probably need an entire department <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[thewwIIace]

from what i understand, this is the 'cons' in pros and cons of joining BA. the news for us is that the CFE guys will be travelling with the RJ's as they are on a fixed contract with aircraft not base so none of us guys will have to fly them.

[knows]

WW2 et al, it's the timescale that fascinates me.. .All at BHX have been told that the target is to move the lovely 319's to LHR by Oct 02!. .I can't beleive that any existing BHX pilots will wait around to operate 146's.

[mainfrog2]

Maybe this business of flight crews and engineers going with aircraft is calculated. If you don't like the idea of going to Manchester or Birmingham then you know where the door is. Easy way of getting rid of staff, p**s 'em off enough and they'll go of their own accord.

[Wet Power]

Ah, mainfrog, you have spotted the technique used by KLM on the Air UK crews two or three years ago - it worked very well for KLM and saved them a fortune.

[Gaza]

Very good "City Comment" from todays Daily Telegraph.

[quote]Pilot Rod dumps more baggage but the pigs fly ever higher

BA job cuts aim to save £650m

HERE'S a quick lesson in aviation economics. Yesterday British Airways cut another 5,800 jobs: what will these people do? They could set up Ryanair, Easyjet and Go, and still have 1,800 left over. Doing so would create £4.6 billion of value, even assuming Go is worth only the knock-down £100m BA got for it. BA itself is valued at just £2 billion and it will employ 45,000 staff even after the latest savage cuts.

No wonder Rod Eddington had to resort to his "Honey, I shrunk the airline" routine again yesterday. He had chopped 7,200 after 9-11 and, while this seems "radical" to Mr Eddington and "butchery" to the unions, BA has only just started on this particular route. Despite the £650m a year it is supposed to save, the 10pc margins of Mr Eddington's plans look as plausible as a near-miss with a flying pig.

With the unions on board, he cannot travel fast. His latest swing is at the staff of Waterside, BA's custom-built HQ with hairdresser, fitness centre and flower shop, lovingly arranged around a 175m glazed atrium. There's not a passenger in sight, merely 3,000 people having meetings with each other. That's twice the entire staff of Easyjet; no wonder Mr Eddington has concluded that 1,000 do B All and are excess baggage.

Cutting jobs and routes will not turn BA into Easyjet. BA has finally come up with the idea of displaying its cheapest fares on the internet (although not until June), which shows just how far off the pace it is. The plan is to pinch the best tricks from the no-frills rivals on the short-haul routes, while maintaining silver service for business clients who fly London-Paris one day and London-New York the next. That looks hard to pull off.

Pilot Rod can only hope that normal service resumes soon on the fantastically profitable bankers' shuttle to America, giving him the headroom to sort out the rest of the business. He's discovering there's more stick than joy in the BA cockpit.<hr></blockquote>

[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Gaza to try to make URL work but after two tries gave up]

[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Gaza ]</p>

[411A]

Clearly BA has grown out of proportion to its business, with unnecessary non-productive staff and large fixed overhead. And just as clearly it needs the flexibility to eliminate these problems if it is to survive....and moving crews and aircraft around the system is just one of many possibilities...the US aircrarriers have been doing this for years....the unions at BA will just have to like it....or lump it.. .In addition, short haul apparently does not generate sufficient revenue to pay for itself....so why not sell all the short haul aircraft and enter a joint venture with EasyJet (for example) to carry the connecting pax to LHR, etc? Would not be good news for the short haul crews.....but the guys ay Easy would be smiling all the way to the bank.

[Gaza]

BA have yet to state which 10 routes will be axed . According to the press release it is 5 shorthaul and 5 longhaul. The press have further added that all routes to be axed are from LGW. As BA have stateded that LGW longhaul will all be 777 based it shouldn't be too difficult to work out what 747 routes that have not been moved to LHR are being axed. SEZ and MRU have recently gone, or will go, to LHR. Anyone got any suggestions what the 5 longhauls might be?

[dave@murtle]

"Hi Noah, how many men will it take to pull your Ark up the ramp.". ."About ten I think.". ."So that's You, Me, two other Brothers and six contractors that we only use until the job is done, thus releasing them to concentrate on working for others,training etc". ."Thats right"

Des

[Lucifer]

Yes 411A, but the slots are worth a fortunte and BA will not walk away from them, you cannot guarantee all will then fly BA longhaul, easyJet's costs will be far higher at the prestigious location of LHR, what with the long delays occassionally, higher parking fees and landing fees etc, the cost of the connection rises, people fly point to point Europe to US instead of via LHR etc etc.

Do you really think the low costs would not raise prices if they gained a new monopoly over European travel, especially via LHR? Not in the real world.

Back to the topic I think...

[Bottom Banana]

Just a note on the RJs going to Manchester, they will actually be operated by BACX which,as our managment never tire of telling us, is a separate company to BA. So if you want to fly them or fix them, one assumes you will have to transfer to the subsiduary company, if they have any vacancies!!

[thewwIIace]

just to keep this alive, we are under the impression that the RJ's come with the CFE crews to BHX or MAN. their contracts state that they are type fixed for 5 years before any realistic bidding off fleet so they may be pushed after all

[toontartcart]

Any ideas yet what the 10 routes are that BA are shedding? when is the announcement being made? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[C Harrison]

**This is only a suggestion**

. .If BA was to cut prices so that people were just paying to run the company (i.e make 1 pound per flight) but all other cost were covered - pilot wages, fuel, maintenance and everything else to pay in running an airline its surely better than a loss - don't you think.

[email protected] <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Notso Fantastic]

So what sort of genius suggestion is that? BA is allegedly losing £2 million/day after covering fuel, employee costs, aircraft costs etc. So are you suggesting BA puts fares up? I don't want to be facetious, but if you know nothing about the problem or running such a business, maybe better not to get involved with such a discussion?

[Captain Rodders]

I am an outsider looking in but perceive the BA problem as similar to those currently afflicting the likes of Marks and Spencer in the UK.

BA have failed to evolve (in business you evolve or die) and the competition have moved on by.

BA cannot compete solely on price against the budget carriers so need to concentrate on other areas so that consumers perceive the product as good value for money. Remember that the most successful companies are NEVER the cheapest. They may succeed in the short term but lose out in the long run as someone else tries to undercut even the cheapest. Think about where you shop, what car you run, where you eat out etc. etc. etc.

People always go for the option that offers best combination of price/service/convenience i.e. their perceived value for money and that differs from person to person. That is why different companies thrive, as they identify the buying signals/needs from consumers.

So what do BA need to do:

Differentiate the product from the budget carriers (that means offering more for the money paid). Do not try to buy the most price sensitive consumers, they will always go for the budget carriers. Let the budget carriers have them but target those who make the money for the budget airlines, the late bookers, high price payers. This also allows you to charge more.

Here is an example - Take Heathrow, no one who flies into Heathrow (excluding transfer pax) stays within the airport. So offer some alternatives to those passengers arriving there to help on their onward journey, could be free transport into London, free one days car rental, free short term parking (up to a max period) but it needs alternatives to attract a variety of users.

Then you can market the product concentrating on the extras. How about Comparing the price for someone travelling tomorrow from Edinbugh/Glasgow City Centre to Central London, and add in the time taken too. We know that the budget carriers are often not so good value for money if booked last minute.

TheFlyingIrishman may not like the price comparison if it is selectively used. Play Ryanair at its own game, make them take BA to court if necessary. There are plenty of examples on Pprune of when the budget carriers are more expensive than BA - USE THEM.

For long haul, if you can't fill the seats, take them out and offer more leg romm - like AA. Remember the current consumers concerns for comfort and side effects of being cramped. Evolve the message as consumers move on to something else.

People will pay more for a better product, BA needs to demonstrate where the product is better.

Having decided how to market the product you need enough staff to fulfil the customer expectations (but not too many).

Finally be consistent in your message. Quality, Quality, Quality. Don't change tack, it confuses people, but let it evolve gradually as consumers habits/preferences change.

People will pay extra for added value. Think how much money Daewoo spent on Marketing in the UK and compare with the success of BMW, a much more expensive product but marketed consistently over the past 20 years. Which company is in trouble?. . . .HZH

[crab]

Undoubtedly most pilots would love to enjoy the terms and conditions that BA aircrew receive and in particular their allowances.Any who d`ont are either self deluders or liars.Since the arrival of lo cost operators the present BA t`s and c`s are becoming less tenable.To change them would lead to a lot of upheaval and possible industrial action and further weaken BA.. .Is the arrival of lo cost operators ultimately going to benefit the pilot/cabin crew community?. .I know who I would rather work for!

[dave@murtle]

Tyrannosaurus buddy,

Just to set the record straight, I work for the "new" BA Citiexpress (or will do when it is all finalised) I am a year three Capt and my basic is just under £40k with £1.50 per hour duty pay, no more fancy allowances etc, nothing for meals or nightstops.

OK I am a pensioner but still need to work check out your money purchase schemes (cut by 50% in the last eighteen months)

We frequently fly six sector days and last month I logged two hundred and seventy odd duty hours.. .We are doing our bit to keep this show on the road, so please guys n galls don't always assume that the the Flt Deck on your BA flight are all creaming it in and fiddling while Waterside burns (now there's a thought Insurance!)

. .We want it to work.

Des

[overstress]

A point for 'knows':

I really think you should change your handle old chap - 'don't know' would be more appropriate.

What I mean is your point about 'all @ BHX being told...etc'

No-one has been officially told anything.

The management knew the truth 2 weeks ago but allowed a farcical rostering meeting with BALPA and membership to take place.

The only announcement at BHX has been the copies of Pravda (BA News for the uninitiated) and a few photocopied statements left stuck in a clipboard.

Which leads me on to another train of thought - they are axing a profit-making operation, ie BHX with its fleet of (fully chartered for the Summer) A319s, a stable & generally happy complement of cabin crew and generally contented-ish pilots. They are buying in to a hornets' nest of unease before all this is resolved.

There are some deafening silences, knows, so if you 'know' any more I am sure that we @ BHX would live to find out!

[kanik2000]

Talk guys, try to just talk. Remember SABENA. . .Oh, yes, I forgot to mention, there, the swiss managed. And didn't want to talk. They already sentenced the lady to death in 1995. Good luck to you.

[Canard]

ThewwIIace,

If you are a BA pilot then I suggest you read your contract – it is exactly the same as the contract signed by the ex-CFE pilots. If you are not a BA pilot I suggest you keep your strange ideas to yourself.

For those who don’t know and want to know. Pilots move around aircraft types and bases by a bidding system based on seniority. A job is a type and a base i.e. 737 LGW is a different job to 737 LHR (Some don’t obey this rule i.e. 747 and 777 which are London based). Every year pilots are allowed to bid for jobs – if there is a vacancy, you are senior enough and unfrozen then they have to move you. However any new pilot in BA is frozen on aircraft type AND base for the first 5 years. If they withdraw the type of aircraft i.e. 747 Classics or move a fleet i.e. 737 from LGW to LHR, both of which occurred post 11 Sept then the pilots concerned are declared ‘surplus’. They will then be moved to other aircraft types or the same type at a different base on a seniority basis. So if there are popular vacancies the more senior pilots get them. The less popular vacancies will be filled on a juniority basis.

This is the way it has always been done in the past with BA pilots and ex-CFE pilots are now BA pilots. If BA want to change the way they do things they will have to renegotiate with BALPA.

Canard

[andykey]

Two weeks ago the Sunday Times suggested the (well leaked) FSS project was going to leave BA smaller, but with the same problem - an exhorbitant cost base. How right that's proving.

The numbers to date have been phony - "Business Response scheme". What a joke, if the business picked up one iota they'd all be back with their inflated salaries, short hours and civil service attitudes. So that 7,200's hardly a cost out of the business for good.

Then FSS - 36% head office staff achieved through voluntary means? Sure. There's loads of work around for overpaid, underskilled, lazy BA managers. I don't think so. None of my Waterside mates are seriously considering volunteering -they know they're not a match for managers in grown up businesses.

And the timetable. The timetable won't see anyone leaving Waterside til well into the summer. And then they'll be getting three months salary plus 1.5 wks pay for every year (at mid-mgt grades - let's guess an average of 15 years service). God knows what deals the snr management are getting. So basically the airline's paying for these wasters that should've gone years ago for at least the rest of 2002.

Is it any wonder the City's not jumping for joy ?They've seen BA fudging this before and unfortanately Rod's missed his chance to make a real change. When will BA management wake up and face the music - it's OVER guys, welcome to the real world where we have to earn a crust every day of our working lives and wait to retirement before putting our feet up.

[Big-Pants]

Overstress

Sympathies to you good guys and gals at BHX, but I think it was driven by Big BA wanting the shiny 319's back to LHR to simplify the shorthaul fleet, at both LHR and LGW. This gives the RJ to Citiexpress. ( not sure if they really want it?)

tough for everbody but hopefully the airline will survive. Anyway I guess you'll get posted to LHR and make loads of dosh?

anyway what do I know? does anyone know when the 319's will transfer south?

[brain fade]

spoke to someone at BHX today. Apparantly its either go with the scarebus to LGW, or join Cityexpress on the 146 on BACE T&c's. Anyone care to expand? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[HOVIS]

Gaza, Toontart, . .One of the LH flights is bound to be the MAN JFK.. .A single 767 at a region with no maintenance back up? Non starter really. We have been told it is safe until September!

See you at the dole office!. . <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[FlyboyUK]

On the subject of routes being cut.....the BA press release sent to the BACX crewrooms last wed stated that the BRS-GCI and CWL-GCI routes were being cut.

[Recover]

Visual,

I don't believe there is ANY mention of LHR 737s going to LGW. On the 737 front, the only movement, according to FSS, is the 4 MAN 737-500s going to LGW. What will happen to the 737 and 757 at LHR in the future is anyone's guess. There is a bit of 737 movement LGW-LHR at the end of this month but that was slated to happen before FSS and is part of the reaction to 9/11.

Brain Fade,

Don't know who you spoke to but the Airbus isn't going to LGW. The 8 A319s at BHX are going to LHR. Better get them to check their info <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[BOAC]

Just to clarify - the LHR 737 base is definitely running down and the LHR 737 base is definitely expanding. Hope that is clear.

[Mother]

Many thanks for that clarification, BOAC, not.

[Harry G]

Longer term ALL 737's to LGW, Airbus only at LHR. Then (this is the current "master" plan) from around 2005 the 737's at LGW will be replaced by new Airbus's so eventually all SH (LGW & LHR) will be Airbus.

[relapse]

From 2005!!!! are you speaking "z" or BST

[Pandora]

Visual - you didn't go to the rugby on Sat did you?

About the LHR 737s. I spoke to the Priam man himself last week about it, and it would seem today's plan is to increase the fleet to 22 and then start to run it down in Nov 2002, with the last a/c going in Jun 2003. If you bear in mind that the training year runs 1/6 - 31/5 you are looking at a change of direction by then. It was explained to me that I could either bid off (bit late for that now), or sit tight. If I take the latter option I will either be directed (prob to Airbus), seconded to LGW or will be required to switch the lights out on the 737s' last day at LHR.

[brain fade]

Recover.. .Of course, you are right. Thanks for correcting me <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . .My surprise was really at the a/c leaving BHX rather than where they were going.. . Suppose BHX/MAN will soon be totally BACE. My, it's going to be a big firm!

[BOAC]

'Bestie'-let me see - how can I put it more clearly to you?

1) Do not believe what you 'hear' about fleet plans REGARDLESS of source: I suspect they are fluid right now. Bear in mind that our management (cabin crew, that is) sent out letters to all EOG cabin crew just a few days before the 13th Feb announcement detailing how they would be fleeted across to the LGW EOG RJ.

2) As always - bid ONLY for what you want, in appropriate order, so that if you get one of your high bids you are not disappointed.

3) Delay your bid until day -1/0 of closure if you can. Fleet plans may well change on day 0/+1.

This really is not an inappropriate forum for discussions of this nature to take place amongst BA crews. There are 2 perfectly good fora - one on Compuserve and the Pprune BA forum where matters such as fleet disposition plans etc, which are good information for competitors, can be freely and securely discussed.

BOAC. .BA Forum moderator