Ba, Lcy-jfk

[FlyingBoi]

Afternoon all, has any decision been taken on who will be crewing this operation?

Mainline EF eg already checked on Airbus or WW?

Or will the route be left with Cityflyer or maybe guys from over the pond
a la Openskies??:}

[Re-Heat]

Mainline I believe

[VS-LHRCSA]

I was under the impression that they were to be crewed by LGW crew - also Airbus licensed.

It would certainly be easier to roster within LGW duty time limits than a EF or WW crew. Not sure if I would like to coach from LGW to LCY and then operate LCY-SNN-JFK.

[claireybaby]

It is us LGW crew :ok:

[FlyingBoi]

cheers guys :ok:

[737319320321]

I guess it would be LGW crew:

1) Airbus Liscenced
2) Know the Club product
3) A whole lot cheaper! (No offence, but you know what I mean)

[banewboi]

it was officailly announced that LGW crew (which is i hasten to add a mainline base!!!!) will be operating the service

trip structure has not been announced yet but should include nightstops at nyc aswell as snn/lcy.

[apaddyinuk]

I reckon it will be operated as a "W" patter by LGW. Seems convenient that the LGW-JFK service was announced not too long after the LCY-NYC service! LOL!

[VS-LHRCSA]

I thought LGW-JFK was going to be on the 744. Or did I dream it. Anyway, unless they are going to operate LGW-JFK on the A318/9, I don't see how they can do a W pattern, unless you mean back to back LCY-JFK, where the crew will nightstop at LCY.

As for nightstopping at SNN, I am not sure how that is going to be feasible, considering that they are only going to be stopping on the outbound flight only, unless that is going to change. In which case they could make you operate SNN-JFK as a shuttle.

I'm off sick and bored, so let's see what they could do with this route:

Day One: Position LGW-LCY, operate LCY-SNN
Day Two: Operate SNN-JFK-SNN
Day Three: Operate SNN-LCY-SNN
Day Four: Operate SNN-LCY, Position LCY-LGW

Ok, I officially have too much time on my hands but you get my point.

[apaddyinuk]

I think you may have dreamt that one up VS, there are no 747's based in LGW, the crew are only trained on the 777, 737 and Airbus.

But a "w" pattern could easily be rostered, say the 777 has 10 crew and the A318 has 4. 10 crew would operate LGW-JFK on day one. On day two 4 of those crew on their own itinerary operate NYC-LCY while the other 6 are joined by the 4 crew from the previous days LCY-NYC. Day three... land in LCY. Day four the four crew go LCY/SNN-NYC and then on day 5 they join the other 6 crew for the 777 flight back to LGW. Flights all fully crewed, no costly transport costs within london, full utilisation of cabin crew. However obviously hotel costs in London need to be factored in but there is no reason why they could not actually rest in SNN instead at a cheaper cost. However I personally would hate to have to hang around london to bring fresh passengers to SNN after doing a night flight in from NYC.

Even with 2 LCY flights a day this could be easily achieved. Simply the Cabin Manager and another main crew member remain on the JFK round trip with the rest of the crew splitting to operate the LCY services based on the assumption that the A318 will only have a purser and three main crew!

At LHR we do a lot of seperate itinerary trips from the crew we initially report with. For example I did a B2B recently which was an IAD/BWI trip. I flew out to IAD with 12 crew in a 777. The next day we were met by 3 more crew and we flew home on a 747. Then the next day we lost 7 crew and only 8 of us flew to BWI and back on a 767!! Almost every trip we had crew joining or leaving the core 8 of us!

[Muizenberg]

Day 1. position LGW-LCY
operate LCY-SNN
nightstop
Day 2. operate SNN-JFK
nightstop
Day 3. operate JFK-LCY
Day 4 position LCY-LGW...

Remember the JFK-LCY sector is non-stop. Only the LCY-JFK sector refuels in SNN.

Depends on how cheap hotels are at Shannon, transport costs LGW-LCY, and how more the extra night away from base costs. Would think the additional time away and transport costs would make this pattern cost neutral to the W pattern...Alot might also depend on the rank of SCCM used CM or PSR?? If the W pattern is used wonder if an additional PSR (replacing a STD/SS) will be put on the B777 LGW-JFK??

[VS-LHRCSA]

Yeah, I remember the joy of being 'diff crew'. I once did a 13 day SIN/SYD/SIN/SYD as diff. That was back in the days when we had 16 on every 744 flight.

I know about the LGW fleet, believe me but I do remember having a discussion at Cranebank back in June with a guy in a silver tie who was saying something about it being looked at. Considering he is a trainer, I figured he may know something about it but then I've been hearing rumours about LGW since B-Cal. I do remember one from 2000 about EOG crews being trained on the 777. Look how that turned out.

Again, you could do the 744 into LGW on a W pattern which mean the aircraft wouldn't have to be based there. It would just be another out-station.

Muizenberg (great beach by the way) I see where you're coming from. It's better than my pattern. If they can get away with it though, I reckon they will do LGW-LCY-SNN-JFK as one duty. I guess the positioning sector outbound will be the fly in the ointment. If they nightstop LCY beforehand then they could operate LCY-SNN-JFK as one duty, which is probably how I'd plan it if it were up to me.

[Flower Duet.]

Dear Colleague

I am delighted to announce the London City - New York services planned to start next autumn will be crewed by Gatwick Fleet crews. I’m sure you will agree this is good news and once again shows investment in the our fleet.

There is clearly much work to do and we will of course be talking to your TU representatives regarding all aspects of the service.

It is also worth noting that, although this is the current thinking, with the ever-changing environment we find ourselves in this could be subject to change in the future.

For the time being however lets enjoy the decision made to crew this service with Gatwick Fleet.

[Carnage Matey!]

I think it's extremely unlikely anybody will be nightstopping in Shannon, or positioning anywhere. The schedule will allow LCY-SNN-JFK in a single duty and so that's what BA will do. A W pattern from LGW seems a fairly cost effective way of crewing the trip.

[Human Factor]

For anyone who doesn't speak fluent BA:

It is also worth noting that, although this is the current thinking, with the ever-changing environment we find ourselves in this could be subject to change in the future.

That is this week's plan. The future could be as soon as next week.:O

[apaddyinuk]

Haha, indeed, the big announcement re Devastation Colombus is due!!!

[simon773]

a 4 class 777 has 11 cabin crew not 10, in LGW.
I do not believe it's cheaper for BA to crew these flights with LGW based crew AT ALL, they are simply club world and airbus trained, and... with a W pattern crew will make much more in allowances than LHR, this already happens with 3 day trips to the USA ( east coast) from LGW.

[SouBE]

The LGW-JFK seems to have gone quiet; is this still on the cards?

[Human Factor]

Yep, starts soon.

This week's plan.;)

[Carnage Matey!]

I do not believe it's cheaper for BA to crew these flights with LGW based crew AT ALL

Do you think you could get LHR cabin crew to fly that route without a SNN nightstop under their existing agreements? The whole operation could be crewed from LGW on a volunteer basis with a direct LCY report saving BA the cost of transport to LCY and a SNN nightstop. Much cheaper than using LHR crew.

[dubh12000]

Wow, the prospects of a stopover in Shannon......:}

[747-436]

I would be surprised if the crew had to get off in SNN, there are plenty of hours in a crew day to go LCY-SNN-JFK.

[VS-LHRCSA]

but with a LGW-LCY coach trip beforehand? Any delay and the crew could go out of hours, possibly in SNN. Could get messy. Best practice would be nightstop LCY before the trip.

[Flower Duet.]

Immagration / weather will be a Big factor on this the route ,
and the crew will have to be bused from North Terminal to London
City Airport.

I think it should be BA Cityflyer crew who do this route, and for BA Citflyer
to have the A318 on all there routes would be so much nicer then the RJ'S

All this has to be passed by the unions, both Cabin Crew and Flight Crew..

What do you folks at BA Cityflyer think ?

[Human Factor]

No doubt BA would be quite happy with that in theory.

Unfortunately for them, the pilot's Scope agreement (which is now legally binding!*) means that if the RJs are replaced with aircraft designed to have more than 100 seats, whether they are fitted or not (the A318 is designed to have a minimum of 108), then all the flying must revert to BA mainline pilots from Cityflyer pilots. What that would likely mean in practice is that the current Cityflyer pilots would transfer to BA mainline with all that entails (the option to bid onto longhaul fleets for example). However, as the mainline pilot cost-base is likely to be higher, along with the salaries, BA will likely as not try to avoid this option as long as possible - probably until someone designs a 99 seater which is approved to operate into LCY. Expect the 146/RJ to continue in service for a while yet.

* The one good thing to come out of the Open Skies debacle.

[simon773]

direct LCY report for LGW mainline crew simply not an option with their current agreement

[apaddyinuk]

The LCY-NYC is a mainline service and therefore will not be operated by a subsidery such as Cityflyer.

Now a "w" pattern does seem the most likely. Simply because they do not get paid the same B2B payments the LHR crew get and the airline get three more working days from the week out of their crew without having to give extra days off! The LHR crew have been doing the LHR-EWR/JFK-MAN-JFK/EWR-LHR "W" pattern now for well over a year without the B2B payment.

[Carnage Matey!]

direct LCY report for LGW mainline crew simply not an option with their current agreement

Dear crew,

We wish to augment your agreement with a volunteer arrangement by which a core group of volunteers will report directly to LCY to operate the JFK service. If insufficient volunteers come forward the service will be crewed from LHR.

Hugs and Kisses,

BA Management

Do you think they'll be short of volunteers?

[TopBunk]

The LCY-NYC is a mainline service and therefore will not be operated by a subsidery such as Cityflyer.

Says who Paddy? Can you quote any agreement that BASSA have over such crewing? That is why BASSA were so late to the OpenSkies issues.

[apaddyinuk]

But Openskies is not a BA mainline service. It is a subsidary operating its own flights!!!

There is nothing in the BASSA clause, or the CC89 ones for that matter. But this is to be totally branded as BA and thus will be operated by mainline crews. I dont know the ins and outs of it but its a given I am afraid! Now Colombus could result in something different! LOL!

[TopBunk]

But this is to be totally branded as BA and thus will be operated by mainline crews.

That is a total non-sequitur. It may be operated ex-LGW, as the FDP limitations are more relaxed together with the A&A requirements; but, if it is not achievable at a given required cost base through alleviations to report direct LCY and op to JFK via SNN, then there is no BASSA clause with BA to stop them crewing it with CityFlyer LCY-base crews, that is my point. BASSA can (and probably will) huff and puff, but contracturally can do nothing about it.

On the other hand BA may just use it as a carrot to get BASSA around the table for other concessions - that is the BA way of 2008:eek:

[Carnage Matey!]

BA flights from LGW to the Caribbean and Central America used to be branded as BA services and were operated by non-BA cabin crew. No reason it couldn't happen again.

[VS-LHRCSA]

On non-standard product by the way. 3-4-3 on the 777. I remember operating on it as a substitute for the standard 3 class (at the time) and we needed dispensation from the unions to do it. Read into that what you will.

As for direct report at LCY. I can remember when we had a WW base at LGW, if we ever picked up a LHR trip (which did happen) we still had to report at LGW even if we lived closer to LHR, even if you were diff crew and had no other crew to meet at LGW. Apparently it was because it was in the agreement and couldn't be changed. I know SF LGW is a different agreement to WW but it does make you wonder.

[Flower Duet.]

VS-LHRCSA

I heard that from an ex AML crew member that the Y Class cabin seating
was 3-4-3.

That must of been a tight squeeze.. just did a BGI trip and was shocked to see down the back on the 4 class we have lost a toilet, we only have 4 toilets on a 4 class now in Y class. but i did manage to get some sleep as we did not have passengers chatting loudly around the crew rest area. And it gives me more space with my trolley .. As I always wack the back of the first person in the last row, If any SLF are reading this I AM SORRY!! I don't do it on Purpose.

About the 3-4-3 any links to a Picture of the old AML operated Service,
I know I'm going off thread but why did BA have AML do these routes ? :8

Now back to Topic .. I'm thinking BA crew had to position to LHR from LGW , oop's it can be done then. I just hope we get 4 crew members on the A319.

P.s Single fleet is now called "Gatwick Fleet" as we operate the Airbus now out of gatter's / Sand PIT / LGW- Let's get wanted, the list goes on .. And I love the Airbus Short haul fleet, I will not be sad to see the 737's go :oh:

[apaddyinuk]

I do not think I have explained myself correctly. The LCY flights are a BA Mainline service with a BA mainline product and as such must be operated by a BA mainline base as per our AOC, nothing to do with union clauses, something a lot of crew in BA seem oblivious too.

There are exceptions to the rule however such was when Hire ins or required for technical reasons or if a wet lease is signed with an operator. However if it is to be operated by another set of crew such as cityflyer then it has to be on cityflyer metal and operated as a franchise service!!! As is my understanding of the whole operation. Now there is nothing to stop BA setting up an LCY base on cheaper T&Cs but then that would have its own additional costs and perhaps not worth it just for two daily flights!

I do not know how the AML thing worked with the 777s in LGW but I do know that the flights were operated as "British Airways by AML" or something to that effect even though they were BA metal with BA pilots, either way there was a clear and distinct differentiation made as to who was working on those flights with the customer!

[apaddyinuk]

Flower Duet,

I remember working on the old AML aircraft at WW LGW not so long ago. They were eventually converted into the first 3 class 777's at LGW but shortly after their time with AML they had the 3-4-3 config removed and a standard 3-3-3 config put in. However the galley layouts remained the same. What we had was then 4 rows (i think) of OLD OLD OLD club world (the cradle seat) between doors 1 to 2. Then the galley at doors two was actually the cross aisle aswell so was literally sandwiched between the doors (ever been on an a-class at lhr...same idea) and then it was WT all the way from doors 2 to doors 4 (no WT+) with a break at doors 3 for toilets.

It was a bloody hard plane to work on, if you think KIN or MCO is bad now can you imagine what it was like full on a 2 class??? The only good thing was that we had two seperate galleys for WT (unlike the current 3 class which has a totally wasted galley) and the service ran very smoothly with four corners done in each cabin section!

[marlowe]

Paddy two thing about your previous posts BAcityflyer is not a franchise operation but a wholly owned subsidary of BA and also BAconect cabin crew used to operate the MAN JFK with mainline flightdeck, and a mainline/BAR CSD and that was not on BAconnect "metal" as you put it .

[VS-LHRCSA]

Sorry to be pernickety but the AML 777 did have a different galley layout to the ones we got when the AML routes came back in 2002.

I saw a seat map recently and at doors 2 where there was a toilet and a side galley unit (drinks trollies from memory) on the WW LGW 'two class' the actually had seats in pairs along the sides of the galley like charter. The club cabin was half the size, with somthing like 3 rows of Cradle seats.

door door
xx xxx xx

xx xxx xx

xx xxx xx
xx xxxx xx
xxx xxxx xxx
xxx xxxx xxx
xx xxxx xx
xx galley xx
door door
xx galley xx
xx galley xx
xx xxxx xx
xxx xxxx xxx
xxx xxxx xxx

This is also how I remember it on the 'sub' flight we did. From memory it was the second IAH with a bunch of downgraded passengers from FIRST into Cradle Seat Club and a heap of Club pax downgraded into 3-4-3 but we were so quite that pretty much everyone got a row to themselves. I would HATE to think what it would have been like full.

Flower Duet, from what I understand AML was brought in during the early nineties (on the DC-10, fab) for lower yielding routes that needed volume to make it financially worthwhile to operate. Again, to bring the cost down, they outsourced the cabin crew to a company apparently owned by the current CEO's wife, AML (almost mainline). AML crew wore our then uniform but were employed by this external company that was part of an airline at the time called Flying Colours (which merged with AirWorld and Caledonian to become JMC, which then went on to become Thomas Cook). These are the facts as I remember them and am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong - it happens from time to time ;)

AML crews would have been cheaper than the WW crew that were based at LGW at the time. When Rod Eddington (Skippy) came along, the many routes from LGW cut from 45, to 14. The AML arrangement scrapped and remaining routes given back to WW LGW.

Here endeth the lesson :cool:

[Glamgirl]

We as LGW crew will fly the lcy-nyc route for a few different reasons: we're "profitable" (ie cheap), we're premium trained (route marketed as club+) and we already have an agreement for both short and long haul operation.

In regards to how the logistics of it will work, nothing is decided yet, as talks/negotiations have just started. If we were to operate as our MOA currently states, we could do the lgw-lcy-snn on day 1, nightstop snn and head to nyc on day 2. Currently, we can't operate long and short haul on the same day, so the MOA will have to be re-written if the decision to operate lcy-snn-nyc on the same day is made.

For those who are interested, the aircraft is a specially built A318, 32 seats, all forward facing Club seats. Operated by 3 C/C. No hold luggage or cargo (weight and time restrictions). Customs cleared during refuel in snn.

I'm really looking forward to this one!

Gg

Ps. We currently don't have an agreement for W pattern or B2B operations.

[Flower Duet.]

apaddyinuk , Thank you for the info and VS-LHRCSA, great diagram ..
and good god how did you do that ? and cheers for the info about AML,
(Almost Mainline) I heard they used to call the crew that.

Hi Glamgirl ..
I do hope it's going to be 4 crew on the Aircraft, Also how did you get all
the gossip about the new Service ? No hold luggage, Cargo and forward facing club seat's sound's good though.

You late we don't wait !! and no bags to worry about etc..

Do you think it will be a Nightstop at SNN ? rumour says it will be,
anymore gossip much appreciated :ok:

[747-436]

In regards to how the logistics of it will work, nothing is decided yet, as talks/negotiations have just started. If we were to operate as our MOA currently states, we could do the lgw-lcy-snn on day 1, nightstop snn and head to nyc on day 2. Currently, we can't operate long and short haul on the same day, so the MOA will have to be re-written if the decision to operate lcy-snn-nyc on the same day is made.

To class the whole lot as a long haul flight would be a way round that, some short haul sectors out of LHR are very short, for instance Bahrain - Doha. So I imagine there is nothing to stop them getting crew to operate LGW-SNN-NYC and classing it as a long haul, if they operated it as a W pattern.

[apaddyinuk]

Marlow you are correct, The new city flyer is indeed a BA subsidary as is openskies and BAconnect when it existed.

However although they are subsidarys they still seperate airlines with their own AOC. As for the MAN route, I do remember that there was some sort of loophole at the time which resulted in the connect crew operating the flight which came about as a result of some sort of reorganisation which was taking place in man at the time. I wasnt with the company then so perhaps someone here could fill us in on that one!

[Glamgirl]

FlowerDuet,

I got the info straight from management, about a month ago...

There will be only 3 crew on it, as only 32 seats (1 purser and 2 main - at the moment). There will be a crew rest seat as well.

No news yet on the snn part of the journey. What complicates issues is that we won't stop in snn on the way back. We just need a little re-write of our MOAs (and a pay increase???) and we can do the whole thing in one day. However, it would mean staying the night in lcy before check-in, as 3 sectors would seriously reduce the amount of hours we can do on the day.

The MOA talks are due to start soon (delayed as usual due to other more pressing matters apparently).

Other gossip?? There's talk about Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, Vegas and Phoenix as soon as we can get more aircraft. The Atlanta is going to lhr next spring (in time for summer schedule) but we're keeping the aircraft, which means anything could happen.

Exciting times!!! I love a bit of being positive!

ATB,

Gg

[Gatwickba]

Just to add my input..

The only time passengers were made aware of a difference in BA flights out of LGW was pre-AML, when Caledonian actually operated a CKT liveried DC-10 with CKT crew in the tartan uniform on some of the LGW routes, TPA, SJU etc...

Boarding passes were annotated "Operated by Caledonian"

When AML took over, the DC-10 was repainted to BA livery (G-NIUK) and crewed by Flying Colours crew in BA uniform, no mention of who operated it on the boarding pass on either the DC10 or 777 when it came in. The 777 was operated under AML AOC, even the tech log was AML not BA....

When CKT operated the flights it was as BA2166 or BA2169, but when AML took them over, they took on BA45## to distinguish them from main BA

so there we go.

[speedbird-lgw]

after reading through these posts the sames things still emerge, ba are only happy for cityflyer crews to operate BA flights when it suits them at the moment they operate 14 ba routes if im right and are more then happy for them to do that but as soon as an important route comes BA ROUTES MUST BE OPERATED BY MAINLINE CREW
now i for one dont know why the cityflyer crews would put up with this or the harsh conditions they are working under, buts its probly best with the lack of crew and the poor crew that are there ( of which i know a few ) it really would ruin the service

[HZ123]

But should they not be trained to the same level and futhermore as it is based at LCY the basic should be more not less. Have been in the industry since 1970,s and I suppose it is progress. It is a shame that it is not to be crewed by CX as it would give the staff something different and for what it is worth we are always short of crew @ LHR & LGW, with sickness still at several hundreds some days.

[Glamgirl]

The main reason LCY based crew won't operate the lcy-nyc route is because they don't have experience of the long haul operation and therefore no training in regards to the long haul product. I'm sure that with the appropriate training they will be more than capable of providing the same service that mainline does.

Also, their MOA would have to be completely re-written (at LGW we only need a little adjusment for this operation). I'm sure the LCY base hasn't got a vast amount of "extra" crew, as a fair amount of crew would have to be taken off line to do training. I'm not sure if they have the capacity for that at the moment.

In regards to safety training, they have excellent standards at LCY, the same as the rest of the company, whether mainline, subsidiary or franchise.

Gg

[speedbird-lgw]

to say they havent got the crew is an understatement
cityflyer struggle daily to crew their flights often cancelling or getting titan in to do their work

[TopBunk]

Lack of crew at LCY -- maybe; cost of nightstopping LHR/LGW crew longterm in either LCY or SNN = big; added appeal of BA cityflyer/express with NYC flights = great; cost of training onto A318 = small.

You do the maths.

[towser]

Speedbird-lgw By some of your comments you seem to have a low opinion of Cityflyer and the crew based at LCY. Any particular reason for this? We would love to operate the New York flights but its not up to us and we can probably jump up and down and make as much noise as we like but it probably won't make any difference.

[speedbird-lgw]

my opinions are not low of the crew i think they are good at their jobs..most of them we both know there are some there who are not up to scratch, i know i use to work there but left due to poor conditions,

and i know you all wanna do well but your stuck with poor management and crap resources if your new you'll get to know this

[marlowe]

Glamgirl and speedbird-lgw thanks for the patronising remarks regarding cityflyer cabin crew, nice to know all the old stereotypical attitudes are still alive and well round at LHR and LGW. Speedbird didnt take you long to get up yourself ,with your attitude it sounds like Cityflyers loss when you left wasnt much of a loss! Glam girl what makes you think that nobody at Cityflyer could do a longhaul duty, how naive are you? I would bet you that given a choice the passengers would love having a cityflyer crew onboard ,real crew who know how to interact with passengers rather than some po faced biddy who doesnt wanna be there anymore but cant do anything else. As somebody pointed out earlier crew costs will be sky high if BA have to do a combination of night stopping in LCY then SNN then JFK to make this work with LHR/LGW crew .you would be better of using Cityflyer crew and keeping it nice and simple and profitable!! and dont worry glamgirl, trust me i would be able to cope with longhaul its not as if i havent done it before .

[speedbird-lgw]

im not upmyself marlowe its simple facts t
he company is in disaray as many people know, again short of crew pursers and main crew, as usual coulndt crew flights, again today usual problems tech aircraft useless info from certain departments

its plain and simple with the way its going and the usual management this airline will end up going again as quickly as the others came and went

and i dont know who u think i am but u got the wrong person

[marlowe]

S-LGW you totally misunderstand Cityflyers role in the grand scheme of things, its a slotter gatherer for Mainline pure and simple. It doesnt matter what goes on round at LCY as long as slots are protected and gathered if and when they become available, that is the role of Cityflyer, as for who i think you are couldnt careless!

[bcnbarcelona]

Glamgirl,

May remind you that as per our current industrial agreement (MOA), crew levels such a numbers and ranks, service, trip patterns etc. must be fully negotiated with our trade unions (BASSA & AMICUS). As far I am aware negotiations didn't start yet :=:=:= . So please stop spreading management rumors and maybe it will be better if you pay a visit to your trade union office( if you are a member) and found from a good source where we are on this matter.

Please be patient and left our elected trade unions representatives to make a decent deal for us.:ok::ok:

[1000 to go]

A decent deal? Good luck

BA will use the cheapest option, if LGW cant provide it, they will get LCY to do it. Anything else Im afraid is pure delusion.

It wont be a SNN nightstop
I can see a W pattern, very likely.

Before you ask, Im BA mainline, and a realist!

[HZ123]

As usual I am missing something here. Why should we be chasing about after LCY slots, as someone has already remarked we are in a shambolic state for much of the time. The T4 to T5 fianal move is a major concern and those in authority would do well to resolve that issue.

It surely makes good business sense to utilise the CX crews to operate this service and cannot be as cost effective when we utilise LGW crew. What is more important 'agreements' and protectionism.

[marlowe]

HZ123 Cityflyer are getting slots at LCY and having to sub contract other carriers to operate services on these slots as they dont have enough airframes to do so themselves , now there must be a reason for wanting these slots? I guess Mainline have a use for these slots in the future ,LCY will be the nearest airport to the olympic site so i guess that may have something to do with it also slots required for the New York route .

[HZ123]

See what you mean and indeed there may be other long / haul routes from LCY by 2012 it presents the chance of making easy monies during the games and beyond. It is a shame that Waterside seems to have too much going on and the risk is that as a whole the company will lose out all round.

However by then the operation might be operated by Openskies perhaps or sold off at a small profit.

[marlowe]

Who knows what they have planned for Cityflyer? Its roots are based in companies that have all been shafted by Mainline in the past so whats one more shafting!!!!!!

[BAladdy]

According to a mate in crew scheduling the flight will operate with three crew. The crew will consist of 1 x purser and 2 x main crew. They will operate a W pattern as follows.

LGW/JFK/LCY/SNN/JFK.

They will nightstop JFK, nightstop LCY and nightstop again in JFK.

Trip duration six days.

As there will be two flights to LCY all the crew except the Cabin Manager and up to four main crew will just operate W trip. The rest will operate LGW/JFK/LGW

BA have also planned incase a main crew member was to go sick in JFK.

If this happens they will pull one off the 777 to LGW send that back one down. The crew member will then be given surface transport to LGW. So will still only be a 3 day trip duration. I
f a Purser goes sick, the Cabin Manager will be taken off 777 and one of the two pursers who would be on the 777 will take the aircraft back in charge.

For the return sector to JFK a standby will be called to position to LCY and ideally but not required nightstop in LCY, then operate LCY/SNN/JFK/LGW.

This would also be the case should a crew member go sick in LCY.

The three crew idea would work when it came to breaks as it would leave one on duty at the front and aft of the aircraft while the other one is on break.

Breaks being split into three as on current 767 flights.

For the cabin service it would mean the Purser running the galley and looking after the flight crew and 2 main crew in the cabin.

It is planned the crew will clear US formalities in SNN aswell.

[apaddyinuk]

Hate to say I told ya so! LOL! :}

[Glamgirl]

Marlowe,

I'm rather offended by your post which was quite unneccessary.

I never said LCY crew are rubbish, not capable or badly trained. What I said was that they don't have a long haul operation in place at the moment and therefore don't have an agreement for it (MOA). Neither do they have training in the long haul Club product.

I tried explaining that with training, they are more than capable of doing the long haul service to NYC.

I would like to point out that I don't think I'm any better than LCY crew because I'm mainline. I'm sure that pretty much all LCY crew are great people, same as mainline. You saying that all mainline crew are po faced and miserable in their jobs is frankly ridiculous, as it's so far from the truth. Yes, there are people in all jobs around the world who may not be enjoying their job, but it is a minority.

After all, we are all colleagues, regardless which company we work for. Please bear that in mind.

Gg

Ps. For the person saying about me making up things about the MOA, I just said it needs to be adjusted/re-written. The talks are in progress as I'm typing and I obviously want the best result possible.

[marlowe]

The thing is Glamgirl you guys at mainline always thing that your contracts and terms and conditions and union agreements are going to protect you from future changes in the company, we are entering a changing future in the airline industry. If you take Cityflyer you have crew on lesser terms and conditions than mainline who are doing exactly the same job as you are, now if i was you i would be looking on this as a potential threat to my future terms and conditions at BA . The Cityflyer crews deal with as many gold card members in a week as you guys do, infact i would hazard a guess and say on some flights we do more than you. we do this under tighter constraints than you as well, we dont have the luxury of long cruise times. If you were an accountant looking at the new LCY/JFK route from your plush BA office would you want to be nightstopping crews in LCY the night before the trip then again in SNN and then again in JFK ? Or would you be looking for a way to keep the costs as low as possible on this route? Would you allow some old outdated agreements to get in the way of saving money? I think not . BAcityflyer as it stands, has NO union agreements in place at the moment hasnt had any for the 18 months its been in existance BA has been able to do what it likes with no union interference. So tell me what crew would you use Glamgirl if you were looking to crew this route ? A crew thats gonna hide behind agreements and cost a lot of money to run the route or a crew thats already in place with experience in serving high end customers with no union constraints to bog it down and all you have to do is give it a tiny bit more training that amounts to peanuts on cost . All your agreements didnt stop BA crewing Openskies with American based cabin crew did it?

[VS-LHRCSA]

Change a few names and dates and this could be EuroGatwick all over again, or British Airtours for that matter.

[Flower Duet.]

Lol.. British Airtours does sound Good :p

At the end of the day the LCY-JFK route will be done by Gatwick crew,
I have been hearing at Gatwick that it will be 3 Purser's on the Airbus.

[galanjal]

flower duet, British Airtours was an actual airline, that wasn't a joke...

[Flower Duet.]

I know that.. I do know the history of my Airline.

[Virginia]

I'm not being funny but if things are so awful at Cityflyer why not just apply for Mainline? :confused:

[marlowe]

Flower duet why would you need 3 pursers? Virginia who says conditions are bad at Cityflyer? I just pointed out that terms and conditions are not the same as at mainline .

[flyer55]

Regarding this LCY JFK nothing yet has been decided apart from LGW crew operating the route . Dont think they would pull the Cabin Manager off the LGW flight to crew the LCY flight , they probably pull one of the two psrs on the route to operate it as per current agreement unless that changes!

Watch this space!!

[jetset lady]

The thing is Glamgirl you guys at mainline always thing that your contracts and terms and conditions and union agreements are going to protect you from future changes in the company, we are entering a changing future in the airline industry


A crew thats gonna hide behind agreements and cost a lot of money to run the route or a crew thats already in place with experience in serving high end customers with no union constraints to bog it down and all you have to do is give it a tiny bit more training that amounts to peanuts on cost.

marlowe,

Before you go off half cocked at Glamgirl, may I suggest you read her previous posts, especially those regarding Columbus. You obviously know nothing at all about LGW. Have you any idea what our terms and agreements are? They aren't as great as you seem to think and, trust me, we know how easy it is for them to be eroded. Been there, done that, got the teeshirt. As for you suggesting it would take just a tiny bit more training to check you guys out for this trip, it probably would, but why would the company do that when we are already, as previously pointed out, checked on the airbus, have US visas and are experienced in the Club World product. I can assure you that Club Europe and Club World are two completely different things. And how do you know you work under tighter constraints than us? Have you ever worked at LGW. Are you aware that we nearly always operate with the legal minimum of crew on the 737? That on some short haul flights, we don't get a 4th crew member until the club load tops 30? That our flight times range from 35 mins to 10 hours?

You appear to be confusing LGW crew with LHR crew. We have completely different T&Cs and I suggest you check what they are before you start attacking us!

Jsl

[marlowe]

jetset lady so tell me what do you know about Cityflyer? as for learning the club world product please!!! How hard is that its not some secret art form that only certain people with special abilities can learn!! and as for an american visa how hard isthat to get? Hey they still give them away with cornflake packets! And yes i am fully aware that LGW is LHRs poor cousins. None of what you have pointed out changes the fact that if you wanted to run the LCY/JFK routes with the most cost effective cabin crew then you would use Cityflyer crew .

[jetset lady]

marlowe,

I know very little about Cityflyer. However, I am not trying to claim I do, unlike yourself when it comes to LGW. At no point did I say the Club World service is hard to learn. I just said that we already know it. The same for US visas. We already have them. Why are you so convinced that we are all against you? You seem to insist on twisting our words.

Until you are able to have a sensible debate regarding this matter without the over use of exclamation marks, then I'm afraid, to borrow a phrase, I'm out.

Jsl

[marlowe]

bye then . Thats the point though you have no idea about Cityflyer and its capabilities but you are convinced that only "mainline" are capable of doing the job simply because you have a bit of training and a visa, what Cityflyer has is no old and binding agreements that tie it into certain working practices ,now I am not saying thats a good thing, its just a product of not having any union agreements in place, but from management point of view thats counting the pennies, that makes the Cityflyer crew a cheap option without sacrificing standards onboard when operating flights, simple economics really .

[jetset lady]

marlowe,

Where does it say that I am convinced that only mainline are capable of doing this route? No one, as far as I can tell, has said that. This is what I am talking about when I say you are putting words in our mouths. I, along with others, was trying to say why I think the management made the descision they did. I'm sure they have made a cost analysis of all the options. Anyway, who knows what will happen by the time it is due to start.

As previously said, no one is trying to attack you. You seem to be taking this whole thing as a personal attack against Cityflyer. It's not.

Jsl

[Matt101]

Marlowe I really must point out how ironic it is that you seem to think it's a good thing that you have no binding agreements of union representation. What exactly about this makes you think you are such an attractive option to BA? Or perhaps we're seeing a little green eyed monster here. For what it's worth have always thought you guys did an excellent job at lcy and edi but you do yourself and your colleagues a complete injustice by attacking everyone for no reason.

People have simply pointed out that Gatwick fleet ifs win the bid to crew the service and have made some guesses as to why is we are trained on longhaul and the club product already and are also airbus qualified and hold us visas nobody said you couldn't do these things either just that, currently, the company feels our fleet made the most attractive tender.

Now please, whatever old wound you seem to be licking, stop.

[marlowe]

oh hello you back? Look its not an attack on mainline as you put it far from it all i am say is that if you wanted to run the LCY/JFK with the most cost effective crew you would use Cityflyer crew simple as that, but you and others then spout on about the fact that you have Visas and can do world club services and all that, as if that is the most important thing. Do you honestly think that this service is gonna be six days, with 3 pursers ,nightstopping in LCY then SNN then JFK ? Now wether you are LHR or LGW crew you will never be as cheap and flexible as the Cityflyer crews you cant be fact. BUT its easy to take a cheaper crew give it the training and a visa and let them do it. From the management point of view you then get the same service onboard your aircraft but are paying less for it.

[marlowe]

Matt, if you had really read my post you would have read that i said it was a by product of no union agreements i never said that was a good thing just an exploitable area that could be used by BA . As for being green eyed well there blue if you must know! Because there are no agreements in place and with Cityflyer having a different pay structure, trips are cheaper for the company. If Cityflyer crews were used then they would only be paid flight duty pay of £2.20 taxed for the whole trip no trigger payments or other payments for anything, just FDP, so from a pure economic point of view then cityflyer crews are the cheapest option .

[Flatspin_Fumble]

Excellent debate between 3 or 4 players - do continue.

ff

[marlowe]

Well thank you FF i am not trying to be provocative to Glamgirl ,jetset and Matt101 and i am not anti mainline, but what these guys have on their doorstep is their own openskies dilemma .Cityflyer has no union agrements in place and no scheduling agreements either, they use cap371 as their basis,unfortunatley this gives the crews very limited protection in day to day operational use unfortunate for them, but good from the company point of view. Now my point is because of this situation it makes the Cityflyer crews flexible and lets face it cheap to use, again i am not anti union either and i would like to see a union in Cityflyer but this is just not happening at the moment hopefully this will change in the future. Ok Glamgirl etc etc how would you have reacted if the announcement had been that Cityflyer had been given the route? would you have spoken to your union rep about it? kicked up a fuss ? dont blame you if you had ,i would have in your place, but your union could have done nothing about it because BA have Cityflyer outside of union control at the moment, it would have been your unions fault for letting the route slip away from you guys but what could they have done ? You have to realise you have a sizeable workforce on your doorstep that are cheap to use on routes like JFK with none of the old union agreements in place and no old working practices, again from a company point of view a dream scenario for them. If i was LHR/LGW crew i would want my union to be getting Cityflyer unionised to stop them from undermining my current terms and conditions and working practices otherwise you could find that Cityflyer become your trojan horse. Glamgirl ask around some of your workmates who have come from the regions over the last coupla years and ask them about BAConnect, oh be prepared to duck as well cos you will probably get an angry reaction. BAConnect was the the regions trojan horse the tool used to break that up. BACityflyer is what is left of that company the bit that didnt get flogged to Flymaybe.

[Flower Duet.]

BA named best business airline

The readers of top travel magazine Conde Nast Traveller have voted British Airways the best business airline.

BA scooped the title ahead of Virgin Atlantic, last year’s winner Singapore Airlines, Emirates and Lufthansa.

BA was also voted second in the best shorthaul leisure travel airline category and third in the best longhaul leisure category.

Commercial director Robert Boyle said: “We know we have a fabulous, market-leading business product, so it is fantastic that it is being recognised in this way.

“We are constantly striving to improve the service we provide in our Club World cabin and this award is testament to the hard work of staff across the airline.”


:D

[VS-LHRCSA]

Marlowe, I can totally see where you are coming from but a lot of your arguement rests on CityFlyer crew being cheaper than LGW crew and I am not sure if that is actually true. I am happy to be corrected on this but it is my understanding that your basic pay is higher than LGW and you get London Weighting which LGW do not. I'm not saying this to be antagonistic but just trying to get my head around BA's decision.

Another thing I ought to point out is that duty time limits can backfire against mainline crew. Time and again during delays I have lost trips due to the agreements in place. Say you have a 3 day trip and you are late on sector one, you may well end up doing a there-and-back and losing the night stop because you will be 10 minutes short of the 90 minute turnaround requirement (or whatever it was back then for the CAT lounge). On any other airline, you would be perfectly able to complete the trip pattern but because of the agreements, you are prevented. So they do work both ways, believe me.

I think you may have LGW T&Cs confused with Mainline EF/WW T&Cs. Although LGW is mainline now (since 2006, I believe) they have always operated under harsher conditions than other mainline fleets since the Dan-Air buy out. I would be interested to see how LGW T&Cs (which are derived from EOG T&Cs) compare with CityFlyer's.

Anyway, I want to stress that I am posting in the interests of clearing the air, not to tread on any toes.

[Matt101]

Marlowe fair enough but your language suggests something different like I said before I think cityflyer is a lovely little operation that does the brand proud actually if you had gotten the route yes I would have been somewhat disapponted but I was actually expecting your fleet to get it. I said as much before. All I'm pointing out is you seem to suggest we shouldn't be doing it for some reason.

These forums are a pain in they have no tone of voice so I think here is some misunderstanding going on.

At the moment be company feel that Gatwick fleet should operate the cabin service but it may change in the future.

Equally I'd like to see things improve for you guys at cityflyer. Good union arrangements may seem like a barrier for the company sometimes esp with some unions brig somewhat millitant but when relationships are good they can be beneficial

Also FWIW lgw crew's only allowance is a 2.40 an hour flight pay on a basic which is lower than cityflyers and our overtime wouldn't be triggered on this route so we are only about 60p an hour more expensive in the scheme of things yet we require no additional training to operate this route. Also fwiw the club world service does require a bit of getting used to as I learnt when
moving from lhr to lgw's new fleet.

Anyway lucky you win blue eyes mine actually are green

Best,

Matt k

[marlowe]

VS there are no terms and conditions as such, any "agreements" are just CAP371 the crews have no roster protection at all trips can be changed on you as you report at base you think you are going to Madrid nope you are going to Frankfurt instead this brings up lots of lifestyle issues and problems.I am not knocking the company they are just taking advantage of a situation that has arisen because the unions dont seem interested in BAcityflyer at the moment ,hey if you ran the company you would probably do the same i know i would! only the LCY based crew get london Weighting a situation that the EDI based crews dont like very much for obvious reasons and dont even mention tax free FDP .

[marlowe]

Well Matt you beat me on FDP it was supposed to be £2.20 tax free but that never happened, so in reallity my FDP is £1.89 give or take a penny or two and as for overtime payments whats that???? agree with you that not hearing tone of voice is a drawback i can honestly tell you that i have no envious feelings towards mainline i think that you guys would benefit from knowing Cityflyer better and what it does .

[Matt101]

ha fair enough our flight pay is not wholly tax fee either but it is still the company paying the tax for us both so not really a factor for them as they still forking out the money whether it be to us or hmrc as for overtime I haven't triggered it since dfw and iah went up the road you have to do 13 hours of flying time to get it so I'm not sure what it like like either!

I'm playing devils advocate here really

[Skylion]

What's the lifestyle issue between going to Frankfurt or Madrid?

[Matt101]

tapas (yum) or sour kraut (yuck)????

[VS-LHRCSA]

Couple of points - non partisan.

1. Technically, no-one has roster protection. Last minute roster changes happen on all fleets, it just doesn't happen on WW too much, so you don't hear of it. I've seen first hand, a young mother turning up for a quick BFS shuttle only to be sent away on a three day 8 sector trip. She had all of 10 minutes to organise child care, school runs etc.

As far as LGW is concerned, I don't recall much in the way of protection and duty time limitation beyond minimum CAA levels. Again, happy to be proved wrong. Yes, they are unionised and yes, they have agreements but I think you are over-estimating their effectiveness. Again, it is not LHR. Talk to anyone from LGW who were hired under EOG.

2. When I went from EF to WW, my service training for Club World was a hand-out, that's it. Oh, end I ended up working in FIRST on my first LH flight - LOS. I honestly don't think that service training has anything to do with the operation and the choice of base. That would involve forethought and inter-departmental communication. Not a BA strong point.

[HZ123]

Slight aside from the topic. Here at Waterworld and CBK we are looking at reintroducing a raft of CC continuation training for all CC grades. As you may well know NECC for the last 6 months were awarded an NVQ on completion of training. This criterion will at some stage be applied to attain the rank of Purser / CSM and requirements for those who remain as CC for their entire career.

It is being developed by an outside company / associate trainers many of whom are ex BA CC. Like everything with BA it may turn out to be a worthwhile exercise or as happens all to often a waste of time and resources.

[Glamgirl]

First of all: VS, how can you have worked in First on your first long haul flight? At WW, there are crew specifically trained and rostered to work in First. But that's beside the point.

Marlowe, a few things for you.

I do realise that you want Cityflyer to do the lcy-nyc route as you say you're the cheapest option. But are you really? You would have to be trained on the following:

A318
Club World product and service

Also, you would need US Visas (two of them)

It may not seem like that would cost much, but a Visa is around $80 per crew member (plus transport). Yes, BA could force you to pay for it yourself, but you still need the day off to go to the embassy in London.

To be able to train you, you will need to be on the ground, ie not operating flights. As has been pointed out previously, you don't have "spare" crew to take off line for training. (Please do not confuse this with capabilities)

You keep saying that BA don't want you to have a union and that the unions are not interested in you. It's fairly easy to set up, but you need all the crew to join in the "fight". You can't do it on your own. Contact a union and ask them what you need to do to set up a LCY department. Unions will not chase you, you have to approach them. They can then advise you on how to get recognition from the company, how to recruit members, elect reps and so on. If you want better working conditions for yourself and your colleagues, you have to do something about it.

At LGW, the only rosta stability we have is the following:

Our days off are set in stone, they cannot be changed on a whim from scheduling. The only time this would not apply is if we get stuck down route for some reason (tech, weather etc) and can't come back in time. We then get another day off (lieu day), although it's difficult to get it allocated.

A change to the rosta which means a clear time (finish time) or more than 3 hours later must be notified to the crew member at least 24 hours before duty commences. This means when I turn up work work later, I can be doing something completely different, but as long as I finish within 3 hours of normal finish time. (This can still play havoc with plans such as child care, appointments etc).

What I'm trying to say is that LGW is mainline, but not the glamorous version. We get paid macadamia nuts (a tiny bit more than peanuts), and we are dependant on longer trips to be able to house, clothe and feed ourselves. For crew with children or other dependants, it is a difficult juggling act. (I'm not saying it isn't for Cityflyer crew as well).

The company decided to operate the LCY-NYC route with LGW crew. Basically it must be the cheapest option, as otherwise you would be operating it. I don't know how and why the company do their figures, but I'm sure there's a method in the madness somewhere.

Do fight for a union though, get your friends together and make it your mission to fight for better conditions for LCY (and EDI) crew.

ATB,

Gg

[marlowe]

Glamgirl training on a different type of aircraft costs peanuts in the grand scheme of things or even macademia nuts, and as for getting a visa i put it to you again its not the most costliest thing to do if you are making a saving in the long term and once again you cling to the notion that club world training is a specialist thing that only special people can do. If that is the best defence you can come up with for doing the route ,well its not the best !There will be union involvment at Cityflyer the company wont be able to stop it but they are delaying it as much as they can, but dont worry Glamgirl myself and my friends will carry on. Also you make the assumption that we wanted to do the route i have never said that, all i have ever said is that the cheapest option to crew it would be Cityflyer crew . Oh and thanks for the lesson on how to go about getting a union involved myself and my friends hadnt thought of doing that, we are not country bumpkins you know, we are fully aware of how to go about getting a union, the problem is the unions are not interested in Cityflyer as they have demonstrated the last 18 months.

[wobble2plank]

Lcy-Nyc could not be fully crewed by Citiflyer crew as the pilots would not be able to operate the 318 under the Scope agreement. Having a 'half half' arrangement of mainline flight crew and citi flyer cabin crew would cause a huge bun fight.

The 318 is an aircraft designed (note 'designed') to carry in excess of 100 pax therefore it will be crewed by mainline flight crew and thus mainline cabin crew.

Sorry to pop your bubble.

[marlowe]

Wobble little do you know about it ,yea yea we all know about the scope agreement didnt stop the MAN JFK being crewed by BAconnect crew with mainline flightdeck on the 767 did it? where was the scope agreement then?

[Flatspin_Fumble]

Great argument - good luck Marlowe. Might I suggest, than say " the cheapest" the term "more cost effective" may be more appropriate - From what I have seen and experienced, the Cabin Crew at Cityflyer, are more than capable of undertaking a Premium Class service from LCY to NCY.

FF

[Matt101]

glamgirl: I was an lhr temp and operated first once there are specifically trained crew but sometimes there aren't enough and sometimes you can ask for the experience.

As for cityflyer being the cheapest crew or lgw nobody acrualt knows apart from those that did the cost anlysis. Whatever you may think everything else is speculation.

I think this is starting to turn into an unnecessary p**sing contest really

Matt x

[bunnygirl]

Just read all the posts, and a little thought has occured to me..would this debate be going on if say the new BA business route from LCY was to say DME (Moscow) as a there and back. Rather than a nightstop in New York and poss a night in SNN on the way out.

As for cost etc..LGW crew (if its a night stop SNN first) could actually report at LGW, have a full brief and still position by road to LCY op. to SNN and still be in hours without even triggering overtime.

[HZ123]

Might it take longer most times than a shorthaul flight duration viz LGW-LCY by road. It is a horendous journey at any time of the day and will lead to crew being hotac'd at LCY which will push the costs up.

As for the issue of costs the first year of most ops are written off anyway and here at CBK and Waterworld we are squandering monies on a daily basis, crisis, recession, not much sign of it here. Another tranch of new management grades as we speak.

[apaddyinuk]

It seems to have escaped everyone that it has already been reported on this thread that BA intend on operating the service with LGW crew in a W pattern hooked up with the LGW-JFK service with the euro nightstop in LCY!

[flyer55]

apaddy , it hasnt been decided how the trips will be done yet!!

[VS-LHRCSA]

Glamgirl

FIRST on WW LGW was notoriously short of trained crew, particularly after the 747 and 767 went to LHR, taking a lot of trained crew with them. I got it because I was on the bottom of the seniority list and no one else wanted to do it that day.

When I finally did my FIRST course, all of us in the group had being doing it unofficially for about a year.

[Glamgirl]

VS and Matt, I stand corrected. Thanks for the info, appreciate it.

Marlowe, you obviously think that I'm being patronising, but I can assure you I'm not. I'm genuinely trying to help. The reason I explained about unions was that you've posted several times about the lack of union etc at LCY, and therefore thought I could help with giving some tips. I did not for one second think you're country bumpkins (if you were, you wouldn't have the job for a start). I did not say that CW is a specialized field either, just that training is required. I've said on several occasions that I firmly believe that with that training CF crew are more than capable of providing the CW service. And finally, I got the impression that you wanted LCY crew to do the LCY-NYC route and that's why you're on this thread saying what you say.

I've never meant any harm, malice or any other negative word you can think of. I firmly believe we're all colleagues at the end of the day, and I wish everyone could have the same t&c's within the same company.

I get the feeling I've done something to upset you, which was never intended from my side. So apologies if I have.

ATB,

Gg

[marlowe]

Glamgirl i did take the post from you as a little patronising to cityflyer crew ,but as a gentleman i will apologise if my retort was taken as a personal slight against you . Also since posting on here funnily enough, Amicus and the TGWU under the unite banner has suddenly taken great interest in Cityflyer.

[jetset lady]

About bl**dy time too! Mind you, if they turn out to be as useless there as they seem to be at LGW at the moment, I wouldn't bother!

Jsl

[apaddyinuk]

Flyer55, I think it is more a case of it hasnt been "announced" yet as opposed to decided!

Read BAladdys post (#61) on page 4, a post which was clearly missed by those involved in the bun fight!

[jetset lady]

I can't speak for the others but in my case, it's not that I missed it, it's that I prefer to wait for an official announcement rather than believing in any "my mate said" type stuff. Been there, got the teeshirt. So far, the only official announcement is that the route will be operated by LGW crew.

I think you'll find that the subsequent discussions that have taken place have been more of a theoretical debate.

Jsl

[marlowe]

JSL that is exactly what it is theoretical debate, am i right in saying that the official announcement also said that it was subject to change ?

[jetset lady]

marlowe,

You are indeed correct. At the moment, it is planned that the LGW crew will operate this route, but lets face it, with things the way they are in the industry at the moment, nothing is certain for any one of us!

Jsl

[marlowe]

I suppose the question now is how much change if any, are you LGW crew prepared to accept on this route? For example on the this forum there is talk of nightstopping in LCY the night before, then again in SNN before heading onwards to JFK, W patterns etc etc. I think that they will want to operate this as simply as possible report on the day, 2 sectors across to JFK Minimum legal down time in JFK before heading back to LCY. I gather from these threads that may be a bit simplistic regarding any agreements that you may have in place at the moment, so are you willing to allow change in your agreements to operate this trip? bearing in mind that any changes could affect the way other trips are crewed and operated in the future from LGW or would you be looking to make this trip an exception to any agreements in place?

[jetset lady]

Unfortunately, our agreements aren't exactly what you'd call restrictive anyway. When they were written, there was such excitement at the thought of longhaul that we ended up with a pretty lousy set of MOAs, with more loopholes than a fishing net. However, the new MOA talks are taking place at the moment, so I would assume, they will be taking into account the LCY route within these talks. To be honest, at LGW, we are often our own worst enemy!

Jsl

[HZ123]

Correct BA staff in all departments delude themselves into thinking that they beat management most times when faced with T & C changes. All too often the staff are the losers because much protection and account is given to the weak, lame and lazy that make up an unhealthy percentage of BA staff in most areas. Usually the staff side negitiators do us few favours, many of seem to be working for another company and seem sometimes to be as bright as the managers we criticise.

[wobble2plank]

If any training is required, be it LGW or citiflyer, then welcome to the world of 'Columbus'. This company is promoting a route that has been requested by a couple of premium companies. They won't want to mess it up, they are operating with two aircraft that 'cant go wrong'.

If a mainline crew is not 'available' then they won't re train citiflyer crews onto the aircraft, they will train ab-initio crews or plug in main line crews.

Citi Flyer, your days are numbered, the agreements with the company come up for re-assessment in 2010 when the scope agreement for flying the aircraft outside of scope comes up for re-appraisal? New RJ's with more than 100 seats???

Keep dreaming

Oddly enough, I do know what the scope verses CC agreement carries. :rolleyes:

Discuss

[marlowe]

wobble dont worry about cityflyer and the RJs we getting Embraer 170/190 fleet so again what do you know!!!!!!!! lol!!!!!!

[Matt101]

Marlowe,

Though its essentially a fait acompli the E190 isn't supposed to get certification for the steep approach into LCY until December - also the range on the E170 from LCY is 750nm so somewhat limiting to new routes.

Also the 190 is designed to hold 106 passengers (in dual class though up to 122 is possible) - which would present a problem in that only Mainline flight crew are able to operate it under the BA livery in the UK (SCOPE)

Are you sure that's the replacement plan for your fleet? I'm not attempting to be difficult just curious!

Matt

[yellowdog]

I tend to agree with JSL, mixing crews up introduces an amount of complexity into an operation...what if the crew aren't airbus trained....what if the hours aren't compatable.....what if our agreement doesn't cover this type of flying...what if....what if.....?

I presume "the mate" has access to the flights timings even though the slots haven't been decided on in NYC yet, and I presume he has taken into account that the LGW-JFK won't change timings, and I presume he knows the whole winter 09 programme already, and I presume he knows the crewing levels that will be needed for that season....?

It's all rumour and conjecture at the moment, wait until it's on CARMEN.

YD

[wobble2plank]

As Matt101 has pointed out the introduction of the Embraer 190 into the fleet is going to cause some scope headaches.

Marlowe, personally I don't care who operates behind the door, as long as they can follow orders and evacuate the cabin in an ordered and timely fashion, I'm happy.

What you fail to grasp, but then again what do I know, is that the new RJ's and the E190 are all aircraft 'designed' to carry in excess of 100 pax. BALPA gave Citi Flyer a local 'Scope exemption' for the RJ's which is due to expire in 2010. After the debacle of Open Skies the mainline fleet pilots will not allow BALPA to miss this opportunity and they will not allow concessions again. From now ALL aircraft operating in BA livery and designed to carry in excess of 100 pax will have mainline pilots. That is what is written into schedule K of SCOPE and that is what will happen. And how many seats does the 190 have? 98 to 114 seats

So, as I said before, expect changes at Citi Flyer, coming soon.

:ugh:

[marlowe]

So wobble, BALPA gonna back you all the way are they just like openskies? We all know how that started and ended . I have no doubt that change is ahead for Cityflyer, that is to be expected, still doesnt change the fact we are all gonna get a Brazilian!!!!!!!!

[Matt101]

Haha,

Marlowe, sounds painful but could be an interesting USP for your fleet!

All I'm curious about is how "set in stone" the Embraer plan is? Who's your source or has it been announced somewhere?

Best,

Matt

[marlowe]

well they are getting the aircraft from Jetblue taking over their order from Embraer so how set in stone is that? Also the seat config on the 170 is 70-80 pax and on the 190 its 98-114 so the 170 is within the scope agreement and the 190 can be configed to be within the scope agreement, as the agreement stands at the moment. All information from Embraers website.

[yellowdog]

Marlowe,

Can you provide a link to the Embraer site mentioning the cancelled JetBlue order? I have searched the website and cannot find it anywhere.

Thanks

YD

[marlowe]

the canx order info is on the jetblue website not on the Embraer one .After rereading my post can see the confusion!!

[Hotel Mode]

and the 190 can be configed to be within the scope agreement

No it cant. It's designed for over 100 pax. The scope agreement is on certified load not actaul config.

[marlowe]

Well then hotel mode looks like BA gonna challenge the scope agreement before 2010 then. BALPA will realise that any challenge to it will result in BA threatening court action, that means BALPA will have to spend a lot of money on something they are not 100% sure of winning and so they wont bother! Hmmm where have we heard that scenario before?

[yellowdog]

Marlowe,

Really sorry to ask but do you have a link to the news story anywhere?

I've trawled through google, JetBlue and Embraers websites but drawn a blank.

Cheers
YD

[marlowe]

yellowdog just go to the jetblue website and search Embraer all the press releases come up there is a report on Jetblue deferring there Embraer order to 2016 well part of that order is now earmarked for Cityflyer.

[Hotel Mode]

BALPA will realise that any challenge to it will result in BA threatening court action, that means BALPA will have to spend a lot of money on something they are not 100% sure of winning and so they wont bother! Hmmm where have we heard that scenario before?

Er no not really, these are UK based aircraft and the court case/EU ruling only applied outside the UK. Additionally BA management reaffirmed the UK scope agreement and all its clauses under oath in the high court during the case. Even they would struggle to wriggle out of that.

I'm not sure why its a bad thing, all the scope agreement means is a merger of seniority lists like the first Cityflyer. The Capts get a pay rise and the FOs get a long term career slot.

[wobble2plank]

Be wary of the words 'seniority list merger' I don't think it would be a merger, it would be integration on the bottom of the mainline list with 'Grandfather rights'.

[marlowe]

Hotel mode i appreciate what you are saying , but with Openskies not being challenged in court because BALPA would not commit money to an action they were not 100% sure they would win, then this does give BA the message that if they threaten legal action then they can call any unions bluff and get what they want.

[Hotel Mode]

Perhaps a topic for another thread? The EU ruling was new law that occured during the dispute and BALPA certainly didnt have the money to test that to the limits, there is no new law to be tested for a domestic dispute so any threat is likely to be empty.

[yellowdog]

Thanks for that Marlowe,

Must have slipped through my usual net of airliner order deals.

And flowerduet, can't see very much bashing, just a informed debate. Admittedly an off topic debate but a debate none the less.

YD

[Human Factor]

So wobble, BALPA gonna back you all the way are they just like openskies?

"Scope" is legally binding within the UK, as affirmed by BA under oath.

"Scope" requires that any aircraft certified with more than 100 seats (why do you think BA aren't using CF pilots to operate the 32-seat A318) is operated by mainline pilots. If CF do eventually end up with E190s, they will be crewed by (probably the existing CF) pilots on BA mainline contracts.

No doubt there will be some negotiation but the above is legally binding. ;)

[HZ123]

Some of you must be grandfathers, there is no long term future in any of these argreements in particular the 'grandfather' rights as eventually they will be challenged as being wholley discriminatory, which is exactly what they seem to be. The trouble with many of we BA staff at all levels of the company, because we have done so little work for so long with masses of time off it is impossible to believe that one day we will all have to awake from this dream. As far as I am cocerned in cannot happen quickly euough.

[TopBunk]

The trouble with many of we BA staff at all levels of the company, because we have done so little work for so long with masses of time off it is impossible to believe that one day we will all have to awake from this dream.

You may be correct in some or even many areas on the company, but I am predicted to have done 897 hours flying in the 12 months from 1 Nov 2007 to 31 Oct 2008. I apologise for slacking for the other 3 hours that I could legally have flown, but our shortest flight is 4 hours 40 to Cairo.

[Carnage Matey!]

in particular the 'grandfather' rights as eventually they will be challenged as being wholley discriminatory, which is exactly what they seem to be

What, you mean the rights that allow a pilot to continue in his existing aircraft command position rather than be displaced by somebody more senior to him? The right that is entirely counter-discriminatory? You do talk some nonsense sometimes HZ123. If you want to participate at least have the decency to know what you're talking about.

[PC767]

Quick question. A citation regarding the delay of production slots for jetblue and embraer may have been established but where is a citation confirming that BA under the guise of CF will be taking these production slots?

[Carnage Matey!]

It's interesting that we've been hearing rumours of a big Embraer purchase since back in the days of BACX and still no sign of one. Just another rumour for the subsidiary airline to get all excited about. Nothing will come of it.

[wobble2plank]

As Carnage Matey has correctly pointed out, 'Grandfather rights' is merely a way of saying that when a company is taken over by another company the the pilots who are Captains on that particular type have the right to remain Captains, irrespective of their seniority position within the new company, as long as they remain on that aircraft type.

Any internal move between fleets will mean that the pilot takes up his natural position with respect to the seniority list, in other words a move to the right hand seat.

What it allows is that the pilot can choose to take a fleet move, a move that would have meant leaving the old company and rejoining the new at the bottom, if he wishes or, as would have originally been the case, remain on the fleet as a Captain.

These magical Embraers seem to be as elusive as the Gatwick A330 beach fleet.

Lcy-Nyc, won't be Citi Flyer. Probably won't be LHR, more than likely Gatwick on cheaper contracts and used to multi mode operandi.

HZ123, can't agree more with the time off for ramp ops at LHR, but don't beat the drum with those of us who have been regularly turning in 12.5 hour days at the controls of an aircraft.

[bunnygirl]

Just to go back to what ranks will operate the route. Have been reliably informed that it will be a Cabin Manager as the SCCM. One of the unions are insisting its a CM, as CM's operate as the in charge on all Long Haul flights operated by LGW crew. And if a Purser was to take it out (Not that they aren't very capable of it). It could mean in time the CM rank could be diminished by management.

I.E Well if a Purser can take a long haul flight thats is Club World only from LCY, they can do it from LGW on a 777. Thus dispensing with CM's and the extra pay they get. Management would love for a Purser to be in charge, but longterm it will be totally detrimental to our careers in terms of promotions etc.

[biddedout]

Many of the pilots (and cabin Crew) in CFE were around when BA bought their original companies (Brymon 1990’s and BRAL 2001). As such and thanks to TUPE, these people retain their continuous dates of joining from their original companies, and in some cases, these dates might even go back as far as Loganair in the 80’s. BA bought these companies for a reason (almost certainly so they could grab their valuable LHR slots). After many years of playing around with what was left, BA seem to have found that their only real interest in regional flying is through LCY. If they have an agreement which triggers the transfer of these people into the parent company from 2010, then their Date of Joining comes with them and with current legislation, neither BA nor the unions would be wise trying to order these people amongst thir colleguesin any way which does not continue to recognise this DoJ. Laws have changed. Just because it was done one particular way for CFE 1 or Dan, doesn’t mean that it will be done this way for CFE 2. “Go to the bottom of the list” just doesn’t work these days and quite rightly so.

[PC767]

Date of joining and seniority lists within departments are seperate issues.
I work with people who have a date of joining prior to mine but who have less seniority, simply because of the above reasons. Slotting pilots and cabin crew into established seniority lists is purely down to negotiation not legislation.

[biddedout]

Probably driven a lot more by legislation these days, particularly when promoted positions are up for grabs. Until airline management can be trusted to run fair appraisal and selection systems (not based on fuel tables, golf scores and boys club membership) then seniority lists are probably the best option, but they are a little shaky and open to being challenged.

Its sort of like saying that no HBOS employees are allowed to apply for any new and more senior positions in the new combined Lloyds TSB HBOS group because they are "too junior".

Slotting a few CFE people in to the Mainline lists in continuous serice DoJ postion would probably make very little difference to anyone's prospects anyway. Most of them probably wouldn't move to London unless they were pushed.

[Blowstar]

All this arcane discussion of Scope, MoA, TandCs, DoJs is fascinating, almost as if flight crews were trying to find a way NOT to allow BA to operate its planned LCY JFK service.

Do you think the Alitalia unions had the same sort of discussions just before their airline went bankrupt?