BA freeze on non-essential recruitment

[wapses]

In a letter to BA cabin staff, Malcolm the Manager tells them how bad things are at the airline and adds that, as a result, all non-essential recruitment has been frozen.

My question:
If the recruitment was "non-essential" why was it being planned in the first place? Surely all airlines (and all companies for that matter) should limit new hiring to roles that are essential.

Also said that 300 managers have gone from BA. Well, if the airline can operate fine without these 300, then what were they doing there in the first place?

Both statements appear to me to be an admission of very bad management.

[wapses]

Thanks for moving this thread from Rumours and News. Looking at that forum again I suggest it's retitled Air Crashes ... that is all that's discussed there.

[uklad007]

this is a common reality of the times were in.
I suspect by non essential they mean - they want enough people to have minimum coverage to do the work (from a customer service, volume, legal, health and safety etc etc perspective) but having the minimum just means that the people in those roles work to the max and in times of non recession they may have more customer service staff for example in the airports.
Its actually sensible for BA to be doing this, its not just limited to BA nor even the aviation sector - every firm is doing it - including the firm i work in which is very very profitable. Its just a common sense approach to be making.
It isnt a sign of bad management - as times change you have more people hired for example on say project related work in times when the company can afford to do this, and then some of these projects may be cut in harsher times. Changing working patterns, changing policy of a particular business may dictate the need for more or less staff. Plus its always when times are harder you deep dive into your business and see - where can we make more efficiencies (merging tasks, roles etc)

You also have to remember that BA has itself gone through radical change ever since the Future Size and Shape policy - because of BA pulling out of the regions, the size and scope of the firm has contracted somewhat in recent years to a London base focus - so you dont need as many people to manage the work.

[racedo]

I agree with uklad007

Every organisation above say 50 people needs what is euphamistically called "Organistional slack" built in.

At a people level it allows for cover for people on holidays, training, maternity/paternity, illness and projects for growth or decline........a well managed decline or exit can save a company a lot of money. On a factory / machine or plant basis it means you can never run at 100% capacity because you need retooling, downtime etc.

Cutting way back on this slack and getting rid of lots of people means in the event of an upturn you run short of people often very quickly and often the people you get rid of are the people who have what is called the "organisational memory" of the company and can make things happen over and above the normal day to day stuff.

Numerous airlines dumped staff after 9/11 and within a year rehired many new people who take a long while to understand the way the company works.

I understand why they are doing it from a cost saving and profitability standpoint as you need to ride out the recession but you also need to be able to plan for an upturn as it will eventually come its just when is the hard part.

[wapses]

Do not agree with either of the above comments.

In times like these there is no way BA should have even been thinking about hiring new people who were not absolutely 100% crucial to the operation of the airline. If the airline had been properly managed there would therefore be no need to freeze non-essential recruitment ... there wouldn't have been any!

[uklad007]

Your missing the point waspes and have mis read this "letter" in that case because BA isnt so much talking about hiring a load of new people for the sake of it but now have decided to scrap the idea, they are more than likely referring to replacing people who leave.
Companies dont hire for the sake of hiring to give recruiters and people in HR something to do.

Essential recruitment will mean if they have someone in a critical role - say one in health and safety - and they need that person in order to operate the airline and the person in that role leaves then they have to replace them - its a cant do without recruitment.
Non Essential might mean - in the past when they were busier and it was essential to say have (and am plucking a figure out of thin air here as i dont know) 50 people in the team covering check in at LGW, the numbers of passengers could have dropped, together with more people checking in online then its only now needs a minimum of 40 people to now operate, if people leave the company then the wont replace any of the roles over 40 people as those roles are now non-essential. The customers might want more staff and to ensure against the unexpected for example ideally 45 might be a sensible figure to build in some slack in a better climate, but the airline might take the decision that 40 is the minimum and therefore over 40 people is non essential.

You have to remember, the training and recruitment process is not a quick one for an airline (or any business) even with previous experience, so companies have to expect the unexpected and build in slack - any company of the size of BA could cause issues for itself if it didnt (if an airline had only the bare minimum number of cabin crew and a a number report in sick on any one day - which lets face it will happen - an airline cannot operate all of the flights it is due to). Its common sense and not bad management.