Will BA recruit if there's a war in Iraq?

[please]

In terms of recruitment, what will happen if there is a war in Iraq? Does it depend on Britain's involvement, or will any war in that region mean downsizing, a continued recruitment ban and no hope for us wannabe Nigels in the foreseeable future? I understand it is very difficult to predict, but any views or opinions might help me shape my future plans. (I have about 8 months to run in my current occupation and am considering going the self-sponsored route).
Much appreciation for any replies.

[RVR800]

No

[David Balchin]

Dose the words;
"The only flying you'll be doing is a freight plane for of rubber dog s**ts out of Hong Kong"
Mean anything?
If it kicks off in the middle east we'll be lucky to get that.
Let along a nice job with a nice airline. See several posts by WWW warning same! and the fact that BA 's year on year pax is down 12.9% and an operating profit of only 158 m:eek:

[tailscrape]

I don't think a war will help at all.

I am afraid that I have binned the article now, but Rod Eddington (BA chief exec) was saying last week that a war in Iraq would damage the fragile recovery and not just in that region of their business. It would decimate Trans Atlantic Traffic too.

Sorry, but I think you are clutching at straws. I think it will be a good while before BA cadets are paid for again.

Plus even before this down turn it was a very tough course to get on. You are pinning your hopes on a 1:100 chance anyhow my friend...............and that was before the long break in Cadet recruitment. I reckon it is 1:150 now.

[Birdseed One]

The odds on getting on the scheme were nowhere near as low as you suggest Tailscrape-they were around 1 in 33!

Which aint that bad! :)

[please]

I'm not puting all my eggs in one basket. I have backup plans and many other ideas if things don't start moving with the world's favourite. I still want to get onto the BA cadet scheme though, as it is undeniably the best out there, and there seem to be signs that the cadets waiting fir the jet orientation courses are about to be placed on them. All just rumours, but my hope is that they will open the ab init scheme again soon. Any other news/info on those cadets? Have they been given start dates yet?

[buttonmonkey]

Sorry to add to the doom and gloom, but if it all kicks off in Iraq then there won't be any recruitment at BA (or anywhere else!) for a long, long time. They are in the process of shedding a large number of flight crew positions through "Future size and shape" most of which will come about through retirements and a freeze on recruitment. You only have to look at what happened during/after the gulf war and combine that with the current dismal situation to realise what the result on recruitment would be.

You are right in that BA's cadet program is a good (and cost effective!) way into commercial aviation but as you say don't put all your eggs in one basket, when i applied back in 1990 they had 40,000 applications for the 100 places. You do the maths. I was hired in 1998 by a leading Charter airline, having been a self improver. There is life outside BA and in recent times the gap in pay and conditions has narrowed considerably, so consider all the options. Timing is absolutely critical, i think now might be a good time to start training. I started in 1994 when there was very, very lttle recruitment going on, but by the time I finnished training things had picked up and i was in the right place at the right time and got lucky! But the window of recruitment never stays open for long! If things stay as they are (!) then in 2/3 years should catch the next up swing in the industry.

Best of luck! Go with the flow and be prepared to roll with the punches!

[A and C]

I think that you should be able to work that one out for your self !.

[grunt]

Just back from a middle east slip and met some British Embassy senior types. They laughed when I asked about the forthcoming war in Iraq, just Mr Bush throwing his weight around. They confirmed my thoughts that the UK has done nothing in preparation, it is all bluff to try and get Iraq to toe the line, I do not think the Americans can afford it unless they can link it to Sept. 11.

[please]

That's encouraging, grunt. I am thinking about the self-improver route. I have until April with my present job, and am hoping that the present situation picks up for recruitment. Otherwise it's a case of finding the money to do it myself. I suppose the Iraq situation is beyond our control, but it would completely screw the aviation industry right to the very roots.

[please]

By the way, Speedbird 2496, is it true that you STILL haven't got JOC course start dates? I heard something yesterday (Sat 10th August) to the contrary? Maybe just a viscious rumour....

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/al-udeid-imagery2.htm

So why are they scrambling to build this massive new base?

Some kind of action is looking increasingly likley in my opinion. Any kind of action will have a negative effect on the business.

I am seeing definite signs of recovery post Sept 11th. I know of several people who have been taken back on, or who have been offered interviews or who have had firm dates for conversion courses.

Gulf WarII could scupper all of that. :(


WWW

[Baldie Man]

If war does happen I suppose you could take your shiney CPL into the local RAF careers office and ask to become a mil pilot. They are short on pilots see.

Come to think of it - I'd have a pootle down there even if there wasn't a war on. ;)

BM.

[scroggs]

I don't believe that there will be large-scale US military activity in Iraq. I do believe that there will be an increase of the kind of military pressure that has been applied constantly since 1991, through aggressive patrolling and possible extension of the North and South no-fly zones, coupled with increased political pressure and economic incentives to re-establish the UN Arms Inspectorate's presence in Iraq.

There are a number of reasons why I think a US invaion of Iraq is unlikely. The overwhelmingly important one is that there will not be adequate international support. The US hasn't really made much effort to carry the world with it, in particular the Arab world, and I think they've underestimated the support they need. Saudi Arabia, their main ally in the region, is distinctly cool on the whole idea and, without them, it 's sunk. The US's 'scramble' to create new support bases in Qatar and elsewhere is a reflection of the reducing support they expect from Saudi. However, these bases are way too far from Iraq to replace the forward bases available in Saudi Arabia.

A credible invasion of Iraq would need the presence of 250,000 or more ground troops, on a wide front (or more than one), and 20 or more nearby airbases capable of sustained high-intensity operations day and night. With the only country likely to actively support the US being Kuwait, there isn't the real estate to support such activity. It would be like trying to invade UK from the Isle of Wight! And there are far from sufficient naval platforms to even make a dent in these numbers.

Lastly, although the US has been trying to wean itself off Arab oil (most recently shown by its attempts to divorce Nigeria from Opec), it still imports over 50% of its oil from the region. The US cannot afford to jeopardise that supply just yet.

So, I think that the current invective and rhetoric from Dubya is a fairly crude attempt to bully Iraq into co-operation. It will probably work, as I'm sure that behind the scenes the US is persuading Saddam that there is a credible threat against him, his family and his economic assets from both special forces and dissident factions within Iraq.

As for BA's cadet scheme, I'm increasingly persuaded that it will not reappear in the near future. I certainly wouldn't wait for it!

[Johnny 7]

Scroggs

BA CEP scheme is possibly restarting next May . This has been passed down to the potential training providers .

However , as said , another crisis would likely put this on the back burner .

[Lucifer]

I'll tell you what Al-Udeid is - a large money-spinner for US defence corporations and nothing more. What a surprise.

BA certainly need people soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if either BA changes dramatically anyway, or new entrants remain in CitiExpress for a long time before moving up as a permanent new route.

-400 pilots are needed more than most unfortunately, and that spells DEP rather than CEP.

[no sponsor]

I agree with Scroggs. I have not believed for some time there will be a war in the region as a result of the US. It also seems that certain factions within the US regime are starting to question the power that Donald Rumsfeld (however you spell it) has been wielding in Washington, especially after his outbursts last week.

No idea on re-starting the CEP. However, past history suggests that BA prefer the CEP route than the DEP route. Obviously good news for those wishing to apply for the 400 fleet with experience. Mind you, endless trips to deepest darkest Africa probably awaits potential recruits.

[Hand Solo]

BA wont be recruiting any pilots soon, no matter how short we are, unless the company wide recruitment ban is lifted. The reasons for this are:

1) BA pilots are disliked throughout the company (thanks to management propaganda) and any attempt to recruit flight crew to an efficient but understaffed department will be met with howls of protest.

2) If flight crew are hired then all the other overstaffed but inefficient departments will demand more staff to make up for their inefficiencies.

3) If flight crew are hired Waterside will go on a massive recruitment spree as individual managers try to protect their positions by hiring more 'executives' and 'analysts' to work beneath them.

To correct the previous poster who said that we are losing many flight crew, we are only losing 400 over two years. That target will be more than met by natural wastage, yet less than a year after 911 we are critically short of Airbus Captains and 744 crew. We have now reached the stage on the Airbus where flights are being cancelled due to shortages of flight crew, but we can't hire until the Waterside beast is slain.:(

[Lavdumperer]

You will not need to worry about the prospect of a long, drawn-out war. The USA will QUICKLY decimate Saddam's government with precision (avoiding collateral damage/civilian injuries as much as possible) and force a regime change. It is well known that most people in Iraq hate Saddam and loathe their living conditions and lowly status in the Arab world. Most Iraqi people, including the already pulverized Iraqi army (with long-term memories of precision missiles and napalm carpet-bombing runs) would favor a more-democratic rule and would not fight as hard as Saddam would like. Any war would be a matter of weeks - not months. And the US doesn't need anyone's direct help - not even the British (it will need Turkish airspace and Bahraini airfields, etc.). The US can do it alone - it is time for a regime change.

Therefore, I would not worry too much about a prolonged hiring freeze in the event of a war. It will be a turkey-shoot...


Cheers

[sally at pprune]

You know, that could only be written by someone from the US who has been subjected to their media for the last 11 months. The trouble is, there's a whole nation that thinks like that. So it might just happen. :(

Lavdumperer, we sympathise with your nation's loss. We agree with your objective. But can't you concede that in this case, it's just possible that the rest of the world might be right in condemning your proposed method? Have you guys never heard of groupthink?

[please]

Birdseed, why is Hand Solo wrong? Just out of interest, and to continue this engaging and thought-provoking thread...:)

[purple haze]

sorry slightly off the topic but relevant,

Rod eddington famously said that a low cost and premium arline cannot be run at the same time, but surely with all these price cuts, and media campaigns, isnt he converting BA's european flights into exactly that and by the fact that he says hes competing with the low cost lot.

to compete with them, you have to have equal or cheaper fares and better service which ba is renowed for.

the big question is, can he do it?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Heaven Forfend!

You will not need to worry about the prospect of a long, drawn-out war.

No even a short one will be ruinous. As the bombs fall on Baghdad people stop travelling fearing bombs on airplanes reprisals.

The USA will QUICKLY decimate Saddam's government with precision (avoiding collateral damage/civilian injuries as much as possible) and force a regime change.

Tricky when you don't know where he is. Don't know who will replace him/them. Don't have any legal authority to take action. Don't have the stomach to take any casulaties or PoWs.

It is well known that most people in Iraq hate Saddam and loathe their living conditions and lowly status in the Arab world.

Is it well known? There have been exactly no internal attempted coups against Saddam. Even the Germans managed an attempt to blow up Hitler. The Iraqi people have been fed similar amounts of propoganda to the North American people. They believe the evil US is deliberately starving them.

Most Iraqi people, including the already pulverized Iraqi army (with long-term memories of precision missiles and napalm carpet-bombing runs) would favor a more-democratic rule and would not fight as hard as Saddam would like.

The Repulblican Guard were not pulverised. True some civilians were killed by PGM's. I don't remember much Napalm being dropped in the Guld War. Difficuly to favor more democractic rule when there is no alternative to Saddam offered. Will the next dictator be worse? Who knows.

Any war would be a matter of weeks - not months.

Not according to Colin Powell.

And the US doesn't need anyone's direct help - not even the British (it will need Turkish airspace and Bahraini airfields, etc.). The US can do it alone - it is time for a regime change.

Well they will need the direct help of the Turkish and Bahrainis for a start then. The US can do it alone. Alone being the operative point. If its time for a regime change then just tell me one thing - whats the replacement?

Therefore, I would not worry too much about a prolonged hiring freeze in the event of a war. It will be a turkey-shoot...

Terminology such as that is a little disconcerting. We are talking about killing men, women and children. Not turkeys.

Just how many Iraqis were aboard those aircraft on Sept 11th? And how many Saudis? Surely the US has a much much greater mandate to invade and topple the rullers of Saudi Arabia?

Cheers

WWW

[Captain Birdseed]

I'd just like to say, in a slim shady sorta way:

I'm Captain Birdseed, the real Captain Birdseed, all the other Captain Birdseed's are just imitating...

Since my colleagues who know me might be rather disturbed if I'd posted the previous comment... ;)

Sorry this doesn't contribute to the thread, but I had to say this lest I get lynched for inappropriate speculation or something!

T'ta

PS I suppose in answer to the original question: No way. Even if the war for some miraculous reason didn't affect air travel, BA would surely batten down the hatches just in case. Why risk it?

[Edited for not reading the question in the first place RTFQ=1/2TFA]

[scroggs]

Dream on, Lav. You been to lots of wars, have you? Can you point out any one over the last 100 years that has been, as you call it, a turkey-shoot?

The reason the 1991 Gulf War was over so quickly was that a huge group of nations co-operated against Iraq. Saudi Arabia's vast shared frontier with Kuwait and Iraq, and large number of modern airbases, allowed the military command lots of flexibility in choosing how and when the liberation of Kuwait would go. Over 1 million coalition military people were involved, with hundreds of aircraft. Remember, this operation was to kick an army of occupation out of its illegally-held territory. That army was weaker and smaller than it need have been because Saddam kept back his best troops, fearing a direct invasion of Iraq. That army was also at the far end of a distant and well-stretched supply line. And it was still no 'turkey-shoot'. The main reason that the Alliance didn't go on into Iraq to take out Saddam then was that there was no UN mandate to do so. Even had there been such, the military command at the time was far from convinced that such an operation could succeed, even with the huge resources than available.

Bahrain, with its single military airbase and international airport, will not substitute for Saudi Arabia in any future invasion! The total number of forces that the US could muster on its own would no way equal the number assembled in 1990. And, most importantly, there is next to no international support for any invasion, and even Dubya isn't stupid enough to invade on those terms.

[FL390]

Over the summer I was on RAF camp with the cadets and for one of the days during the week we had to go to an army base for the day. We saw a large amount of soldiers lining up to go into a large hall so we asked what they were doing.... they were receiving their injections for Iraq. We also saw approximately 30 tanks being "re-engineered." We found out that these were actually modifications to the tanks so that they could cope with desert conditions.

The person in charge of us said that injections have to be given 6 months before battle. This was 1 month ago - you do the maths. Of course I'm not saying that we will go to war, just that the possibility is certainly there and preparations are taking place.

As to the effect on airlines and recruitment etc, it would be very similar to the effect of the Gulf War which equals bad news.

[Lavdumperer]

Scroggs, I respect you a lot, so, don't take my response as disrespectful. The US has always been underestimated when it comes to battles post Vietnam (yes, that was regrettable). However, it is undeniable that the US possesses the strength and resolve (especially after 9/11) to root-out both terrorism and potential threats to the US and the rest of the world.

Saddam represents one of the major threats - his OBSESSION with laying his hands on nuclear weapons or weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION is well known (he feels Iraq would be better respected in the Arab world and that his safety would improve with the weapons). He has the money and the sense of urgency required to eventually develop an arsenal that would eventually tip the balance of power in the Gulf - that is the case. Would you like Saddam to threaten the deployment of nukes whenever he doesn't get his way? That is called nuclear blackmail - and get used to it (pacifists)...

Europe should never downplay the USA's ability to unilaterally respond to a threat like Iraq. WWW, you think you know everything - I guess your dPhil from Cambridge entitles you to that opinion... Well, of course Colin Powell would downplay the USA's ability to the press - the last thing you want is to be constrained by a deadline (i.e., a one-month battle). The USA has the sophisticated weapons (F15s, F16s, F18s, B2s , F117As, and CRUISE MISSILES), the ground forces (over 250,000 well-trained soldiers using sophisticated equipment) and the country's RESOLVE - over 75% of citizens polled agree that Saddam represents a major threat to peace in the future.

Sure, Saddam is clever and he can hide - just like Osama Bin Laden. But when Bagdad has been taken (because the Iraqi army will not want to fight and get thrashed again if Saddam runs and hides), he will not be able to return to his current position. The government will change eventually and he may still be in hiding - he will eventually be caught OR he will live in the caves with Osama.

Europeans took forever to deal with Bosnia and Kosovo - how many poor, innocent people had to die in Kosovo without European intervention? Kosovo was in Europe's backyard and yet it took the Americans to get things going - and it took a matter of weeks with almost no US casulties. Do you remember Kosovo WWW? The Americans had to take care of Europe's dirty work - and we did it quickly. In Afghanistan, we quickly rooted the Al Queda despite Russia's claim that it would become another Viet Nam. WRONG!!!! Sure, we did not catch Osama or the Taliban leader, but they are running like scared children... A government/regime change has happened in Afghanistan despite all of the European naysayers....

Will there be a lot of lives lost? Probably. Will the Iraqis appreciate the end result when they can once again be strong members of the world community vs. the parriahs they are now? Yes. Simply put - we have the sophisticated weapons and the resolve to get things done - unlike the Europeans who have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power (i.e., the French love the oil money). Remember Kosovo - the Americans took charge after years of European neglect and we got it done - quickly! In the end, the world will be safer and better off without Saddam - and everyone will thank us - again...


Cheers

[BigAir]

Lavdumperer,

I am coming out of virtual PPrune posting retirement to say this:

There is more to the Former Yugoslavian situation than most Yanks recognise.

Afghanistan was only a success by the foreign involvment JOINT with the US - British Royal Marines taking a leading role in this is one example.

Who is looking after Afghanistan and the Former Yugoslavia after the US and others have taken action??? Is it me or did the US already pretty much all go home (with the exception of their reservists who still seem to be in the area).

You seem to be very keen on the subject of the US protecting the World - Thanks for the help in the falklands then.

I am not trying to stir things here, but more alert you to the fact that the rest of the educated world does not fall for the US propoganda machine, and in fact you get people like me who are rapidly getting to the decision that the US actually causes more problems in the world than it fixes - some of these intentionally.

Still lets hope there is no war out their, as it will further screw all of our sponsorship chances - as I think for the next few years they will be few and far between.


Big Air

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Hey Lavdump , do you believe everything you read or are you working for the US propaganda machine? That's pretty strong rhetoric you're spouting there. I don't dispute that the US is the largest and best equipped of all but sometimes "largest" and "best technology" doesn't work. If you look around and read more widely, you may discover that the Iraqis actually learnt after 1991 that you can't beat the US in a maneouver warfare environment - large, wide-open spaces where the enormous US machine can run free. They're doing what any smart opponent would do and turning their adversary's strengths into a weakness by taking it in to the urban environment where the high tech stuff can't see or go. The next one won't be so straight forward. Be careful when you rely on technology (eg cruise missiles and stealth) because sometimes low-tech wins out (eg inflateable boats packed with explosives). I'm with BigAir - the US often creates more problems than it fixes.

As for recruiting in an unstable globle environment, haven't we seen that already? Sep 11? No commercial organisation is going to invest in huge capital expenditure if there is instability.

[laurie]

Phoo its getting like farkin' newsnight in here.....Jeremy! Tell us:

Will BA recruit if there's a war in Iraq? (cont p96)



Regards,

Laurie

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Bagsy I man the swingometer and get to play with the tanks in the sandpit!

WWW

[scroggs]

Lav,

there's some truth in much of what you say. Howver, there's also a good deal of bluster and hyperbole. No amount of shouting that 'my military's bigger and more capable than yours' will alter the political, territorial and tactical problems facing the US in this adventure. No-one is arguing for Saddam, but there are many world politicians that would suggest that the threat he presents is a) arguable and unproven and b) already being contained. I seriously doubt that many of the US political and military strategists are overly concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people, and our experience of the US's attitude to every conflict since Vietnam is that once the miltary action is over, they'll disappear back home and leave others to clear up the mess.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what our personal feelings are about the reasons for, practicality of, or outcome of any conflict in Iraq might be. I'd like the conversation to get back to the poster's original question: the effect on recruiting for BA if such a conflict does happen. Perhaps it's my fault that we've gone off track!

I've had a suggestion from 'someone who knows' that BA may be considering restarting the Cadetship scheme, though I've no idea of any proposed timescale. With BA's exposure to the Middle East, even if the rest of the world carries on regardless, they will lose a considerable amount of traffic. It seems logical that any recruiting would be negatively affected, and that the CEP scheme would slide to the right.

[purple haze]

scroggs

is this someone else completely different, or are you refering to this posting in general,

and secondly why would BA recruit in the current climate

(ps i hope it does start, reastically i feel they are my only hope).

sad but true.

[scroggs]

Purple,

the question was 'Will BA recruit if there's a war in Iraq?'. The basic, logical answer to that is 'No'. At the moment, I have reason to believe that they may open recruiting, at least to DEPs and maybe to CEPs next year. Another Gulf conflict would likely scupper those plans.