BA reroute Gulf flights via Larnaca

[crabface]

Has anyone else heard that all aircrew have had to depart from Bahrain/Saudi/Jordan and Quatar because of change in foreign office advice?????

[EastMids]

BA have announced major changes to their schedule to the Gulf, with most flights routing via Larnaca. Presumably, this is to allow crew changes and avoid the need for nightstops in the Gulf region

http://www.britishairways.com/news/index.shtml

Flight Schedule Changes to all Gulf Destinations from 23 February 2003

British Airways has adjusted its flight schedule to all Gulf destinations following changes in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice to British nationals travelling to the region.

British Airways flights to Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Doha, Dubai, Jeddah, Kuwait and Riyadh will begin to operate via Larnaca in Cyprus from Sunday February 23, 2003.

Services to Kuwait and Abu Dhabi will be combined. Flights will operate from London Heathrow to Kuwait via Larnaca and Abu Dhabi.

Flights to Doha and Bahrain will continue as a combined service and will operate from London Heathrow to Larnaca, Doha and then Bahrain.

The return flights from both Jeddah and Riyadh will operate via Larnaca.

Flights to Dubai will be reduced from two per day to a daily service, with the BA109/ BA108 suspended from Monday February 24, 2003.

Flights to Muscat will be suspended until further notice.

British Airways will be contacting customers on affected flights. Alernatively, passengers holding bookings on cancelled services can contact British Airways at 0845 77 999 77 between the hours of 06:00 and 21:45.

The change in schedule is part of a carefully planned series of measures which will allow the airline to maintain a smooth and safe operation to the region. Flights will be timed to land at London's Heathrow airport as close to the original schedule as possible to ensure that disruption to our customers is kept to a minimum.

British Airways apologises to all customers who are affected by the changes for any inconvenience this may cause. Safety and security is our number one priority.

[STAN DEASY]

As someone whose company flies to these parts, I have a queery that a more financially or legally sassy pruner may have the answer to.

If, despite FCO advice, I still operate to these parts and, god forbid the worst happens and Mrs stand easy is left to pick up the pieces, just where would she stand in terms of the insurance companies? Would they run a mile quoting the FCO. Would they require to know now and charge an excess? Would they declare all policies void because of the changed nature of my employment?

Of course this is all speculation but I'd rather know now and take precautions than not. if all insurances and by this I mean endowments, life policies, medical and loss of licence become void then where do we stand with our employers. Are they or the FCO legally obliged to ensure coverage for staff.

[Goldstone]

Latest news today is that BA are routing all Gulf and Saudi flights via Larnaca effective immediately, apparently because their crews are scared to overnight in the Gulf region. So crew change in Cyprus in each direction.

Usual nonsense ... no thought for the inconvenience caused to passengers or cost to the airline ... the BA crews are a bunch of woosies!

[unwiseowl]

Not worth a reply, just ignore it.

[LRdriver]

LrDriver starts digging foxhole to avoid barrage of flaming about to occur.

"them there are fightin words"

[Dozza2k]

with this current climate who can blame them or the airline? it seems a bit excessive to some, but then anything which enhances safety is positive. I thinks its good their wishes have been recognised and some action taken.


... especially with recent foreign office changing their opinions on the gulf states.

[flapsforty]

Foreign Office Travel Advice (http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629&a=KArticle&aid=1045739556048)

Goldstone, on the off chance that you are not trolling, allow me to clarify a few small points.
The same or very similar operational changes are being implemented by many European majors.
The companies do not take these actions because of whingeing crew.
Careful evaluation of the local situation by the company security division, taking into account the travel advisory from their governement and the company contingengy plans, is what causes route changes and stop-over changes.

But why let the truth get in the way of a nice bit of crew baiting eh?

[DamienB]

More to the point, it's spelt 'wusses', singular 'wuss'.

[Scimitar]

Since BA lost a 747 and crew in Kuwait last time (the aircraft permanently) who can blame them for being cautious? Good on yer BA - look after the crews!

[soddim]

Goldstone, having spent many hours flying with your 'woosies' back and forth to Saudi I would like to add my support for their plans.

You probably have no idea how pleased many Brits are to see their BA flight outside in the heat waiting to take them home, particularly if the alternative is travelling Saudia or worse.

If this arrangement keeps them flying in and out of Saudi during the current difficult period I am sure the same expats will understand.

[Flap33]

Isn't this down to a case of jealousy ? Mr Goldstone lives and works in Doha, whereas BA crews have been taken away from Gulf-slips as per the Foreign Office advice (and personal safety).

Well done BA, I am confident BA Pax will understand. If they don't they call always fly with Mr Goldstone.

[peeteechase]

Goldstone,
Your profile doesn't say much, Doha, an "oilie" maybe.
if your flight takes a bit longer home then that's surely better than exposing airline crew to risk. Our junior cabin crew start on £8K basic, not worth being shot at for, like the guy in Riyadh the other week.
In fact even my salary as a 25 year BA Captain ain't worth it

I flew with one of the pilots interned in Kuwait, let's put it this way the guy lives for today! Lets hope it all gets sorted quickly, the real wusses are those voting against this "war"

When will the last screw be turned in Saddam's first nuclear device?

ATB, PTC

[BlueEagle]

Goldstone - I was in the Gulf when the war started in 1991, many airlines found that crew were stuck from the 17th January for about ten days, until the various air forces allowed commercial flights again, even then, from Bahrain, for example, the crew had to go out to Dubai or Oman by the once a day TriStar and then find their way home.

Crews and some aircraft were out of action for up to three weeks.
By taking steps to avoid a repeat of the events of January 1991 the airlines are showing sound commercial and security sense.

[Muppet99]

Pee Tee

I entirely agree with u.

There was a sheet issued by BA a few weeks back detailing all the changes in routings that flights would have to take, if (actually, when) conflict begins. Some quite interesting re-routes actually.

I don't think this is a case of 'wooses'.

[crabface]

Total moose why start a forum when no other than the crabface had already started a forumonthis issue only under a more sensitive approach

[ironbutt57]

What a little threat of war, and all the euro's poopie their pants? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p

[Devils Advocate]

ironbutt57 - I'm quite confident that the expression 'Dick Head' looses none of it's meaning as it traverses the void between our two continents - and one feels very much inclined to say that WinstonC was indeed spot on. ;)

[Ricky Butcher]

Says the man from the nation thats encouraging its citizens to stockpile food and seal up a room with duct tape as a refuge from chemical attack! Not many of your compatriots flying the North Atlantic these days, and thats 2000 miles from the war zone!

[TightSlot]

Pls correct me if wrong, but I thought that the FCO advice affected the relevant insurance cover for the airline, and that therefore such steps as these are not driven by choice but by business economics.

If I'm wrong, then IMHO BA should be given credit for looking after their crews welfare in this way.

[idgas]

Yes I agree with Tightslot - The Gulf is not the place to be at this moment in time.

A friend of mine was invovled in the last one. Spent many a month hinding. I'm sure he would agree that no one should run the risk of being put through a similar situation.

Many may feel this is a decision based on commerial considerations but but for once the safety of crew (and no doubt a/c) have be brought in to the equation.

Well done BA.

Cheers, :cool:

[411A]

Well then, the layover expenses won't be all that large, will they now, what with the new reroutings and all. What happened to the Brit 'stiff upper lip'? :rolleyes:

[ratarsedagain]

411A,
Ah, so the hotels in LCA will be letting the crews stay there for nothing will they?
Idiot.

[A300Man]

Regardless of costs, it is re-assuring to see that BA is putting the safety and wellbeing of its people first and foremost. They should be applauded for this and not ridiculed.

If only some other carriers weren't so dollar crazy, then maybe they would consider the same.

I apologise in advance if I am way off the beaten track here, but I suspect that many of the above correspondents have never been in the Gulf at all, so aren't really best qualified to comment on the potential threat that exists in the region.

Again -apologies for causing offence.

[Ghostflyer]

Why go to Larnaca; for physical security? Larnaca is the same distance from Baghdad as Bahrain!

It must be the terrorist threat then. Hang on a minute, all of the major terrorist incidents, involving wide spread loss of life, have happened thousands of miles from the Gulf where there are more Western interests.

Hmmm what can it be.

I know that during the Falklands a guy got the timing of the year award. Fearful about the chances of nuclear war in Europe he moved to Port Stanley the week before the Argies invaded.

Personally, I wouldn't go near Saudi, Kuwait or Yemen because of the terror threat. Jordan, Syria and Israel are a bit too close for comfort. Bahrain and Doha should be fine; Saddam's missiles even during Gulf War I could only reach Riyadh and Manama when launched from forward locations that will not be available to him this time. Muscat / Dubai I see no major snags; I'd be more worried about going to Ankara, Athens or Istanbul which are about the same distance away.

Seems to me that what BA is doing is a prudent measure but how far do you actually go to avoid a threat. The Middle East always seems to be tarred with the same brush. People didn't stop going to Italy (Europe) in the 90s when the FRY blew apart although they were very much closer to an active engagement zone.

The worry for me as a Westerner wouldn't actually be within the borders of most of the countries around the region but in countries where Osama and his henchmen might try to export the threat.

What a depressing start to the week.

Ghost

[BlueEagle]

I would imagine that the people who are underwriting the war risks for aircraft using Middle East airspace have already issued their ruling on where will be OK and where will not and this will have been conveyed to the airlines, together with the effective date.
Most probably that date will be the day a Gulf war re-commences.

By putting their contingency plan into effect now BA are ensuring they don't get caught with their trousers down at the last minute and are hoping to maintain a smooth operation as well as keeping their staff happy.

Having sat in my house, wearing a gas mask, for real, during the first part of the Gulf war in 1991 and wondering what the hell was going on I can sympathise with anyone who doesn't want to spend any more time there than necessary.

When the Iraqis invaded Kuwait in August 1990 the Americans that were not in the military were no slower than anyone else in getting out of Bahrain! ;)

[SLF3]

However sensible this may (or may not) be, Emirates load factors will tell you what the passengers think!

[sirwa69]

The FCO travel advice is pure CYA.

This part of the world is still a lot safer than most western cities.
I have no problem staying here. I have no problem traveling to Kuwait every other week. I have no problem keeping my kids here and sending them to school here.

Some people just like to panic for the sake of it.
Have you worked it out yet. What do you think Saddam is able to throw at us. He does not have anything left..... Remember the original weapons inspectors were based in Bahrain and I knew a few of them. Nobody is listening to these guys when they say that from 91 to 98 they destroyed a huge amount of his stuff and effectively did disarm him. And even if he did we are ringed by anti missile stuff.
The biggest danger we are in is to be hit by "Friendly Fire"

This BA diversion means that leaving LHR at 10:00 I will now get into Bahrain at 23:30 instead of 19:00. Guess I am going Gulf Air from now on.

God, You people :mad: :mad: :mad:

[gulf_slf]

Think that the main thing tourists to Dubai are worried about at present is the weather ...it is piddling down here !!

More seriously a blanket policy for the whole of the Gulf seems out of proportion & inappropriate to the situation
(or do BA operations know something that we dont know??)...the rumour in DXB is that the local 'expat' management is being repatriated!!
Suggest that they dont come back as I expect the 'local' staff can do an excellent job without them!!

The UAE (& Dubai especially) is a significant distance from any area of potential conflict....EK must be laughing with all the SLF's being directed to their services in place of the second BA flt that is cut back ....I understand that pay-loads on this route to DXB are some of the heavier sectors that BA are currently operating..so commercials are not necessarily driving this one..Check out EK 7 daily flights from the UK (I stand to corrected as required...)

BA probably needs every penny it can get at present and to keep its employees(Pilots / cabin crew) on the payroll!!

Let us all hope that situation is resoved soon and that we get back to normal asap....BA may find it difficult to gain back the pax when it all over as it reflects badly amongst locals...

Pip! Pip! Back to the 'Bunker' ('watering hole in DXB)

:mad: :mad:

[killick]

I am at a slight loss to understand why it isconsidered ok to fly into and out of the Gulf, yet not to spend a night in a 5-star hotel. Last I heard Heathrow and Gatwick were the danger spots, and I can't recall seeing tanks or troops at Bahrain Doha or Dubai in recent weeks. Perhaps BA should relocate from London altogether on "safety grounds".....Madagascar should be safely out of the firing line.

Let's put a couple of things in perspective. Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE are politically moderate, with pro-western governments and (very) comprehensive policing. It does not follow that incidents in Saudi and Kuwait, which have been a feature for some time, will automatically be emulated throughout the GCC. Interestingly, a number of companies in Saudi have offered dependents' flights out of the region - the uptake is around 1%.

As I recall, the BA plane lost last time around had the misfortune to land in Kuwait just as Saddam's chaps crossed the border - is someone seriously positing the theory that Iraq might invade GCC states this time around?

Those of us who live and work in the region are neither reckless adventurers, nor are we wholly blind to the realities of the current situation. Equally, we don't base our assessment on the outpourings of an over-excited media scrum or on stereotyped assumptions of regional homogenity.

As someone who has responsibility for the welfare of nearly 300 people here I monitor this situation very closely, and my sense is that BA's decision is an unfortunate generalisation of the region and unhelpful to the maintenance of a calm and balanced assessment - ie it's an overreaction, that will be interpreted as an abandonment by many of its regional customers.

The degree of spinelessness is endlessly arguable, and not something I would care to debate. What is curious, however, is the apparent lack of consistent logic in the decision, and the extent to which BA has genuinely reduced the risks to its staff through this action. I sense the benefit will be negligible (if any), and the phrase "knee-jerk" springs to mind.

Typed in the bunker with a large G&T for company.....

[ironbutt57]

Many many american and other expat civilians remained during the gulf war...and will do the same this time as well I'm sure..downtown Detroit on any given weeknight is more dangerous than it is here even during a war...so there you have it

[HotDog]

I still think you should jump on your Harley with 411A riding pillion and don't stop till you get to Baghdad. Looking forward to your next broadside from the nether world!:rolleyes:

[Golden Parrot]

Well said Killick, you took the words right out of my mouth!
The amount of senseless cr*p spouted by western media is simply mindboggling. My family and I feel a lot safer here than we do in Europe.

[37potter]

BMed are currently changing their programmes to avoid night stops in Amman, Jordan, following the FCO advice. We shall be stopping in Damascus instead. The advice does seem a bit OTT, Why should mr Saddam attack a neighbour who has been such a good trading partner for the last 12 years

[Ricky Butcher]

Perhaps his Scuds might fall short on the way to Tel Aviv? Its worth remembering that a US diplomat was murdered in Jordan not too long ago. The threat in those countries is not just from the war itself but also from the fundamentalists who reside there.

[Hans-Uhlrich]

37 potter

I think you're missing the point here.Its not Saddam they would be bothering about.Its the whole anti-British fever that would be generated in Jordan by fanatical Muslims that exist there.
I know, I was there recently

[BlueEagle]

If your company cover you for certain risks then you must ask your insurance manager exactly how your cover may be effected, if your company's insurance cover is a part of your contract it is their responsibility to ensure that you are either fully covered or advised that cover has been modified and in due time for you to make alternative arrangements or not fly to those areas of risk.

For insurance policies you hold yourself you should contact your broker/underwriter and get everything in writing, you may already have a policy with some obscure War clauses in it that you haven't noticed and may not be to your advantage. For your personal policies you may be required to pay an additional premium to effect full cover, worth checking!:)

[soddim]

Is it not amazing that an airline takes prudent steps to reduce risks (and, perhaps, to retain insurance cover) and all these idiots jump up and down complaining?

If they are happy to keep their heads in the sand I suggest they fly Saudia or Gulf - a risk I was never happy with. If they consider some of the previous accidents of both of these airlines and ponder on the root causes they might think it wiser to put up with a stop at Larnaca.

Sirwa 69 - did you mean 'God, you people' or was it meant to be 'Allah, you infidels'?

[Ricky Butcher]

There seems to be an awful lot of slating of BA going on here because they've decided to rejig services to the region. Well just in case you haven't noticed, with the exception of Dubai, the FCO has advised against ALL NON-ESSENTIAL TRAVEL to the region. BA have always been guided by the advice of the FCO and their own security team, and when the FCO says no, we don't go. Its been de facto policy for a long time and we've stayed in some of the worlds trouble spots for a lot longer than most. We were the last western airline to pull out of Jakarta when it kicked off there a few years ago and our customers thanked us for it.

There may be a few 'hard case' western expats over in the Gulf, and some of them may feel pretty safe living in fortified compounds or driving their SUVs with blacked out windows but generally keeping a low profile. Let me remind you that BA crews arrive in a big red,white and blue aeroplane with our flag on the tail, they wear obvious uniforms, travel in identifiable transport to public hotels and have virtually no protection. If there was ever a soft target for a crank gunman then thats it.

We know for a fact that loopy al-qaeda sympathisers are lose in Kuwait and Saudi. A British citizen was murdered in Saudi last week, and he was travelling incognito. Can you guarantee there aren't sympathisers in Bahrain, Qatar or the UAE (which provided one of the Sept 11th hijackers). Can you guarantee that once the war starts there won't be volunteers to the cause?

BA will probably lose some passengers to Emirates and Gulf Air while the schedules are disrupted, but once the war starts proper I don't think they'll see too many passengers from the UK anyway.

[killick]

Er....my understanding is that this is a forum, which implies the opportunity to discuss contentious issues in a balanced and adult fashion. Labelling people who disagree with your viewpoint as "idiots" hardly advances the debate, and branding us as a bunch of mindless Mad Max refugees is kindergarten stuff - this is a serious issue which merits serious debate.

If you re-read my earlier post, I specifically refrained from slagging off BA other than to question the logic of the decision. If the Gulf is that dangerous, then why fly here at all? As someone said early, the FCO advisory has more than a touch of CYA, especially as they got caught with their pants down over Bali and don't want to be exposed again in this way.

With regard to the degree of public exposure - there are many of us known in small communities as representatives of British and American businesses who maintain public profiles at least equal to any airline representative, and it is frankly insulting to belittle us in such terms. We maintain our presence because we believe the risks are acceptable, not because we wish to live out some macho Hemingway fantasy. If you wish to discuss the risk, then fine, but if you wish to swap insults, I suggest you find somewhere else to do it. Getting hysterical and defensive does nothing to aid anybody's understanding......

Still in the (metaphorical) bunker.

[SKYMAN]

Not normally a lover of BA, but well done for looking after the crews (Tech as well as Cabin).

None of us would want to be in the area when it starts.:O

[sirwa69]

Skyman

Why don't you want to be in the area what do you think is going to happen?

Iraq is going to get levelled by cruise missiles and a few days later the troops are going to mop it up.

When Saddam get's it in the neck the first people out on the streets celebrating will be the Shiites here in Bahrain as well as all over the Gulf. They have not forgot the hundreds of thousands of Shiites that he has killed.

Might not be too safe around Isslington mosque though!!!

[Captain Airclues]

As well as the crew safety isues, the Larnaca slip also increases the options in the event of a mass diversion from the gulf area, in terms of duty hours and choice of alternates.

Airclues

[Ricky Butcher]

Killick - you choose to stay in the region because you are there and can make your own personal assesment of the risk level. Your stay is voluntary. I estimate BA has around 1000 flight crew and 9000 cabin crew who could be required to operate services to the Gulf. They are currently scattered all over the world. They may not have the time or resources to make their own assessment. They certainly don't have 'on the ground' local experience to rely upon. The FCO says don't go to these regions. What can you realistically expect BA to do? When the embassy staff begin leaving a destination I can see no justification for BA expecting its staff to take greater risks by staying in the location the diplomats are leaving. Fortunately BA see it that way too.

You say:
With regard to the degree of public exposure - there are many of us known in small communities as representatives of British and American businesses who maintain public profiles at least equal to any airline representative

The operative word there is small. If, and thats a big if, somebody means you harm they need to be in, or have a contact within, that small community in order to know of you. They need to get close to you personally or they can't hurt you. BA staff, on the other hand, are known all over the world. They are easily identifiable by their uniforms. You don't have to know them personally, you don't have to target an individual, you don't need to be in the same community or even the same country. All you've got to do is wait for a convenient time. They are a much softer target than a single individual and you can't blame them for being twitchy about it when Tony's railroading us into war.

[killick]

The FCO has not banned travel to the region. Embassy staff are not leaving. My job requires me to be here.

I think you continue to miss my point - does this action materially increase the safety of BA crews? Does the incremental risk of getting in a bus and stopping in the Sheraton outweigh the loss of income, convenience and goodwill that will result?

Are you any safer in London than you would be in Qatar? I can't guarantee there are no Al-Qaeda sympathisers here, but by that definition, additional candidates for exclusion would be France, Italy, Germany, Spain, USA, UK, Morocco, Egypt, and er, Cyprus....

Risk exists throughout the world, and it is a false comfort to suggest that BA's action has reduced this in any significant respect. Believe me, if I thought there was some justification in this position I would be seeing you asap in the bar at Larnaca - I may not have a cool uniform to wear, but I still have an a**e, however unlovely, that is as much on the line as anyone else's. For everyone's sake, let's hope I'm not wrong!

Anyway, I'm off to the booze shop to lay in some stocks - it's obviously going to be a looooong year.........

[Dispatcher]

Respect to Devils Advocat !!:D

[Ricky Butcher]

The FCO never bans travel. It has advised against all non-essential travel to Sauda Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar. It has authorised the voluntary departure of dependants of staff and non-essential staff at British diplomatic missions in those countries. I personally would be willing to stay in Dubai or Bahrain, in fact I know BA crew who were travelling there next week on holiday, but I wouldn't force my opinion on others. I certainly wouldn't go to Saudi right now. You asked:

Does the incremental risk of getting in a bus and stopping in the Sheraton outweigh the loss of income, convenience and goodwill that will result?

I suppose you could have asked the same question of those French naval engineers who were blown up in a bus outside their hotel in Pakistan (and we don't fly there either).

[DesertDiver]

Well said Killick and all the others who are on the ground (or bunker), personally I object to being labelled as an idiot simply because I may have a different point of view.

Yes, the shiny red, white and blue 'plane is a welcome sight and we do appreciate your stopping by, I was born in Hammersmith rather than Nigeria thanks to the last minute visit of a VC10 during the Biafra crisis in 1967! However, the CYA hysteria about the Gulf is beginning to grate and I would like an answer to the following:

I hear the route from Abu Dhabi to LHR has changed as follows:

Previous:

AUH - LHR direct

Now:

AUH - KUWAIT - LARNACA - LHR

Could someone explain how people in Abu Dhabi are going to feel about their additional stopover in Kuwait as well as Larnaca? I would have some trouble justisfying this one to the folks at my head office in UK - both in commercial and security terms.

Just my point of view which I post in the hope of a positive and constructive reply.

[killick]

Sorry - still here. I fail to see the relevance of the Karachi incident, other than it involved a hotel, happened in a country east of Suez and killed some poor guys who didn't deserve it. I don't think they were wearing BA uniforms (which appeared earlier to be the key argument as to why BA crew are more at risk than the rest of us) nor even that there was an Al-Qaeda link, so why bring it up? Don't forget the Mombasa car bomb - it's all equally relevant, and that tube fire in Korea was dead suspicious.......

Desert Diver's point is well made, and further undermines the logic of BA's position. Do you think they read a lot of Kafka?

[DesertDiver]

Are you sure it is safe to travel to Kafka?

I don't know about the rest of you in the Gulf bunker but I would be surprised if my company regarded my stay here as voluntary.

[Ricky Butcher]

That was a quick stockpiling session! True, the French weren't wearing uniforms, but they were operating in a very similar manner to which most airline crews seem to operate. They all boarded a bus together. They always stayed at the same place. Their movements were both routine and predictable. They were an easy, predictable target. Im my previous employment I was given counter-terrorist training at a time when there was a very real threat to life. Amongst the instructions they gave to me were:

1. Don't where uniform in public.
2. Don't travel in obvious groups.
3. Vary your route home.
4. Don't frequent the same places at the same time regularly.

These instructions saved lives when Irish terrorists were trying, and occasionally succeeding, to murder my colleagues. If I could operate to those restrictions in Saudi I'd go there, but I don't think it's feasible for the company to change our hotel every night, lay on 18 taxis or adjust the flight schedule. The same applies for the rest of the region. Having re-read your post I agree with you, the Mombassa car bomb is equaly relevant. The terrorists knew exactly when the tourist bus arrived and attacked just minutes later. Desert Divers point is a bit of a red herring. The problem is not flying into Kuwait per se, its staying in Kuwait. When the Abu Dhabi goes via there no crew or LHR-bound passengers will be getting off the aircaft.

[killick]

It's like marriage mate - life sentence, no time off for good behaviour. Of course your stay is voluntary, provided you don't mind forgoing income, pension, schooling assistance and all those other little frills.......Oh sorry, I forgot. We're just mindless idiots.

[freightdoggy dog]

I thought it was a SAS 747 in Kuwait when Gulf War1 kicked off?
oops! no it was a BA 747 using a SAS crew. He Who Dares Shuperstar Loadie;)

[DesertDiver]

Er...red herring?

I am not sure what the crew and passengers of the BA flight caught in Kuwait in 1990 would say to that....that experience has presumably had something to do with BA's current decision. Of course the fact that Cyprus is a major British base means that the boys from Hereford will have a more convenient route this time. :eek:

[killick]

Just to drag the debate back to prosaic reality for a second. Point taken, Ricky, but the Embassy advises that there is no specific threat identified in Qatar, and there has been no hint of one since 9/11 - the same cannot be said of London.

DD's point is far from being a red herring - how does rerouting to Kuwait mitigate risk? Ok the crew don't have to stop overnight, but the passengers might be said to have a legitimate concern, or don't they count because they chose to be here? Perhaps this time BA might choose to divert rather than land on top of the Iraqi army.

When all is said and done, you stand far more chance of getting totalled in Qatar by some incompetent oaf in a Land Cruiser (121 accidents yesterday - it rained), than of meeting your maker at the hand of Osama and his fun-loving pranksters. I remain of the view that BA has taken an over-hasty decision based upon an inadequate reading of the true position. It's not on to say that they don't have the same access to info as I do - the local management does, and when they are not bringing joy to my life in my (soon-to-be-less) frequent trips back to blighty, they seem pretty plugged into life here. Not too many signs of a society on the brink.....

[interestedparty]

Having actually met Saddam H. in Baghdad a few years ago, just some eight weeks before he invaded Kuwait, and been in his presence while he gave an extended TV interview, I would recommend due caution to all travellers in the region.
He is a wily politician and should not be underestimated.
"Cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l'attaque, il se defend."
Prudent precautions are very much the order of the day!

[SKYMAN]

Sirwa69

I think you have the war plan as close as it is going to be.

However my fear is the SH will fire off his few scuds into the Countries next door. Therefore it is right for BA to do what they are doing.

Also you last comment was also spot on!

Be safe!

[soddim]

This discussion lacks logic. An airline takes action that reduces the number of targets for the sad little basket cases who are currently targetting Brits in the ME and a bunch of people get on the keyboard and blast them for it.

It would appear that the only disadvantages of the BA action is that pax will take a little longer to get back and forth and the airline might lose some pax as a result.

So what is all the fuss about?

[FFFlyer]

I guess at the end of the day you see what you want to see. After Sept 11 two Americans were shot outside the Hard Rock Cafe in Dubai, although it was not reported like that. One was badly hurt. I also know of several people who were threatened including somebody who had a brick through their windscreen.

They have just caught a terrorist cell in Bahrain. It also wasn't so long ago the US compound was overun there and they torched several cars on it. There was also a riot there in which some Americans were badly beaten after they ran a woman over.

I expect this time public feeling will be even more anti-western so I certainly aren't making any long term plans. Seems like BA are doing the prudent thing.

[Goldstone]

Well, I certainly started a lively debate here, didn't I?

Some interesting and varied points of view put forward.

Fact is it's completely safe in the Gulf at present. There are dozens of points on the BA route network where there is more chance of the crews getting attacked/mugged on their layovers, so on the basis of the Gulf decision BA should probably drop a good number of cities from the route map. And a valid point about Larnaca being closer to Baghdad than Dubai. Personally I reckon the decision has been forced on BA by the cabin staff union or BALPA.

In answer to an earlier question, no I'm not an "oily", whatever that is ... maybe rhyming slang ... oily rag, slag/shag/scrag?

Fact is the losers here are the passengers ... two stops AUH/LHR, two stops LHR/BAH ... and the winners ... well maybe Gulf Air and Akbar's airline which are still flying non-stop.

Oh, and one more thing, apologies for the incorrect spelling of "wuss" ... not a word I have much occasion to use.

[Ricky Butcher]

killick - I think we both agree that theres no chance of Saddams tanks rolling into Kuwait, hence the risk of a short stop there whilst there are no hostilities is pretty minimal whilst in the airport. It only gets tricky when you want to leave the airport, bearing in mind recent gun attacks on US personnel, plus some harassment of crew members by anti-war locals (admittedly ended fairly quickly by some anti-Saddam locals). The fact that the Abu Dhabi and Kuwait services have been combined is regrettable, but thats a decision taken by the commercial people based on the new operating reality. Once the fireworks start I'd be surprised if we still fly to KWI

Goldstone - as FFFlyer said, its how you see it. You say the Gulf is perfectly safe, he lists a number of serious incidents in 'safe' Gulf states. Take your pick. BA do fly to a lot of unsafe places, muggings are fairly regular, crew have been seriously injured, crew transport has been robbed. The difference is in those places they're targeted because they're assumed to have money, not because they represent Britain and people want to make a political or religious statement. The latter scare me far more because they don't want my Rolex, they want to kill me!

It doesn't matter whether the pressure to change the schedule is coming from the cabin crew, the pilots, the FCO or Saddam Hussein himself, if crew are afraid to go the Gulf (and most probably aren't), then BA aren't going to force them to. If that means we lose passengers to Gulf Air or Qatar Airways, then thats just tough luck for us. Times may be hard in the industry, but money still isn't everything.

BTW I think 'oily' means they thought you were an engineer, not a sl@g!;)

[Muppet99]

It does seem BA have got it right. For soem time now the 767 crews operating to TLV have stayed in LCA, transferring via Cyprus Airways at TLV.

[timzsta]

So many times on this excellent site people slate airline management for not taking into account the concerns of their crews and general "not giving a toss about staff". Here is an example of an airline putting the safety of crew and aircraft first, above that of making money and keeping the pax happy. And what is the first thing people do - they have a go at the airline, calling it "idiots" and "wussies".

It is bold decisions like this that have kept BA afloat since 9/11, profit last quarter and substantial cash reserve. Any war in the Gulf will finish every major US carrier because they have not had the balls to take such decisions. If a war goes ahead the callsigns "Delta", "United" and "American" will not be heard for very long requesting oceanic clearance from Shanwick, and BA and Virgin profits will soar as their passengers board the "Speedbirds" and "Virgins".

No doubt BA has been asked to keep the routes to the Gulf open as long as possible by the Government to allow expats the chance to leave the region if heaven forbid something terrible should happen, and BA have come up with the way they believe they can do this with minimal risk to crew and aircraft.

At the moment you all have a choice, BA, Gulf, Emirates, Saudi. Take your pick, slag of the wussies and idiots. If I was in your shoes (and I have been to the Gulf many times as a former member of the armed services) I would rather have the choice you currently have, rather than BA pulling all the routes and saying "we are not flying there its too dangerous" - which really would spark a bit of panic.

[Fosters Expat]

Rather be here in the Gulf, than anywhere near the Compass Centre. Surely the biggest soft target going........ It is after all a very large blue building, with British Airways emblazened all over it. Or what about the crew hotel behind?

Some rather odd comments have been made here with regard to support, or critisism. Either way it's what they have done, and there we have it.

Personally I would rather be here in the Gulf, than being anywhere near London, or any other potential terrorist target in the UK.

Going back to think of something less annoying!

:yuk:

[Tandemrotor]

As with many things in life, the decision comes down to risk assessment. As a pilot, I have Kuwait, and the UAE on my roster for March.

Am I worried? - No.

Am I a wuss? - I don't think so.

Would I nightstop there? - yes.

Do I think people living in the region are idiots? - absolutely not.

Whatever region I fly to, I am probably more at risk negotiating the M25, than at any time after I report for work!

However, those of you suggesting that BA are going to lose passengers to their Gulf competitors over this, really should deepen your 'risk analysis'.

If I, or any of my close family, were travelling to that region, I would be very interested in the recent safety history, and safety cultures, of my various options.

It may very well be that I would put up with a slightly longer journey, if it meant a slightly higher chance of arriving!

[Fosters Expat]

Tandemrotor

Here, Here! Well said!

It it all about putting things into perspective, and clearly you are able to that.

BA won't lose pax as a result of their actions, not in the long run.

I would choose BA over any other airline in the world, as I believe their crews are the BEST!

[barka]

Having lived in the gulf for ten years now and NEVER having experienced any form of hostile behavior towards myself, i feel BA's decision to suspend flights to MCT totally unecessary. A decision I feel that was based more on load factors and ecconomics than crew safety.

After all if crew safety was of paramount importance to BA then why have they recently started services to Luanda, where the foreign office have advised british nationals against travel?
One asks could it be the lucrative Shell contract that sways the pendulum?

It smacks of double standards, which is typical of the worlds favourite.

[TightSlot]

I'm not BA but am cc with another. Were I BA crew, I would be releived at this decision, as would my family.

Nothing else matters

[Fosters Expat]

Ignorance is a killer........

Nuf Said!

[Hand Solo]

Maybe Muscat was suspended because of poor economics. So what? The press release said 'operational reasons', it didn't say 'services suspended to avoid crew slipping' or 'services suspended because we haven't got enough crew to operate through Larnaca' or 'services suspended because it's not worth our while going there any more'. Its a business, not a charity and if Muscat doesn't cut it financially then we can't afford to throw money down the drain serving it. Luanda may be unsafe but so is Nairobi, Harare, Johannesburg or Detroit. Luanda probably makes money, Muscat via Larnaca doesn't. If you dislike 'the worlds favourite' so much why are you so bothered they're not flying to Muscat anymore?

[bean_counter]

Well said Hand Solo, just beat me to it

[ironbutt57]

Ahhhh...yes once again the "ole name calling" routine...when at loss for facts, the un-educated often resort to this tactic...never mind..let the chips fall where they may..and the crybabies go on crying to mama...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[luke77]

Goldstone - "wuss"
Killick - mindless mad max refugee
Barka - wrong tree
Hand Solo - well said that man!!

[View From The Ground]

As has been recognised elsewhere on this post anywhere can be dangerous. Recent FCO advise also advised against travel to much of SE Asia. I personally would feel more at risk in central London than in most Middle East cities, or indeed those in SE Asia with the possible exception of Manila and Jakarta, for crime as opposse to terrorism. I would also imagine, although I stand to be corrected, that BA night stop in Joburg, surely one of the most dangerous cities in the world where life is undeniably cheap.
Since it is the nightstop that has been removed it seems that BA's security staff believes its safe to fly in and out but potentially not to stay there. I am sure BA want to protect their crews...good for them...but is this really the most sensible way of doing that? Surely it might be sufficient to issue strongly worded advice to crews regarding the risks. They can then decide whether to stay in the hotel which is pretty safe by any realistic risk assessment or to venture out...also safe in my estimation but a decision which could be left to the individuals concerned.
I applaud BA's sentiment but not its logic.

[sirwa69]

The concensus is that BA are to be applauded for protecting their crew by not having them lay over in a Gulf country.

It has been said that they would be an easy target getting off their shiny red white and blue AC and sitting in their crew bus in their uniforms. Fair enough. But what then about the brave souls who put on their nice uniforms and get into their cars and drive to work every day to their nice shiny red white and blue offices in very conspicous western style shopping malls, where you can watch them work right through the windows.

Oh, and they have their pictures published in the local newspaper lots supporting charities etc.

Oh, Oh, and most of them are not worried at all :cool:

[killick]

Leaving aside the handbag-swinging for a minute, no-one seems to be arguing the prudence of BA's decision; the debate is (I thought) about the logic behind the decision and whether such prudence has been justified by the facts as they currently stand. The consensus among Gulf residents seems to be that BA has been both premature and irrational, while the view from elsewhere seems totend towards the view that this is a clear-sighted, courageous, and welcome move.

I suspect that many of the latter group are either current or ex-BA staff: Just to avoid any unseemly responses to my query, let me say upfront that you are the reason why I have been loyal to BA all over the world and for several decades despite higher fares and inconvenient routes. I trust you like nobody else. However.............

........Some of the "pro" statements on the lines of the paramount importance of crew safety intrigue me. There are serious inconsistencies in the "too dangerous to layover" argument in the eyes of those of us here (who pay your wages and even (God help us) own your shares), and yet our expressions of concern are met with either childish catcalls or expressions along the lines of "crew safety is more important than your convenience". I'm not arguing with the second point, but it does bring me back to my original question of whether this action does anything to materially reduce this risk. It beggars belief that BA hides behind the FCO advisory in this instance, yet 2 weeks ago you cheerfully flew me into Heathrow in the face of a full-scale terrorist alert with troops searching the approaches for SAM-armed terrorists. Where was the same concern for safety here?

All this rather suggests that BA is currently run more for the benefit of its staff than its customers or shareholders.

[L337]

Legally BA has a "Duty of Care" to its passengers and staff.

BA lost one aircraft, and several crew held hostage last time. To make the same mistake twice, in the face of FO advice, would land BA in court without a leg to stand on.

I also suspect the insurance would not pay out.

BA was condemed last time for keeping crews in Kuwait, now they are condemmed for doing the opposite. The truth is that some peoples dislike for BA is so irrational, and so intense, that they would condem BA for anything on any grounds.

As the comments from killick so aptly demonstrate.

l337.

[killick]

Habibi, I think you need to distinguish between criticism and dislike. If anything, the opposite emotion applies....

The loss of a plane last time has been discussed earlier - this is a differentset of circumstances.

Agree entirely with the Duty of Care line - so why treat announced threats in the UK differently to assumed ones in the Gulf?

[soddim]

killick - you wrote 'you cheerfully flew me into Heathrow in the face of a full-scale terrorist alert with troops searching the approaches for SAM-armed terrorists. Where was the same concern for safety here?'

The difference between UK and the ME is that here there is a concerted effort to protect the public from the terrorists. We do not go into denial and blame booze barons nor do we arrest the first foreigner we see and deflect guilt that way. If the SAS were protecting you on arrival here you should consider yourself lucky.

I, like you, chose to work in the ME for a pot of gold and I considered the risks worthwhile - they were and I am now enjoying the fruits. However, I would not have asked anyone else to take increased risks so that I could go on holiday and that appears to be what you are asking the BA crews to do.

You say you are responsible for the welfare of around 300. I am glad that I am not one of them otherwise I might have to stock up on booze too.

[killick]

Getting a bit unnecessarily personal aren't we? Disagree with me by all means, but let's leave out the abuse - it doesn't strengthen your argument. My personal circumstances or reasons for travel are wholly irrelevant in the context raised by you, but I neither chose to be in the ME (I got sent here - it's my job), nor do I "ask" people to put themselves at risk for my pleasure. I choose a flight that will take place regardless of whether I am on board or not - the crew's presence has nothing to do with my personal agenda, hence its utter irrelevance to the issue.

Ironically, you do make a valid point on the relative degree of interest shown by the security forces in the UK. The ME examples you quote, however, all relate to Saudi, which again illustrates the tendency to generalise which has characterised much of what has passed for debate here.

As for wrongfully arresting foreigners - is UK's recent record on this unblemished?

[soddim]

killick - Inevitably a discussion is personal because our views are personal and our circumstances influence those views. I stand by my comment that I am glad that you are not responsible for my welfare.

Any person responsible for welfare should understand the need to minimise personnel risk and this is what BA have done. Whilst my views are coloured by events in one ME country my wider experience of the region also influences me. In any case, I am sure that in the perception of the majority the whole ME is likely to prove to be a more risky place for westerners in the near future.

Have you also considered that BA are now much better placed should there be a call to evacuate families from the area? With crews slipping in Larnaca and a shorter transit time they could move people more quickly out of the area to Cyprus where there is plenty of off-season accomodation. Perhaps this should appeal to the managers of companies employing expats.

I apologise if you thought I was abusing you as I did not intend to.

[FFFlyer]

Surprised so many people are responding from Qatar. Nearly everybody I know in a senior position there has ended up in jail in the corruption clean-up (whether guilty or not). Some companies are considering pulling out.

[gulf_slf]

ffflyer,

All these items and incidents(eg Hardrock shooting DXB, Bahrain US embassy protest, Qatar Corruption drive, etc) that you allude need to be put in context and perspective as I feel that these comments do not add to the relevance of the debate.

At best they are a mis-representation of the events, and at worst they are taken as a 'blanket' condemanation of the area rather providing an undertanding of the underlying issues in the respective Gulf States.

Its a bit like applying a general policy to the region (as BA has done with its night stop policy,) rather being more sensitive toward the respective destinations.

By dragging in issues that are not directly relevant (corruption in Qatar) the naure of this discussion is liable to degenerate into a mire of bigotry and prejudice.

I trust that your next trip to the Gulf proves to be more congenial than those that you have experienced in the past. Inshallah!

[Goldstone]

Applause for that man killick ... some very reasoned and sensible arguments.

Some of the rest of you ... well, I question your logic.

So BA really think they can offer two stops to BAH (LHR/Larnaca/Doha/BAH) and two stops back from AUH (AUH/KWI/Larnaca/LHR) and not piss off their customers when their competitor is flying non-stop? Personally I hope their passengers desert them in droves and stay away to help teach them that such typical BA arrogance does not pay. You just can't do that kind of thing in a competetive business.

And no, I'm not an engineer.

[Hand Solo]

Errrrr, well, yes. Not only do they think they can do it, thats what they're doing. They didn't say it would be popular, I don't expect it to win any customers, but they're doing it none the less. At least there is still a choice if you particularly want to fly BA for any reason. If not then go to Gulf Air, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Saudia etc. Nobodys going to force you to fly BA.

Clearly Goldstone you are one of the many BA-haters who visit these forums. I suspect nothing BA ever do will be good enough for you. Never mind, you could always fly Virgin, BMI, easyJet or Ryanair home perhaps?

[soddim]

Who says we want Goldstone home?

[JW411]

Soddim:

I am desperately trying to stay out of this a*sehole-kicking contest despite being an old Middle East hand but I just want to ask you one question:

Where was BA when we had to get 22,000 people off the island of Cyprus when the Turks invaded the north of the island? I did not see a single BA aircraft on the ramp at any time. They were not too good at evacuating families then so why should we rely on them in the future?

[soddim]

At the time of the evacuation I was flying an F4 in the opposite direction to try to deter the Turks from any more attacks on Nicosia and I can tell you that the RAF had sufficient assets in those days to do the job without BA. However, I have no doubt that had they been asked to help they would have been there.

What makes you think I work for BA?

[JW411]

soddim:

You beat me to it! I had just re-read my posting and realised that I had inadvertently said "you in the future" when I meant "them in the future". By the time I had edited the posting, you had descended upon me with the speed of an F4 in full afterburner - quite rightly - apologies all round. I have, as you will notice, already made the necessary AL1!

Although Transport Command was bigger than it is now, we could have done with some help. I was flying families home in an aircraft that was not really suitable for the purpose but, as usual, we muddled through. What I could not understand was why the government of the day could not have got BA involved for a few days. It would have made a big difference.

[soddim]

JW411 - you're a gent!

[JW411]

soddim:

Now that you and I are in agreement, do you think it might be a valuable exercise to ask the BA crew-members who subscribe to this forum if they would be willing to help out (quickly) next time?

If we had enough volunteers it could really make the job simple.

[Hand Solo]

Well I'll answer that one by saying if you need F4s overhead to deter people from bombing you then it would be positively reckless to take a large commercial jet into a war zone, so no, I won't be volunteering for that particular mission. Incidentally, when did my employer become the transport arm of UK foreign policy, surely thats the crabs role? Or perhaps Air Atlanta, thought I saw them on the news shipping UK troops out to the Gulf.

As an aside though, and as I've previously mentioned, we were the last Western airline out of Jakarta when the civil unrest kicked off there a few years ago. BA were shuttling a jumbo between Kuala Lumpur and the Indonesian capital picking up hundreds off UK citizens who felt the need to do a bunk for at least a day or two after KLM fled.

[soddim]

Although I understand the reluctance of a civilian company to become an instrument of the government, especially this one, I have no doubt that if push came to shove there would be no shortage of BA volunteers for a humanatarian mission.

[Captain Airclues]

JW411

I think that you're way off the mark there. During the last Gulf War the 747 training unit was asked for volunteers to fly vital humanatarian supplies into Al Jubayl during the conflict. Everyone in the unit volunteered. During the Cyprus emergency no similar request was received from the MOD.

Airclues

[Dumpvalve]

Greetings all, I am not going to get involved in the "debate" on BA's decision,but I can understand why the ex-pats living in the UAE are getting frustrated by some of the comments, so I thought I would give my input from a woman, mother and wives perspective, the prophets of doom and gloom predicted the worst for us poor souls living in the Gulf, during the Gulf war. Nothing changed here in Dubai, we went about our life, and at no time did I or my family feel threatened or unsafe, and that is how the ex-pat community is feeling now, maybe it is difficult for a person to understand who is living elsewhere and not here to experience it, I can understand the frustration of having to keep telling people, no we are not part of Saudi, and no we do not live under the same rules, no I don't have to cover up, in fact I can go shopping in shorts if I choose to, I can go to a church of my belief, in fact my lifestyle is no different here than it was when I was living in Europe - what I am trying to say, is that the UAE is worlds apart from Saudi, and it is very unfair and insulting to tar all Middle Eastern folks with the same brush. All countries have their loonys and radicals, and it doesn't take much to set them off, killing of innocent kids at school (America and Scotland) folks killed whilst sitting having lunch at a diner. (Australia) and these where done by people who were born and bred in those countries, the list is endless. Oh and I am British born and bred.

On the point of "two Americans been shot outside the Hard Rock Cafe" a few months ago - not true, some loony tune went in the wee hours of the morning when it was closed and shot at one of the walls, a bullet ricochet against the wall and into his tyre, so he could not make a quick get away and was caught by the police.



Now, don't be too hard on me, after all I am just a girl.
:rolleyes:

[Basil]

Dumpv/v,
Yes, I spent a lot of time in DXB and that's the story I heard ref Hard Rock - happens occasionally in the ME.

Shopping in shorts? Wouldn't recommend that to anyone anywhere in the Gulf. Even if you get away with it, it makes things difficult for the rulers who have to answer criticism of western behaviour - I always cover up when I go out & get rat^rsed :yuk:

[propaganda]

BA learnt their lesson after been caught out in Kuwait in the last conflict. My missus was a hostee on that fateful flight, and spent four weeks as a hostage...... I don't think those of you who make comments like" WUZZ "would do so after four weeks half board at the Saddam Hilton in down town Bagdad watching the cruise missiles go down the street...
Just a thought:p

[Dumpvalve]

Hi Basil, I personaly don't wear shorts when out shopping, not because I am not allowed to, but out of respect to the locals, I was just trying to get a point across, how different we are to Saudi - many woman do wear scimpy clothes, especially tourists and nobody gives a damn.

[Comanche]

Does anyone know what is happening with Qatar Airway's latest flight deck recruitment now that travel warnings have been issued to all tourists going to the State of Qatar. Furthermore, expats living there have been advised to review how essential their presence is in Qatar. I have seen some negative comments about what it is like to work for this airline. Just wondering if this new warning is going to further affect people's enthousiasm. Anyone out there been invited yet for the selection days???

[FFFlyer]

Actually gulf_slf I live in the Middle East & have for a few years. The comment about corruption was intended to be humorous and I couldn't connect it with bigotry and predjuice.
Dumpvalve, you were there were you ?
I thought shorts and things were illegal in Sharjah with the Public Decency Laws - and that's for men too!

[ferris]

Propaganda and others keep missing the point. The BA crew flew into the waiting arms of the Bagdhad Wanderers, didn't they? So BA no longer overnighting has more to do with fear of terrorists, surely?
That fear may be warranted in Saudi, but elsewhere? Perhaps BA is being diplomatic and withdrawing from the region so as not to insult any particular (lucrative) destination? Or maybe it is just operationally easier to do what they have. Either way, I don't mind that it has happened; maybe spectators here are reading in the wrong reasons. Whatever the reason, there isn't going to be much recreational travel in the near future. The sky is thick with mil types today. If you know what I mean.

ps. I don't feel at all threatened here in the UAE. It's all very calm.

[propaganda]

Ferris,

Does it matter if the threat is from terrorists or a pre-emptive strike by saddam....
I am glad you don't feel any threat in the UAE enjoy the Sun and sand....;)

[CargoOne]

just my $0.05...
when most of you think BA made a right decision... just remember your colleagues from majors like AF, TAP Portugal, exSabena and many other smaller operators who flying scheduled (including layovers) into Dark Africa, Kinshasa, Brazzaville, Luanda, Khartoum, N'Djamena to name but a few... if you seriuosly considering that Gulf region (even during another war) would be more dangerous than named African's locations - you are living on another planet...
just returned from Kabul, where I've spent few days on business, so my personal opition the personal risk there is similar to Chicago. should we ban Chicago as well?

[HotDog]

Dumpvalve, I was detained and transported back to my hotel during a Dahran stayover for jogging one early morning in shorts by the seaside. The constabulary were very polite and gave me a lecture, purely for my own protection. BTW, I am a hairy male.:cool:

[Human Factor]

BA also operate layovers in certain parts of Darkest Africa, Luanda being one (spent a couple of days there between Christmas and New Year). The reason for the move is likely to be to prevent us being caught with our trousers down, unlike last time. Doubtless we are in deep discussion with our insurers as well, bearing in mind they had to pay for a new jumbo last time!

[Suggs]

Just came back from the Dubai before the staff travel embargo was implemented. The greatest threat out there was from the Taxi drivers who tried (unsuccessfully) to rip us off. This is probably the first of many changes that BA will implement before and after the War kicks Off. If it keeps me in a job I'm all for it.

We played in a football tournament, with staff from all over the place, at the piss up, later that night the subject of Sadaam didn't even come up, more came up in the morning but that's not the point.

The quicker the situation is resolved, the better. Let's hope that this time it is done completely and properly so that we aren't back here a decade from now.

[Goldstone]

No, I'm not a BA-hater, but I despise their arrogance. They believe they can mess their customers around and no-one squeals. Well, I know they are having to book large numbers of pax who refuse to accept an enroute stop in Cyprus onto other airlines.

[woodpecker]

Mmmm, interesting comment Goldstone .

The last gulf war (when the airspace was open) found BA routing well away from Iraq terrotory, adding extra time to the journey.

Obviously you would have been happy to fly with the airlines that were keeping to the old routes with the "nav light" running along the boundary so as not to delay you important passengers.

Their policy of switching off the moving map and keeping you in the dark as to your exact location obvoiusly worked!

[Hand Solo]

I don't see any signs of arrogance from BA, and frankly I think you're being rather naive if you think nobody at BA considered the commercial impact of this. If the passengers are given the choice of either staying with BA or being re-booked by BA on a different carrier then what else do you expect the company to do? If the passengers dislike BA that much then I'm sure they'll be thrilled to be re-booked on another carrier.

[Dumpvalve]

Hi HotDog, the reason you were sent back to your hotel room to change was because Dahran is in Saudi and not Dubai, on the bright side, at least you know now that it was not because of your hairy body.;)

[sirwa69]

Hotdog

What Dumpvalve states is very true Dahran is in Saudi which is currently in year 1423
Dubai is in the UAE and is most definately in year 2003 and you really ought to see what the totty is wearing aroung the City Centre Mall :eek:

[Goldstone]

No signs of arrogance at BA, Hand Solo? Are you looking at the same airline as I am? They're so arrogant they continue to make elementary mistakes regarding the running of their business on a daily basis. Why, because they refuse to listen to people both inside and outside the company who maybe have an alternative strategy which should be considered. Let's look at some recent examples of the lack of long term strategic thinking:

1. Let's start a low-fare airline. Let's sell our low fare airline.
2. Let's start a German domestic airline. Let's sell our German airline.
3. Let's expand at Gatwick. Let's contract the LGW operation. Let's build a hub at Gatwick. Let's de-hub Gatwick.
4. We need big aircraft so that we can develop the LHR hub and benefit from all the opportunities for connecting traffic. We need smaller aircraft because we don't want all the connecting traffic ... the yield is too low,
5. Let's have ethnic tail-fins. Let's not have ethnic tail-fins.
6. Franchising for short-haul is the way to go. No, we'll buy the franchise carriers. Next, close down many of the routes.

My son could have done a better job planning BA's strategy with the benefit of A Level Business Studies. It's laughable. Incompetency at an alarming level.

[ghost-rider]

I'm no expert in strategy or business models ( maybe because I use the 'common sense' scenarios ) but from where I sit BA certainly don't have the monopoly on incompetency !

[Hand Solo]

Funny how all of Goldstones points are the ideas of Bob Ayling, and all the changes were implemented by Rod Eddington. I suppose he'd just like Rod to carry on as if nothing was wrong with the airline. If those points are your definition of arrogance then I guess you really wouldn't like easyjet either:

1. Lets grow organically. No lets buy another airline.
2. Lets pay our crews well. No lets cut their pay and demoralise them.
3. Lets stick to one proven low cost type. No lets switch the entire fleet to Airbus.

Perhaps your prodigy son should start his own airline then you'd be rich enough to leave Doha?

[gulf_slf]

According the 'oracle' -The Gulf News' 03/03/03 here in Dubai BA have had to do YET ANOTHER CHANGE to the schedules after significant pax discontent in the area.

Although all flights still operate via LCA BA have decided to resume the LHR-MCT service ...so is it commercailly viable this week but not last week?? but only 2 flts a week.....

DXB gets 11 flts a week, AUH 3 a week (dont think that the capital/federal authorities will be too impressed by the snub of shifting the flts down the coast but probably makes sense as PAX are still coming here ...Desert Classic this week & Gold Cup Racing toward the end of the month!!)

The suggested service schedule is a follows:
Six to BAH
Three to KWT
Three to Doha
Two to MCT
Four to Jeddah
Three to Riyadh

No confirmation of timings or details of this on the BA website.....
No doubt there will be some more fine adjustments before they commit themselves to the screens!!

Still dont feel that these changes will do much to retieve the image of BA in the UAE .......SLF's will vote with their feet to other DIRECT NON STOP services to/from DXB...

Let us all hope that the situation is rectified soon so that we can back to some form of normality.....:mad: :confused: :mad:

[sirwa69]

All True

BA are slightly miffed, This was supposed to be in all gulf newspapers this morning not just the Gulf News.

:(

[DesertDiver]

The story has hit the Peninsula and the Gulf Times in sunny Doha, note the following quote from Harvey Lines, Area Mgr Northern Gulf:

"The exact timings of these new flights will be published at the end of this week"

Several confused slf around here, much as I love BA I think the words brewery and p..s up come to mind....:confused:

[driftwood]

Are LuftHansa and Air France making similar adjustments to schedules or are they still on the best of terms with the Arab States?

[killick]

DD speaks true.....although you will doubtless now be assailed by the blue-clad hordes and possibly even struck down by the wrath of Rod...

BA really has got its collective frillies in an unseemly twist.

[newswatcher]

Suggs,

Slightly "off-thread" but, as a long-standing "Dubaiphile", what exactly did your taxi driver do?

With the emergence of "franchised" taxis, I thought that was a thing of the past. Any "meter" fraud would end with loss of job. Are they risking this?

[Airtoday]

I have just read this thread from beginning to end and it is the first time I have seen it.

Like most threads it seems to start with a hard and serious issue and then somehow seems to degenerate into the petty, the laughable and the bigotted.

And, sometimes, as this does, also laudable distractions from the main theme.

I think BA have done quite right for their airline and their staff to do the Larnaca stopover. It must have made financial sense with insurance premiums and with hindsight from previous experiences in Gulf War I or it would not have happened.

Of course it makes no sense to the passenger who wants to get from A to B expeditiously. So, the passenger will travel by Emirates if he wants to go direct Dubai-Manchester (which is a joint BA service anyway) and get the Shuttle to London or the train to Birmingham rather than incur lengthy technical delays in Cyprus as happened last week.

Thats the main issue. "You should see the totty in City Centre in Dubai" is a secondary one that grabbed my attention as well as the hairy male being chastised for walking or running around in shorts in Saudi.

The Western men who walk around in City Centre, Dubai, in shorts (and they are about one in 200) and any Western woman who does not have the common sense to realise where on earth they are I will call "Ostriches" because there is plenty of sand there for them to put their heads into and notice nothing else.

Most of these come from the Antipodes.

Good start to a poem (they would miss out the "e")

My thoughts