Pilot shortages, News Events, And What Are The Effects On Airline Jobs?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The visceral reaction to the MPL is almost inevitably negative, but when start thinking about it there are some very positive points to it. For instance:
It is also almost inevitable that MPL candidates will be selected before they start training, and therefore success rates will be high. It could be run by airlines designating cadet pilots as 'their candidates' right at the start of training or it could be run with cadets not allocated to an airline until the end of phase 3, roughly equivalent to the stage job-hunting starts today, after the IR. If it ever takes off in Europe funding will most likely follow the CTC model, with training fully funded by a loan to be repaid later on.
PS BALPA seem to be completely opposed to it, which to my mind puts them in the dinosaur category.
- The MPL should allow an FTO to design its own syllabus - ever learnt something totally irrelevant just to answer an exam question?
- The MPL should allow the FTO to run its own internal theory tests up to ATPL standard - ever sat a rubbish exam set by a National Authority?
- The MPL says if you can meet a standard you pass, if you don't you fail - no matter how many hours you have.
- When you consider which has more value, 10 hours of instruction in a B737 sim or 20 hours spent burning solo holes in the Florida sky, most would say the sim.
It is also almost inevitable that MPL candidates will be selected before they start training, and therefore success rates will be high. It could be run by airlines designating cadet pilots as 'their candidates' right at the start of training or it could be run with cadets not allocated to an airline until the end of phase 3, roughly equivalent to the stage job-hunting starts today, after the IR. If it ever takes off in Europe funding will most likely follow the CTC model, with training fully funded by a loan to be repaid later on.
PS BALPA seem to be completely opposed to it, which to my mind puts them in the dinosaur category.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument here centres on the situation in UK, which is quite different from anywhere else in the world. The airline sector here is very, very large compared to almost any other country, with a huge number of operators all looking to get pilots as cheaply and reliably as possible.
There used to be a well-established pecking order, which saw pilots moving up the 'food chain' as they gained experience, and convention generally required that they had gained considerable amounts of hours and experience outside the cosy world of dispatchers and fully-equipped downroute stations before they graduated to scheduled passenger jet flying. The only exception to this was the BA Cadet scheme, which utilised a training regime similar to the RAF's to bring on baby pilots who were ready to occupy the right seat of an airliner with only a couple of hundred hours.
A few years ago, regulators, FTOs and one or two airlines thought, "Well, if BA can do it, so can we!", and devised a number of other ways to get people into jets at an early (cheaper) stage. This has crystallised into the integrated (or CTC's 'structured modular') system, and has altered the market to the extent that many UK airlines derive almost their entire ab-initio pilot input from one or more of the 'big four' schools. The main reasons are, as alluded to above, cost and risk.
As Redsnail implies, no airline recruits only low-houred people; they need a range of experience, and some (like mine) prefer not to recruit anyone without several years and many thousands of hours flying experience. However, increasingly, airlines are insisting on the training risk having been minimised before they will take on a new pilot - hence the insistence on TRs with some line hours for recruits who have not gone through the airline's own quality-assurance scheme - i.e. their contracted training providor. Even BA, who no longer operate any kind of cadet scheme, will take you on with only a few hundred hours - so long as you have proved to someone else that you can do the job. And that's before they put you through their own selection system.
Sidthesexist no, passing the exams and flight tests does not mean you are suitable airline material. More and more, airlines are taking the attitude that their selection procedures are an insufficiently fine filter to weed out the high-risk candidates, and are insisting that the risk is moved elsewhere. For a low-houred pilot, that usually means they want to see a training history, right the way up to a TR, that demonstrates the ability to learn quickly while under pressure, and sufficient handling and thinking ability to go on to command a jet airliner in as little as two years from being hired. That's a big responsibility - and the major risk is taken by the employer if you screw up.
Yes, of course there are still airlines that take pilots with instructing experience, who went the modular route and took their time about it. We get several success stories from career-changers and the like who are pretty much forced to go this route, and good luck to them. But this is a percentage game, and wannabes who are looking for the most reliable route to airline employment deserve to hear the truth, however unpalateable it is to those of us who would prefer it were otherwise. And that truth now is that the vast majority of low-hour pilots who get airline employment with 300 hours or less in the UK currently do so via integrated or structured modular courses. There are variations on this theme, of course, and there will always (I hope) be alternative routes. I'm not saying that any given route is less valid than any other, but if you're a young wannabe looking for the best chance of getting a right-hand seat in a 737 within 2 years of starting training, this is the way to do it.
Remember, I am commenting on what I observe, not on how I'd like things to be or whether the currently most successful route is the best. You are, of course, free to disagree with me, but I think you'll find the numbers are on my side.
Scroggs
P.S. Incidentally, the MPL is A Good Thing for the airlines and those who wish to work for them. It is not appropriate for those areas of flying far removed from the rather regimented airline world, and will not be used for those areas. I see no need for rabid disagreements about it, it is simply a case of designing the tools to better suit their purpose.
There used to be a well-established pecking order, which saw pilots moving up the 'food chain' as they gained experience, and convention generally required that they had gained considerable amounts of hours and experience outside the cosy world of dispatchers and fully-equipped downroute stations before they graduated to scheduled passenger jet flying. The only exception to this was the BA Cadet scheme, which utilised a training regime similar to the RAF's to bring on baby pilots who were ready to occupy the right seat of an airliner with only a couple of hundred hours.
A few years ago, regulators, FTOs and one or two airlines thought, "Well, if BA can do it, so can we!", and devised a number of other ways to get people into jets at an early (cheaper) stage. This has crystallised into the integrated (or CTC's 'structured modular') system, and has altered the market to the extent that many UK airlines derive almost their entire ab-initio pilot input from one or more of the 'big four' schools. The main reasons are, as alluded to above, cost and risk.
As Redsnail implies, no airline recruits only low-houred people; they need a range of experience, and some (like mine) prefer not to recruit anyone without several years and many thousands of hours flying experience. However, increasingly, airlines are insisting on the training risk having been minimised before they will take on a new pilot - hence the insistence on TRs with some line hours for recruits who have not gone through the airline's own quality-assurance scheme - i.e. their contracted training providor. Even BA, who no longer operate any kind of cadet scheme, will take you on with only a few hundred hours - so long as you have proved to someone else that you can do the job. And that's before they put you through their own selection system.
Sidthesexist no, passing the exams and flight tests does not mean you are suitable airline material. More and more, airlines are taking the attitude that their selection procedures are an insufficiently fine filter to weed out the high-risk candidates, and are insisting that the risk is moved elsewhere. For a low-houred pilot, that usually means they want to see a training history, right the way up to a TR, that demonstrates the ability to learn quickly while under pressure, and sufficient handling and thinking ability to go on to command a jet airliner in as little as two years from being hired. That's a big responsibility - and the major risk is taken by the employer if you screw up.
Yes, of course there are still airlines that take pilots with instructing experience, who went the modular route and took their time about it. We get several success stories from career-changers and the like who are pretty much forced to go this route, and good luck to them. But this is a percentage game, and wannabes who are looking for the most reliable route to airline employment deserve to hear the truth, however unpalateable it is to those of us who would prefer it were otherwise. And that truth now is that the vast majority of low-hour pilots who get airline employment with 300 hours or less in the UK currently do so via integrated or structured modular courses. There are variations on this theme, of course, and there will always (I hope) be alternative routes. I'm not saying that any given route is less valid than any other, but if you're a young wannabe looking for the best chance of getting a right-hand seat in a 737 within 2 years of starting training, this is the way to do it.
Remember, I am commenting on what I observe, not on how I'd like things to be or whether the currently most successful route is the best. You are, of course, free to disagree with me, but I think you'll find the numbers are on my side.
Scroggs
P.S. Incidentally, the MPL is A Good Thing for the airlines and those who wish to work for them. It is not appropriate for those areas of flying far removed from the rather regimented airline world, and will not be used for those areas. I see no need for rabid disagreements about it, it is simply a case of designing the tools to better suit their purpose.
I too think MPL could be a useful new system. The sheer tedium and pointlesness in chunks of the ATPL syllabus and CPL flight training would be time and money better spent in decent simulators operating multi crew type SOP's. There are many areas where the current training system is very weak. Air traffic control procedures is one that springs effortlessly to mind. New FO's get put in charge (potentially) of a jet airliner but are expected to pick up their ATC skills and understanding along the way. Often they've never sat in the tower and certainly never spent a few hours in a radar room. And yet it is a core core skill used ever 5 minutes in the air at least.
If you were to be given a blank sheet of paper and told to work out a £60,000 12 month training course to make commercial pilots you certainly wouldn't end up with the current system. MPL is no blank sheet of paper but it could be a major redraft for the better.
Cheers
WWW
If you were to be given a blank sheet of paper and told to work out a £60,000 12 month training course to make commercial pilots you certainly wouldn't end up with the current system. MPL is no blank sheet of paper but it could be a major redraft for the better.
Cheers
WWW
de minimus non curat lex
Once the basic stick and rudder skills has been achieved, and the simulator phase has been entered, two essential components of traditional route must be covered.
1. The interphase with ATC, and the bugg**ation factor which occurs whereby they [unintentionally] try to derail the unsuspecting student with necessary [ATC] instructions. One thing to build this into the lesson plan, quite another to have the instructor with the necessary air traffic skills.
One of the best I ever experienced was one Tony Angel who worked in the CAA HS125 sim at Stansted some 25 years ago.
2. The student will become perfectly competent in the "upper air". The issue will be teaching them to land it, which easily translates to the real aircraft.
Resolve these two issues, and it might start to get my vote.
1. The interphase with ATC, and the bugg**ation factor which occurs whereby they [unintentionally] try to derail the unsuspecting student with necessary [ATC] instructions. One thing to build this into the lesson plan, quite another to have the instructor with the necessary air traffic skills.
One of the best I ever experienced was one Tony Angel who worked in the CAA HS125 sim at Stansted some 25 years ago.
2. The student will become perfectly competent in the "upper air". The issue will be teaching them to land it, which easily translates to the real aircraft.
Resolve these two issues, and it might start to get my vote.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parkfell, your first point is one that has been noticed and there's considerable effort going in to building a 'b*ggeration factor' into the sim exercises. The JAA MPL regs require the sim instructors to be TRI/FI qualified so the instructors should be well enough qualified to deliver the exercises although finding enough of them is going to strain the system. On your second question, have you noticed the gulf between the landing techniques taught in GA and the way you land a jet? We teach our student pilots to pay only scant regard to airspeed, drive the aircraft to a position over the runway then keep steadily pulling back until the aircraft mushes into what is essentially a 3 point landing. Try that in a big jet. I even a had an instructor cover up the entire panel in a Seneca once in an attempt to get me NOT to look at the ASI on a visual landing. That'll work.
de minimus non curat lex
It would be nice to think that greater emphasise is being placed on the ATC side. What they really need as part of their TRI course, is a day plugged in, and also a session on the radar simulator to at least give them a taste of vectoring / speed contol etc.
What needs to be taught in the jet sim is a stabilised approach.
Power + attitude = performance ; this still holds go, even if the concept is as old as the hills.
What needs to be taught in the jet sim is a stabilised approach.
Power + attitude = performance ; this still holds go, even if the concept is as old as the hills.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People, this thread is about Pilot Shortage. If you wish to discuss the MPL in detail, please do it on this thread, which was prepared earlier for exactly that purpose. Thankyou.
Scroggs
Scroggs
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On several occasions over the last few months, I have warned that the currently exceptional hiring situation could not continue indefinitely. and that a cyclical downturn in aviation was as inevitable as sunset. It would now appear that one or two companies are beginning to agree with me.
In the longhaul business, there are distinct signs that overcapacity has begun to reappear. The US majors are switching capacity from domestic longhaul to Trans-Atlantic routes; a tactic used several times in the past when their domestic market is weak. Capacity ordered several years ago is now coming on line and is not being filled on many scheduled routes, particularly in economy. The backlog of aircraft orders is huge and growing, yet longhaul traffic growth is slowing markedly. Virgin and BA have both stopped recruiting for the near term.
The domestic and European shorthaul/loco markets are more robust, but there is unlikely to be sufficient growth to absorb the enormous increase in capacity represented by the current aircraft orderbook in the short and medium term. While some orders will probably be deferred, it's likely that there will be quite a few companies that hope to get through at the expense of others. There's little room left for a price war - margins are already very tight for most operators. Aviation fuel costs are not decreasing significantly, despite the reduction in crude oil prices (the current spot-market price of aviation fuel is still above what it was when the current fuel surcharges were imposed by many airlines). OPEC is now rallying to support the oil price remaining around $55 - $60 in the long term, so there is unlikely to be any further relief there. The net result is that some operators are likely to hit something of a financial brick wall in the next 12 to 18 months.
Once this viewpoint begins to be widely held, many more operators will reduce their new manning requirements until things start to look a bit more healthy. No doubt EZ and Ryan will continue to dominate the market, and will probably hasten the demise of some of the weaker carriers, but this will maintain rather than expand the overall market - and numbers of jobs.
While I must emphasise that my analysis suggests a (possibly severe) slowing of growth rather than any contraction, I have a feeling that the good hiring times we've been very lucky to enjoy over the past couple of years are about to be replaced by a more austere outlook for a while.
Scroggs
In the longhaul business, there are distinct signs that overcapacity has begun to reappear. The US majors are switching capacity from domestic longhaul to Trans-Atlantic routes; a tactic used several times in the past when their domestic market is weak. Capacity ordered several years ago is now coming on line and is not being filled on many scheduled routes, particularly in economy. The backlog of aircraft orders is huge and growing, yet longhaul traffic growth is slowing markedly. Virgin and BA have both stopped recruiting for the near term.
The domestic and European shorthaul/loco markets are more robust, but there is unlikely to be sufficient growth to absorb the enormous increase in capacity represented by the current aircraft orderbook in the short and medium term. While some orders will probably be deferred, it's likely that there will be quite a few companies that hope to get through at the expense of others. There's little room left for a price war - margins are already very tight for most operators. Aviation fuel costs are not decreasing significantly, despite the reduction in crude oil prices (the current spot-market price of aviation fuel is still above what it was when the current fuel surcharges were imposed by many airlines). OPEC is now rallying to support the oil price remaining around $55 - $60 in the long term, so there is unlikely to be any further relief there. The net result is that some operators are likely to hit something of a financial brick wall in the next 12 to 18 months.
Once this viewpoint begins to be widely held, many more operators will reduce their new manning requirements until things start to look a bit more healthy. No doubt EZ and Ryan will continue to dominate the market, and will probably hasten the demise of some of the weaker carriers, but this will maintain rather than expand the overall market - and numbers of jobs.
While I must emphasise that my analysis suggests a (possibly severe) slowing of growth rather than any contraction, I have a feeling that the good hiring times we've been very lucky to enjoy over the past couple of years are about to be replaced by a more austere outlook for a while.
Scroggs
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 42
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help, Im Confused!
Hi can somebody please offer me some advice, I am having second doubts whether I should persue my career as a commercial airline pilot because of all the rumours that around 15% of pilots who are qualified with a fATPL never actually fly an airctraft with passengers as a career. I am currently working very hard doing all the overtime that god gives me in order to raise the sufficient funds for the course preferably looking into Florida for my training. Although I really want to do this I am thinking to myself even though I will qualify with a fATPL I will not be guaranteed a job because of low hours and therefore need to invest a huge more in order to increase the hours. The other side of my mind is saying that I should do it because the industry is an all time high for pilot recruitment as there are many new airlines around the world that are being launched. Please someone advice me should I persue my dream or should I invest my hard earned money on something else, all assistance will be much appreciated, thankyou in advance.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The feedback ive had from pilots and instructors alike is the 15% odd of people qualified that will never fly will be due to the fact they are totally unemployable, not because of experience. By this i mean due to low qualifications at school, poor flying experience and zillions of attempts to pass exams and flight tests, poor charisma in an interview and generally terrible flying in a sim check.
Im not perfectly sure how and what makes a qualified pilot totally unemployable, but if you work hard and do everythign by the book you'll be fine.
The pilot market is getting better.
Im not perfectly sure how and what makes a qualified pilot totally unemployable, but if you work hard and do everythign by the book you'll be fine.
The pilot market is getting better.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can ensure you are not in that 15% by undertaking independent aptitude tests through GAPAN.
Scottiedog - you are behind the curve - the market was getting better, but recruitment levels are now flat.
Scottiedog - you are behind the curve - the market was getting better, but recruitment levels are now flat.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to define some parameters here, what in most people's opinion, constitutes a low houred pilot and at what point do you no longer become so? Clearly, there is also a difference between say 500hrs of instructing and 500hrs of Air Taxi on an MEP.
Just thought I would throw that one out there for some feedback?
Just thought I would throw that one out there for some feedback?
Guest
Posts: n/a
You can ensure you are not in that 15% by undertaking independent aptitude tests through GAPAN.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Environmental Issues
After keeping an eye on the recent media developments relating to the problems of global warming which have been highlighted by the government and various other entities here in the UK, I can't help but wonder what the new environmental proposals will have on our futures within the aviation industry?
There has been a hell of a lot of hype about slapping a heavy 'green tax' on air travel in order to cut down on the volume of low cost flights and make it less affordable and therefore attractive for people to fly. While I cannot deny that the aviation industry is a contributor to the problems with the environment, I do believe that too many people are finding it an easy target when other pressing issues such as the problems involving energy production & waste, public transport, infrastructure and even recycling seem to get less attention so far (does anyone else think this?)
Is the new laws and taxes which are soon to approach our shores going to bring the growth of commercial air travel to a grinding halt and in turn drop the axe on the fairly buoyant job market?
There has been a hell of a lot of hype about slapping a heavy 'green tax' on air travel in order to cut down on the volume of low cost flights and make it less affordable and therefore attractive for people to fly. While I cannot deny that the aviation industry is a contributor to the problems with the environment, I do believe that too many people are finding it an easy target when other pressing issues such as the problems involving energy production & waste, public transport, infrastructure and even recycling seem to get less attention so far (does anyone else think this?)
Is the new laws and taxes which are soon to approach our shores going to bring the growth of commercial air travel to a grinding halt and in turn drop the axe on the fairly buoyant job market?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will probably cut the profits of British airline companies. British pilot jobs may be cut particularly because the UK is a prime stopover for translatlantic flights. I don't agree with it and I'm an American pilot.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its quite a worrying time all round to be honest. It seems everything is very unpredictable at the moment. No one really knows whats going to happen next.
With the bottom line being that the Government wants to bring anything that has an engine to a halt pretty much by taxing to the point of destruction, its with trepidation that I continue training. As much as I want the job, you have to be realistic and know when enough is enough. Is it going to be a viable industry to work in ten years time? Will the indstry exist at all? Harsh questions, and some would say ' dont talk nonsense, but I personally think it could happen.
I would put a fair amount on GA being wiped out before ten years, probably more like five. My advice is to enjoy your flying now and make the most of it. You may be part of history to say one day, you once hald a pilots licence!
With the bottom line being that the Government wants to bring anything that has an engine to a halt pretty much by taxing to the point of destruction, its with trepidation that I continue training. As much as I want the job, you have to be realistic and know when enough is enough. Is it going to be a viable industry to work in ten years time? Will the indstry exist at all? Harsh questions, and some would say ' dont talk nonsense, but I personally think it could happen.
I would put a fair amount on GA being wiped out before ten years, probably more like five. My advice is to enjoy your flying now and make the most of it. You may be part of history to say one day, you once hald a pilots licence!
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huge rises is fuel prices? You are obviously a youngster! Fuel for road vehicles, even in tax-burdened UK, is at an historical low price in real terms, and the cost of running a motor vehicle is the lowest it's ever been as a proportion of average earnings. Petrol prices would have to more than double to get close to what they were in the mid-1970s in real terms. The same is true of - untaxed - jet fuel.
Air travel, notwithstanding the increased taxes recently applied, is also far, far cheaper than it has ever been. That is the reason why its expansion has been so fast and so far-reaching. The expansion rate currently enjoyed by the industry is unsupportable in the long term even without the environmental concerns; there just isn't room for all the airports and associated infrastructure, and there isn't the profit to make such capital investments worthwhile in the more expensive parts of the world.
Aviation will have to bear its share of whatever measures are agreed upon to limit carbon emissions world-wide; it cannot legitimately claim any exemptions. However, that emphatically does not mean the end of aviation! Technology will provide us with fuels that produce less CO2, both through improved manufacturing techniques, non-oil-based sourcing, and increased efficiency in combustion. Engines will continue to improve in efficiency also (CO2 output is directly proportional to fuel consumption). Industry is not complacent about the challenges we face, but is quietly confident that they can be met.
'Open Skies', which is about as inappropriately named as an agreement can be, will marginally increase the ability for airlines to compete within the European market on trans-Atlantic routes. It provides US carriers with almost unlimited rights of cabotage within the EU boundaries while permitting no such rights to EU carriers within the USA. This will eventually, in my opinion, cause either the collapse or the total renegotiation of the agreement in time. For now, the motivation for both the EU and US negotiators was to get into Heathrow on Atlantic routes, as LHR carries 40% (the most profitable 40%) of all EU-US traffic. That's why Britain, and thus BA and Virgin, were hung out to dry.
In the short to medium term, Open Skies will lead to a fairly large increase in the proportion of LHR flights that are trans-Atlantic. The airport's capacity limits, which it's already at, can't easily be increased without new runways. Therefore extra Atlantic traffic must take slots which already exist - and are the property of airlines already operating from LHR. The LHR market probably won't bear the increases in capacity that will be injected into it, and several operators will catch a cold. Certainly, prices will fall and profits will be affected. On the other hand, there will be nothing to stop BA, Virgin and BMI (or anyone else) operating from Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, Berlin or Madrid and giving the fat, nationalised carriers a lesson in economics!
It'll be quite a battleground, but I don't see it resulting in a reduction of traffic - or jobs! But it might well make aviation even less secure employment than it is now...
Scroggs
Air travel, notwithstanding the increased taxes recently applied, is also far, far cheaper than it has ever been. That is the reason why its expansion has been so fast and so far-reaching. The expansion rate currently enjoyed by the industry is unsupportable in the long term even without the environmental concerns; there just isn't room for all the airports and associated infrastructure, and there isn't the profit to make such capital investments worthwhile in the more expensive parts of the world.
Aviation will have to bear its share of whatever measures are agreed upon to limit carbon emissions world-wide; it cannot legitimately claim any exemptions. However, that emphatically does not mean the end of aviation! Technology will provide us with fuels that produce less CO2, both through improved manufacturing techniques, non-oil-based sourcing, and increased efficiency in combustion. Engines will continue to improve in efficiency also (CO2 output is directly proportional to fuel consumption). Industry is not complacent about the challenges we face, but is quietly confident that they can be met.
'Open Skies', which is about as inappropriately named as an agreement can be, will marginally increase the ability for airlines to compete within the European market on trans-Atlantic routes. It provides US carriers with almost unlimited rights of cabotage within the EU boundaries while permitting no such rights to EU carriers within the USA. This will eventually, in my opinion, cause either the collapse or the total renegotiation of the agreement in time. For now, the motivation for both the EU and US negotiators was to get into Heathrow on Atlantic routes, as LHR carries 40% (the most profitable 40%) of all EU-US traffic. That's why Britain, and thus BA and Virgin, were hung out to dry.
In the short to medium term, Open Skies will lead to a fairly large increase in the proportion of LHR flights that are trans-Atlantic. The airport's capacity limits, which it's already at, can't easily be increased without new runways. Therefore extra Atlantic traffic must take slots which already exist - and are the property of airlines already operating from LHR. The LHR market probably won't bear the increases in capacity that will be injected into it, and several operators will catch a cold. Certainly, prices will fall and profits will be affected. On the other hand, there will be nothing to stop BA, Virgin and BMI (or anyone else) operating from Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, Berlin or Madrid and giving the fat, nationalised carriers a lesson in economics!
It'll be quite a battleground, but I don't see it resulting in a reduction of traffic - or jobs! But it might well make aviation even less secure employment than it is now...
Scroggs
