Will BA recruit if there's a war in Iraq?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry slightly off the topic but relevant,
Rod eddington famously said that a low cost and premium arline cannot be run at the same time, but surely with all these price cuts, and media campaigns, isnt he converting BA's european flights into exactly that and by the fact that he says hes competing with the low cost lot.
to compete with them, you have to have equal or cheaper fares and better service which ba is renowed for.
the big question is, can he do it?
Rod eddington famously said that a low cost and premium arline cannot be run at the same time, but surely with all these price cuts, and media campaigns, isnt he converting BA's european flights into exactly that and by the fact that he says hes competing with the low cost lot.
to compete with them, you have to have equal or cheaper fares and better service which ba is renowed for.
the big question is, can he do it?
Heaven Forfend!
You will not need to worry about the prospect of a long, drawn-out war.
No even a short one will be ruinous. As the bombs fall on Baghdad people stop travelling fearing bombs on airplanes reprisals.
The USA will QUICKLY decimate Saddam's government with precision (avoiding collateral damage/civilian injuries as much as possible) and force a regime change.
Tricky when you don't know where he is. Don't know who will replace him/them. Don't have any legal authority to take action. Don't have the stomach to take any casulaties or PoWs.
It is well known that most people in Iraq hate Saddam and loathe their living conditions and lowly status in the Arab world.
Is it well known? There have been exactly no internal attempted coups against Saddam. Even the Germans managed an attempt to blow up Hitler. The Iraqi people have been fed similar amounts of propoganda to the North American people. They believe the evil US is deliberately starving them.
Most Iraqi people, including the already pulverized Iraqi army (with long-term memories of precision missiles and napalm carpet-bombing runs) would favor a more-democratic rule and would not fight as hard as Saddam would like.
The Repulblican Guard were not pulverised. True some civilians were killed by PGM's. I don't remember much Napalm being dropped in the Guld War. Difficuly to favor more democractic rule when there is no alternative to Saddam offered. Will the next dictator be worse? Who knows.
Any war would be a matter of weeks - not months.
Not according to Colin Powell.
And the US doesn't need anyone's direct help - not even the British (it will need Turkish airspace and Bahraini airfields, etc.). The US can do it alone - it is time for a regime change.
Well they will need the direct help of the Turkish and Bahrainis for a start then. The US can do it alone. Alone being the operative point. If its time for a regime change then just tell me one thing - whats the replacement?
Therefore, I would not worry too much about a prolonged hiring freeze in the event of a war. It will be a turkey-shoot...
Terminology such as that is a little disconcerting. We are talking about killing men, women and children. Not turkeys.
Just how many Iraqis were aboard those aircraft on Sept 11th? And how many Saudis? Surely the US has a much much greater mandate to invade and topple the rullers of Saudi Arabia?
Cheers
WWW
You will not need to worry about the prospect of a long, drawn-out war.
No even a short one will be ruinous. As the bombs fall on Baghdad people stop travelling fearing bombs on airplanes reprisals.
The USA will QUICKLY decimate Saddam's government with precision (avoiding collateral damage/civilian injuries as much as possible) and force a regime change.
Tricky when you don't know where he is. Don't know who will replace him/them. Don't have any legal authority to take action. Don't have the stomach to take any casulaties or PoWs.
It is well known that most people in Iraq hate Saddam and loathe their living conditions and lowly status in the Arab world.
Is it well known? There have been exactly no internal attempted coups against Saddam. Even the Germans managed an attempt to blow up Hitler. The Iraqi people have been fed similar amounts of propoganda to the North American people. They believe the evil US is deliberately starving them.
Most Iraqi people, including the already pulverized Iraqi army (with long-term memories of precision missiles and napalm carpet-bombing runs) would favor a more-democratic rule and would not fight as hard as Saddam would like.
The Repulblican Guard were not pulverised. True some civilians were killed by PGM's. I don't remember much Napalm being dropped in the Guld War. Difficuly to favor more democractic rule when there is no alternative to Saddam offered. Will the next dictator be worse? Who knows.
Any war would be a matter of weeks - not months.
Not according to Colin Powell.
And the US doesn't need anyone's direct help - not even the British (it will need Turkish airspace and Bahraini airfields, etc.). The US can do it alone - it is time for a regime change.
Well they will need the direct help of the Turkish and Bahrainis for a start then. The US can do it alone. Alone being the operative point. If its time for a regime change then just tell me one thing - whats the replacement?
Therefore, I would not worry too much about a prolonged hiring freeze in the event of a war. It will be a turkey-shoot...
Terminology such as that is a little disconcerting. We are talking about killing men, women and children. Not turkeys.
Just how many Iraqis were aboard those aircraft on Sept 11th? And how many Saudis? Surely the US has a much much greater mandate to invade and topple the rullers of Saudi Arabia?
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just like to say, in a slim shady sorta way:
I'm Captain Birdseed, the real Captain Birdseed, all the other Captain Birdseed's are just imitating...
Since my colleagues who know me might be rather disturbed if I'd posted the previous comment...
Sorry this doesn't contribute to the thread, but I had to say this lest I get lynched for inappropriate speculation or something!
T'ta
PS I suppose in answer to the original question: No way. Even if the war for some miraculous reason didn't affect air travel, BA would surely batten down the hatches just in case. Why risk it?
[Edited for not reading the question in the first place RTFQ=1/2TFA]
I'm Captain Birdseed, the real Captain Birdseed, all the other Captain Birdseed's are just imitating...
Since my colleagues who know me might be rather disturbed if I'd posted the previous comment...
Sorry this doesn't contribute to the thread, but I had to say this lest I get lynched for inappropriate speculation or something!
T'ta
PS I suppose in answer to the original question: No way. Even if the war for some miraculous reason didn't affect air travel, BA would surely batten down the hatches just in case. Why risk it?
[Edited for not reading the question in the first place RTFQ=1/2TFA]
Last edited by Captain Birdseed; 13th Aug 2002 at 18:01.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream on, Lav. You been to lots of wars, have you? Can you point out any one over the last 100 years that has been, as you call it, a turkey-shoot?
The reason the 1991 Gulf War was over so quickly was that a huge group of nations co-operated against Iraq. Saudi Arabia's vast shared frontier with Kuwait and Iraq, and large number of modern airbases, allowed the military command lots of flexibility in choosing how and when the liberation of Kuwait would go. Over 1 million coalition military people were involved, with hundreds of aircraft. Remember, this operation was to kick an army of occupation out of its illegally-held territory. That army was weaker and smaller than it need have been because Saddam kept back his best troops, fearing a direct invasion of Iraq. That army was also at the far end of a distant and well-stretched supply line. And it was still no 'turkey-shoot'. The main reason that the Alliance didn't go on into Iraq to take out Saddam then was that there was no UN mandate to do so. Even had there been such, the military command at the time was far from convinced that such an operation could succeed, even with the huge resources than available.
Bahrain, with its single military airbase and international airport, will not substitute for Saudi Arabia in any future invasion! The total number of forces that the US could muster on its own would no way equal the number assembled in 1990. And, most importantly, there is next to no international support for any invasion, and even Dubya isn't stupid enough to invade on those terms.
The reason the 1991 Gulf War was over so quickly was that a huge group of nations co-operated against Iraq. Saudi Arabia's vast shared frontier with Kuwait and Iraq, and large number of modern airbases, allowed the military command lots of flexibility in choosing how and when the liberation of Kuwait would go. Over 1 million coalition military people were involved, with hundreds of aircraft. Remember, this operation was to kick an army of occupation out of its illegally-held territory. That army was weaker and smaller than it need have been because Saddam kept back his best troops, fearing a direct invasion of Iraq. That army was also at the far end of a distant and well-stretched supply line. And it was still no 'turkey-shoot'. The main reason that the Alliance didn't go on into Iraq to take out Saddam then was that there was no UN mandate to do so. Even had there been such, the military command at the time was far from convinced that such an operation could succeed, even with the huge resources than available.
Bahrain, with its single military airbase and international airport, will not substitute for Saudi Arabia in any future invasion! The total number of forces that the US could muster on its own would no way equal the number assembled in 1990. And, most importantly, there is next to no international support for any invasion, and even Dubya isn't stupid enough to invade on those terms.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we are going to war....
Over the summer I was on RAF camp with the cadets and for one of the days during the week we had to go to an army base for the day. We saw a large amount of soldiers lining up to go into a large hall so we asked what they were doing.... they were receiving their injections for Iraq. We also saw approximately 30 tanks being "re-engineered." We found out that these were actually modifications to the tanks so that they could cope with desert conditions.
The person in charge of us said that injections have to be given 6 months before battle. This was 1 month ago - you do the maths. Of course I'm not saying that we will go to war, just that the possibility is certainly there and preparations are taking place.
As to the effect on airlines and recruitment etc, it would be very similar to the effect of the Gulf War which equals bad news.
The person in charge of us said that injections have to be given 6 months before battle. This was 1 month ago - you do the maths. Of course I'm not saying that we will go to war, just that the possibility is certainly there and preparations are taking place.
As to the effect on airlines and recruitment etc, it would be very similar to the effect of the Gulf War which equals bad news.
Last edited by FL390; 13th Aug 2002 at 18:38.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Between the Moon and NYC
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scroggs, I respect you a lot, so, don't take my response as disrespectful. The US has always been underestimated when it comes to battles post Vietnam (yes, that was regrettable). However, it is undeniable that the US possesses the strength and resolve (especially after 9/11) to root-out both terrorism and potential threats to the US and the rest of the world.
Saddam represents one of the major threats - his OBSESSION with laying his hands on nuclear weapons or weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION is well known (he feels Iraq would be better respected in the Arab world and that his safety would improve with the weapons). He has the money and the sense of urgency required to eventually develop an arsenal that would eventually tip the balance of power in the Gulf - that is the case. Would you like Saddam to threaten the deployment of nukes whenever he doesn't get his way? That is called nuclear blackmail - and get used to it (pacifists)...
Europe should never downplay the USA's ability to unilaterally respond to a threat like Iraq. WWW, you think you know everything - I guess your dPhil from Cambridge entitles you to that opinion... Well, of course Colin Powell would downplay the USA's ability to the press - the last thing you want is to be constrained by a deadline (i.e., a one-month battle). The USA has the sophisticated weapons (F15s, F16s, F18s, B2s , F117As, and CRUISE MISSILES), the ground forces (over 250,000 well-trained soldiers using sophisticated equipment) and the country's RESOLVE - over 75% of citizens polled agree that Saddam represents a major threat to peace in the future.
Sure, Saddam is clever and he can hide - just like Osama Bin Laden. But when Bagdad has been taken (because the Iraqi army will not want to fight and get thrashed again if Saddam runs and hides), he will not be able to return to his current position. The government will change eventually and he may still be in hiding - he will eventually be caught OR he will live in the caves with Osama.
Europeans took forever to deal with Bosnia and Kosovo - how many poor, innocent people had to die in Kosovo without European intervention? Kosovo was in Europe's backyard and yet it took the Americans to get things going - and it took a matter of weeks with almost no US casulties. Do you remember Kosovo WWW? The Americans had to take care of Europe's dirty work - and we did it quickly. In Afghanistan, we quickly rooted the Al Queda despite Russia's claim that it would become another Viet Nam. WRONG!!!! Sure, we did not catch Osama or the Taliban leader, but they are running like scared children... A government/regime change has happened in Afghanistan despite all of the European naysayers....
Will there be a lot of lives lost? Probably. Will the Iraqis appreciate the end result when they can once again be strong members of the world community vs. the parriahs they are now? Yes. Simply put - we have the sophisticated weapons and the resolve to get things done - unlike the Europeans who have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power (i.e., the French love the oil money). Remember Kosovo - the Americans took charge after years of European neglect and we got it done - quickly! In the end, the world will be safer and better off without Saddam - and everyone will thank us - again...
Cheers
Saddam represents one of the major threats - his OBSESSION with laying his hands on nuclear weapons or weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION is well known (he feels Iraq would be better respected in the Arab world and that his safety would improve with the weapons). He has the money and the sense of urgency required to eventually develop an arsenal that would eventually tip the balance of power in the Gulf - that is the case. Would you like Saddam to threaten the deployment of nukes whenever he doesn't get his way? That is called nuclear blackmail - and get used to it (pacifists)...
Europe should never downplay the USA's ability to unilaterally respond to a threat like Iraq. WWW, you think you know everything - I guess your dPhil from Cambridge entitles you to that opinion... Well, of course Colin Powell would downplay the USA's ability to the press - the last thing you want is to be constrained by a deadline (i.e., a one-month battle). The USA has the sophisticated weapons (F15s, F16s, F18s, B2s , F117As, and CRUISE MISSILES), the ground forces (over 250,000 well-trained soldiers using sophisticated equipment) and the country's RESOLVE - over 75% of citizens polled agree that Saddam represents a major threat to peace in the future.
Sure, Saddam is clever and he can hide - just like Osama Bin Laden. But when Bagdad has been taken (because the Iraqi army will not want to fight and get thrashed again if Saddam runs and hides), he will not be able to return to his current position. The government will change eventually and he may still be in hiding - he will eventually be caught OR he will live in the caves with Osama.
Europeans took forever to deal with Bosnia and Kosovo - how many poor, innocent people had to die in Kosovo without European intervention? Kosovo was in Europe's backyard and yet it took the Americans to get things going - and it took a matter of weeks with almost no US casulties. Do you remember Kosovo WWW? The Americans had to take care of Europe's dirty work - and we did it quickly. In Afghanistan, we quickly rooted the Al Queda despite Russia's claim that it would become another Viet Nam. WRONG!!!! Sure, we did not catch Osama or the Taliban leader, but they are running like scared children... A government/regime change has happened in Afghanistan despite all of the European naysayers....
Will there be a lot of lives lost? Probably. Will the Iraqis appreciate the end result when they can once again be strong members of the world community vs. the parriahs they are now? Yes. Simply put - we have the sophisticated weapons and the resolve to get things done - unlike the Europeans who have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power (i.e., the French love the oil money). Remember Kosovo - the Americans took charge after years of European neglect and we got it done - quickly! In the end, the world will be safer and better off without Saddam - and everyone will thank us - again...
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: England
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lavdumperer,
I am coming out of virtual PPrune posting retirement to say this:
There is more to the Former Yugoslavian situation than most Yanks recognise.
Afghanistan was only a success by the foreign involvment JOINT with the US - British Royal Marines taking a leading role in this is one example.
Who is looking after Afghanistan and the Former Yugoslavia after the US and others have taken action??? Is it me or did the US already pretty much all go home (with the exception of their reservists who still seem to be in the area).
You seem to be very keen on the subject of the US protecting the World - Thanks for the help in the falklands then.
I am not trying to stir things here, but more alert you to the fact that the rest of the educated world does not fall for the US propoganda machine, and in fact you get people like me who are rapidly getting to the decision that the US actually causes more problems in the world than it fixes - some of these intentionally.
Still lets hope there is no war out their, as it will further screw all of our sponsorship chances - as I think for the next few years they will be few and far between.
Big Air
I am coming out of virtual PPrune posting retirement to say this:
There is more to the Former Yugoslavian situation than most Yanks recognise.
Afghanistan was only a success by the foreign involvment JOINT with the US - British Royal Marines taking a leading role in this is one example.
Who is looking after Afghanistan and the Former Yugoslavia after the US and others have taken action??? Is it me or did the US already pretty much all go home (with the exception of their reservists who still seem to be in the area).
You seem to be very keen on the subject of the US protecting the World - Thanks for the help in the falklands then.
I am not trying to stir things here, but more alert you to the fact that the rest of the educated world does not fall for the US propoganda machine, and in fact you get people like me who are rapidly getting to the decision that the US actually causes more problems in the world than it fixes - some of these intentionally.
Still lets hope there is no war out their, as it will further screw all of our sponsorship chances - as I think for the next few years they will be few and far between.
Big Air
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Lavdump , do you believe everything you read or are you working for the US propaganda machine? That's pretty strong rhetoric you're spouting there. I don't dispute that the US is the largest and best equipped of all but sometimes "largest" and "best technology" doesn't work. If you look around and read more widely, you may discover that the Iraqis actually learnt after 1991 that you can't beat the US in a maneouver warfare environment - large, wide-open spaces where the enormous US machine can run free. They're doing what any smart opponent would do and turning their adversary's strengths into a weakness by taking it in to the urban environment where the high tech stuff can't see or go. The next one won't be so straight forward. Be careful when you rely on technology (eg cruise missiles and stealth) because sometimes low-tech wins out (eg inflateable boats packed with explosives). I'm with BigAir - the US often creates more problems than it fixes.
As for recruiting in an unstable globle environment, haven't we seen that already? Sep 11? No commercial organisation is going to invest in huge capital expenditure if there is instability.
As for recruiting in an unstable globle environment, haven't we seen that already? Sep 11? No commercial organisation is going to invest in huge capital expenditure if there is instability.
Bagsy I man the swingometer and get to play with the tanks in the sandpit!
WWW
WWW
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lav,
there's some truth in much of what you say. Howver, there's also a good deal of bluster and hyperbole. No amount of shouting that 'my military's bigger and more capable than yours' will alter the political, territorial and tactical problems facing the US in this adventure. No-one is arguing for Saddam, but there are many world politicians that would suggest that the threat he presents is a) arguable and unproven and b) already being contained. I seriously doubt that many of the US political and military strategists are overly concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people, and our experience of the US's attitude to every conflict since Vietnam is that once the miltary action is over, they'll disappear back home and leave others to clear up the mess.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter what our personal feelings are about the reasons for, practicality of, or outcome of any conflict in Iraq might be. I'd like the conversation to get back to the poster's original question: the effect on recruiting for BA if such a conflict does happen. Perhaps it's my fault that we've gone off track!
I've had a suggestion from 'someone who knows' that BA may be considering restarting the Cadetship scheme, though I've no idea of any proposed timescale. With BA's exposure to the Middle East, even if the rest of the world carries on regardless, they will lose a considerable amount of traffic. It seems logical that any recruiting would be negatively affected, and that the CEP scheme would slide to the right.
there's some truth in much of what you say. Howver, there's also a good deal of bluster and hyperbole. No amount of shouting that 'my military's bigger and more capable than yours' will alter the political, territorial and tactical problems facing the US in this adventure. No-one is arguing for Saddam, but there are many world politicians that would suggest that the threat he presents is a) arguable and unproven and b) already being contained. I seriously doubt that many of the US political and military strategists are overly concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people, and our experience of the US's attitude to every conflict since Vietnam is that once the miltary action is over, they'll disappear back home and leave others to clear up the mess.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter what our personal feelings are about the reasons for, practicality of, or outcome of any conflict in Iraq might be. I'd like the conversation to get back to the poster's original question: the effect on recruiting for BA if such a conflict does happen. Perhaps it's my fault that we've gone off track!
I've had a suggestion from 'someone who knows' that BA may be considering restarting the Cadetship scheme, though I've no idea of any proposed timescale. With BA's exposure to the Middle East, even if the rest of the world carries on regardless, they will lose a considerable amount of traffic. It seems logical that any recruiting would be negatively affected, and that the CEP scheme would slide to the right.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scroggs
is this someone else completely different, or are you refering to this posting in general,
and secondly why would BA recruit in the current climate
(ps i hope it does start, reastically i feel they are my only hope).
sad but true.
is this someone else completely different, or are you refering to this posting in general,
and secondly why would BA recruit in the current climate
(ps i hope it does start, reastically i feel they are my only hope).
sad but true.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Purple,
the question was 'Will BA recruit if there's a war in Iraq?'. The basic, logical answer to that is 'No'. At the moment, I have reason to believe that they may open recruiting, at least to DEPs and maybe to CEPs next year. Another Gulf conflict would likely scupper those plans.
the question was 'Will BA recruit if there's a war in Iraq?'. The basic, logical answer to that is 'No'. At the moment, I have reason to believe that they may open recruiting, at least to DEPs and maybe to CEPs next year. Another Gulf conflict would likely scupper those plans.
