Attention BA staff and shareholders
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Jerry you were lucky, well done.
Sadly those days have gone.
As you pointed out pre 97.
Also the job has become harder over the last couple of years.
A great deal of people are joining you in being Ex BA too
I think you got out at just the right time.
Unfortunately some people still think the job is still like that
Ps I think you slightly exagerated the pay but hey you always look back through rose coloured glasses.
Sadly those days have gone.
As you pointed out pre 97.
Also the job has become harder over the last couple of years.
A great deal of people are joining you in being Ex BA too
I think you got out at just the right time.
Unfortunately some people still think the job is still like that
Ps I think you slightly exagerated the pay but hey you always look back through rose coloured glasses.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heavy Crew - yes 2 hours bunk rest each on a CAI-LHR. You just can't face the truth can you? Would you also like to comment on the fact that 1 in 5 cabin crew scheduled to work during the period covering last Christmas and New Years Eve called in sick?
I love hearing BA cabin crew complaining about working hard - 15 or 16 crew looking after approx. 290 pax on a 744, compared with 17 crew at Virgin looking after 439 pax!
I love hearing BA cabin crew complaining about working hard - 15 or 16 crew looking after approx. 290 pax on a 744, compared with 17 crew at Virgin looking after 439 pax!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right about BA staff seem to hate each other or certainly unhealthy departmental dislike. As a BA employee I have to apologise to other pruners as some of you must get fed up with BA and its soap opera culture.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerry , i think you are wrong...
Having been at BA over 10 years, the one thing i would say that keeps me there IS the people.
By that , I mean the crew - the main problem we have is certain quarters of the management.
They are VERY out of touch with what really happens on line - Rod's admitted that by the very fact he has arranged dozens of face-to-face meetings between managment and frontline staff
He's left that one a bit late..
There are far too many managment ,even now, - fare paying passengers want plenty of attentive staff who have time for them, not 1000's of managers locked up in an office protecting each others positions with (some) pointless projects...
Isn't that the point of the latest TV advertsing campaign???
We already have less than easyjet crewing levels proportionally.
They really don't care. Morale at BA is rock-bottom.
BEP (Business efficiency programme) started in 1997, the latest plan goes to 2006.
We've had over 7 years of cutbacks already with more projected....doubtless it has saved the company money .... but it has gone on for a Very long time now .
My salary is less than 97... how's that for progress??? , especially with the average property prices around £150-200,000+ .....
It will go on forever like this at BA.... this is having quite a dire effect already though, as crew are leaving in droves compared to say 5 years ago.
Instead of worrying about this demoralising effect the company are rubbing their hands with glee, as they can replace them with 'new contract' people.
The thing is though that many of these leavers are already 'new contract' , so the effect will be negligble, even negative after recruitment/traing costs
I can't believe this thread is still rattling around... but you'd only understand the true meaning if you worked there and realised what it is truly like...
I still get onboard, still smile at all our passengers and treat them very well each and every day , just like thousands of others will, but the fact that many others suffer from BA's lack of duty of care and wellbeing for its employees will go long un-noticed.
Be interesting to see what the new chairman brings to the airline, though already coming from an industry that kills hundreds each day (BAT) i shudder to think
Having been at BA over 10 years, the one thing i would say that keeps me there IS the people.
By that , I mean the crew - the main problem we have is certain quarters of the management.
They are VERY out of touch with what really happens on line - Rod's admitted that by the very fact he has arranged dozens of face-to-face meetings between managment and frontline staff
He's left that one a bit late..
There are far too many managment ,even now, - fare paying passengers want plenty of attentive staff who have time for them, not 1000's of managers locked up in an office protecting each others positions with (some) pointless projects...
Isn't that the point of the latest TV advertsing campaign???
We already have less than easyjet crewing levels proportionally.
They really don't care. Morale at BA is rock-bottom.
BEP (Business efficiency programme) started in 1997, the latest plan goes to 2006.
We've had over 7 years of cutbacks already with more projected....doubtless it has saved the company money .... but it has gone on for a Very long time now .
My salary is less than 97... how's that for progress??? , especially with the average property prices around £150-200,000+ .....
It will go on forever like this at BA.... this is having quite a dire effect already though, as crew are leaving in droves compared to say 5 years ago.
Instead of worrying about this demoralising effect the company are rubbing their hands with glee, as they can replace them with 'new contract' people.
The thing is though that many of these leavers are already 'new contract' , so the effect will be negligble, even negative after recruitment/traing costs
I can't believe this thread is still rattling around... but you'd only understand the true meaning if you worked there and realised what it is truly like...
I still get onboard, still smile at all our passengers and treat them very well each and every day , just like thousands of others will, but the fact that many others suffer from BA's lack of duty of care and wellbeing for its employees will go long un-noticed.
Be interesting to see what the new chairman brings to the airline, though already coming from an industry that kills hundreds each day (BAT) i shudder to think
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-ice et al: like you, I dont enjoy seeing BA CC trashed in this thread. The majority I meet strive to remain cheerful and do the best they can in the face of, as is well documented in this thread, fifteen or so years of cost cutting.
But, we all have to face a grim reality: conventional airlines are finished. Ryanair has it in one with their ad: "Bye Bye BA , Aufweidersen Lufthansa".
The only future is an airline with NO encumberances: no pensions, no training costs, (buy your own type rating, buy your own uniform, pay for your own medical), no on-board costs, (bring your own food), rostering straight out to legal limits, rock-bottom salaries, no customer service, no marketing expenses, no travel agents, no "on-board product", no overblown head office, preferably only one aircraft type, even the concept of the integrated scheduled carrier is finished, therefore it has to be a largely point-to-point airline with all the attendant cost savings that provides. You also need to locate in a "regulation-lite" environment where you get the most favourable FTL and oversight regime possible (i.e the one giving the lowest cost-base).
If you need proof of this go to the airport and look at the tail fins. Air Canada: all but dead, American - chapter 11 basket case, Alitalia - state sponsored monolith, US Airways - doomed, United - ditto, Delta - hanging on by their fingernails, BA - if the 10% operating margin not met then perhaps three years left, and on and on and on. At the operating level all of these carriers are cash negative in the main and so doomed.
The only future is a low wage, no-pension, legal limit workload, absolutely rock-bottom sweatshop. Why? Because an airline seat has become a commodity like washing powder. Despite herculean efforts at product differentiation the only real determinant of success in the industry now is price. The phenomenal growth of the low fare, lo cost carriers worldwide proves it.
The industry model, the much vaunted SouthWest of the USA, had a reputation for creating value by valueing its staff, but even that is now seen as unsustainable and Ryanair's far more aggressive approach is regarded by Cranfield University of the UK as the true model of the low cost approach. If a company is to survive it has to adopt this methodology or perish. The most aggressive will win in a last-man- standing-takes-all contest, which the industry now is.
Either all of us in the business can and will adapt to this or we had better plan an alternative future. Nothing will change it. Consider this: Ryanair = interest positive cashflow from cash on deposit at the bank, BA owes 3.5 BILLION pounds, not including liabilities to the pension fund.
Its a no brainer.
If anyone out there can dispute this view I am a willing listener, but I dont think they can. Consider also that Ryan plan to GIVE away a vast number of seats this summer, that they are on record as being "happy to see yields fall", that they make so much on selling drinks etc etc that they hope to move even further to a business model where fares are incidental as a way of making a profit.
I dont think the market segmentation argument can stand this approach and hence I maintain that the conventional airline, shorthaul first but then longhaul too, is finished and we just have to live with it (or leave).
But, we all have to face a grim reality: conventional airlines are finished. Ryanair has it in one with their ad: "Bye Bye BA , Aufweidersen Lufthansa".
The only future is an airline with NO encumberances: no pensions, no training costs, (buy your own type rating, buy your own uniform, pay for your own medical), no on-board costs, (bring your own food), rostering straight out to legal limits, rock-bottom salaries, no customer service, no marketing expenses, no travel agents, no "on-board product", no overblown head office, preferably only one aircraft type, even the concept of the integrated scheduled carrier is finished, therefore it has to be a largely point-to-point airline with all the attendant cost savings that provides. You also need to locate in a "regulation-lite" environment where you get the most favourable FTL and oversight regime possible (i.e the one giving the lowest cost-base).
If you need proof of this go to the airport and look at the tail fins. Air Canada: all but dead, American - chapter 11 basket case, Alitalia - state sponsored monolith, US Airways - doomed, United - ditto, Delta - hanging on by their fingernails, BA - if the 10% operating margin not met then perhaps three years left, and on and on and on. At the operating level all of these carriers are cash negative in the main and so doomed.
The only future is a low wage, no-pension, legal limit workload, absolutely rock-bottom sweatshop. Why? Because an airline seat has become a commodity like washing powder. Despite herculean efforts at product differentiation the only real determinant of success in the industry now is price. The phenomenal growth of the low fare, lo cost carriers worldwide proves it.
The industry model, the much vaunted SouthWest of the USA, had a reputation for creating value by valueing its staff, but even that is now seen as unsustainable and Ryanair's far more aggressive approach is regarded by Cranfield University of the UK as the true model of the low cost approach. If a company is to survive it has to adopt this methodology or perish. The most aggressive will win in a last-man- standing-takes-all contest, which the industry now is.
Either all of us in the business can and will adapt to this or we had better plan an alternative future. Nothing will change it. Consider this: Ryanair = interest positive cashflow from cash on deposit at the bank, BA owes 3.5 BILLION pounds, not including liabilities to the pension fund.
Its a no brainer.
If anyone out there can dispute this view I am a willing listener, but I dont think they can. Consider also that Ryan plan to GIVE away a vast number of seats this summer, that they are on record as being "happy to see yields fall", that they make so much on selling drinks etc etc that they hope to move even further to a business model where fares are incidental as a way of making a profit.
I dont think the market segmentation argument can stand this approach and hence I maintain that the conventional airline, shorthaul first but then longhaul too, is finished and we just have to live with it (or leave).
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the LCC's are growing globally, they are not carrying globally they are still mainly regional.
Some major flag carriers have behaved a little like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand and others out of necessity but this will not have been done without envoius glances at the LCC's with their preferential new start terms. Don't forget that the Flag carriers (EU) inherited their operating conditions and obligations from in the main state monopolies funded by the taxpayer. Take a look now at anything state run and you will see crisis point in respect of T&C's and pensions has been passed it isn't even goming anymore, its long gone Social Services, Health, Defence...most fire brigades sold their equipment for a lump sum and now rely on leasing out of cashflow and they are still short on the pension. Nobody working for a state service can get those returns, how can you expect a private or publicly qouted company to maintain these conditions without the deep pockets of the taxman?It will take a long time for those restraints to be exorcised
Sure the LCC's are providing a service that is useful, but p2p, not the H&S operation that is also necessary. H&S will always be a requirement of aviation, the spokes are simply becoming the p2p. There simply isnt the demand for global p2p in every city pair. Who could make a profit on Lpl to RSM? so there will always be a need for a hub. Man/JFK on a flag carrier and JFK/RSM on jet blue...
Dont forget also what the SLF expect from a carrier. They dont expect the same from an LCC that they do of AA or BA.
look at another form of tavel........the automobile. flag manufacturers like bugatti/maybach fell by the wayside in favour of the LCC renault/ford/nissan/volkswagen models, but people were always able to make a choice, so Mercedes/BMW survived, and after rationalisation/diversification prospered. People will always strive to be different, they will always want more, and although the demand may diminish, if run effectively like BMW/mercedes there is no reason any airline could not transform itself accordingly. We're all SLF in automobiles, do we expect the same from ford as we do from Mercedes?
That is why the polarized opinions expressed here are of concern.. that they should develop or represent anything more prevalent than a minority of views at BA is concerning. The future of the company rests in the hands of its employees, the aircrew, management and maintenance all together will decide whether this airline becomes the merecedes/BMW of airline transport not rolls nor bentley being sold off for their name value, not ferrari as a part of Fiat nor Lamborghini as a part of Audi. or the Ford Nissan/renault LCC It took ford a long time to own mazda/volvo/aston martin/jaguar and renault a long time to own nissan. It is entirely possible that an LCC could mount a hostile bid for a flag carrier, and a convincing case they could put forward too, but if the employees (all of them) at BA realize whats happening, the airline, after some more tough times ahead could quite easily come out as the worlds premier. Its not that long ago that DCX parent Co of mercedes posted record corporate losses....but people still buy Mercedes over renaults
Some major flag carriers have behaved a little like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand and others out of necessity but this will not have been done without envoius glances at the LCC's with their preferential new start terms. Don't forget that the Flag carriers (EU) inherited their operating conditions and obligations from in the main state monopolies funded by the taxpayer. Take a look now at anything state run and you will see crisis point in respect of T&C's and pensions has been passed it isn't even goming anymore, its long gone Social Services, Health, Defence...most fire brigades sold their equipment for a lump sum and now rely on leasing out of cashflow and they are still short on the pension. Nobody working for a state service can get those returns, how can you expect a private or publicly qouted company to maintain these conditions without the deep pockets of the taxman?It will take a long time for those restraints to be exorcised
Sure the LCC's are providing a service that is useful, but p2p, not the H&S operation that is also necessary. H&S will always be a requirement of aviation, the spokes are simply becoming the p2p. There simply isnt the demand for global p2p in every city pair. Who could make a profit on Lpl to RSM? so there will always be a need for a hub. Man/JFK on a flag carrier and JFK/RSM on jet blue...
Dont forget also what the SLF expect from a carrier. They dont expect the same from an LCC that they do of AA or BA.
look at another form of tavel........the automobile. flag manufacturers like bugatti/maybach fell by the wayside in favour of the LCC renault/ford/nissan/volkswagen models, but people were always able to make a choice, so Mercedes/BMW survived, and after rationalisation/diversification prospered. People will always strive to be different, they will always want more, and although the demand may diminish, if run effectively like BMW/mercedes there is no reason any airline could not transform itself accordingly. We're all SLF in automobiles, do we expect the same from ford as we do from Mercedes?
That is why the polarized opinions expressed here are of concern.. that they should develop or represent anything more prevalent than a minority of views at BA is concerning. The future of the company rests in the hands of its employees, the aircrew, management and maintenance all together will decide whether this airline becomes the merecedes/BMW of airline transport not rolls nor bentley being sold off for their name value, not ferrari as a part of Fiat nor Lamborghini as a part of Audi. or the Ford Nissan/renault LCC It took ford a long time to own mazda/volvo/aston martin/jaguar and renault a long time to own nissan. It is entirely possible that an LCC could mount a hostile bid for a flag carrier, and a convincing case they could put forward too, but if the employees (all of them) at BA realize whats happening, the airline, after some more tough times ahead could quite easily come out as the worlds premier. Its not that long ago that DCX parent Co of mercedes posted record corporate losses....but people still buy Mercedes over renaults
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the LCC's are a regional phenomenon, for now. But at what point does their ability to drive down yields, as they so successfully do, kill off the hub and spoke carriers who have proven themselves unable to deliver an economic return on capital employed in recent years?
It is sooner than we want to think.
The LCC's will still be standing long after United has sunk and Air Canada died, and, yes, BA slides under. Why? Unlike consumer durables, such as cars as mentioned in the previous post, a so-called "fast- moving consumer good", (FMCG), such as an airline seat, can not bring enough added value to the marketplace to sustain the wide price differential between a full service product and a low cost one.
Nor can a full service seat generate enough return on the capital employed to create it to sustain the company who brings it to the market. All the so-called "legacy carriers" are, to a greater or lesser extent, in this position as their operating cashflows show when compared to the low cost operators.
As the legacy carriers are choked-off by their own unprofitability the LCC's will expand to fill the former legacy carriers markets too. Even Boeing sees this as inevitable and is building a point-to-point aircraft for longhaul, the 7E7.
There is a further phenomenon at work, so-called "core pricing theory".
This states that, in a rational market, even the most full-blooded competition will lead over time to each player in that market setting a broadly rational price for their product, such that the price has bears some economic resemblance to the cost of creating the product itself.
An example would be the newspaper price wars in the UK where the Murdoch press sold The Times for a cover price that undercut the established broadsheet rivals by over 50% for a substantial period of time to seek to drive out competitors from the marketplace.
Eventually, however, a rational pricing model reasserted itself and the paper now sells for a price broadly in line with its competitors and reflects the true cost of production. Competition between players in the market returned to the added features of the product that differentiate it from competitors, (in this case, the way it covers news), and each player in that market set a rational price that covered production costs.
This might be expected to be the way the airline seat market would stabilise over time, but it has not.
Given that the "cost of production" of another airline seat is relatively low: a little more fuel, another drinks can etc, there is both a tendancy to excess capacity in a given market and a compelling urge to sell a product that has a totally finite shelf life, (i.e. once the plane leaves on a given day with an empty seat that product is worthless), for almost any price to generate some cash for it. The problem is that excess capacity is such a feature of this marketplace that a rational pricing model, (a so-called "core price", hence the name of the theory), never establishes itself.
The only way to "win" is to establish the lowest seat mile cost of all the operators in the arena, sell for the lowest price because the seat has become a commodity sold on that primary criteria, and sit back and wait for the results.
And what results they are. Ryan is now "Europes favourite airline" in terms of emplanements, total numbers carried. It has torn the heart out of BA's European model, which haemorrages money. And then there is easyjet to contend with, who fly to city-linked airports as well.
As we retreat at LGW the orange tails multiply.
As Ryan's cash postion solidifies it is expanding across Europe. The leisure product is theirs, so do we have a big enough business market to sustain us? In the absence of a player like easyjet who fly to "proper" airports, (i.e. near the citys they serve), perhaps. But in the face of them too, no we don't.
Easyjet also compete using low price as the primary "uniqe selling point" and, on short stage lengths, it is now the primary selection criteria for buying an airline seat as businesses seek to trim more and more costs.
Where does this leave BA? As the shorthaul market is lost we lose feed to longhaul, the leisure element of which is becoming a price driven market too, (witness the planned creation of 'Backpacker Air', a longhaul outfit to fly the leisure traveller on the Kangaroo route for rock bottom prices). As longhaul becomes a price driven market we lose market share and the yields on what we do have falls to the point of unsustainability.
We have to change totally as an airline. Far from being a businessman or woman's airline we must slash our cost base to the bone and out Ryan air ryanair, as it were.
Staff must get used to the idea of losing literally every aspect of the compensation package that made them join BA in the first place, because we will have to pay FAR lower wages than Ryanair to pay-off all our existing corporate debts, which they and easyjet do not have.
The LCC's have a stupendous head start by being pretty-much debt free in comparison to ourselves, and the only way to catch up in terms of financial performance will be to massacre our cost base. And yet Good Old "Mr. Grumpy", as I hear Mr O' Le@ry is called, has stated publicly that whatever his competitors try and do to "out low cost" him, he will undercut.
Do any of us see a collective "vote for Christmas" amongst all the metaphorical turkeys on the BA farm, i.e. are we all going to see a reduction in non-frontline headcount to that approximating on the employe- to-passenger ratios that we see at a typical LCC? Er, no.
Sell your house and go into rented, get rid of every financial encumberance you have that you possibly can, and hang on for the ride of your life. The banks will insist on the massive wage and benefit cuts to come as the price for "saving the company" and if you dont hand it over the company is, it would seem, doomed anyway, ("We're doomed, DOOMED", etc etc). Look at what's happening at Air Canada.
Either that or leave now and try and establish a new career outside aviation.
Its as simple as that. If someone can provide a COMPELLING alternative thesis I'd be fascinated, but I cant see one.
It is sooner than we want to think.
The LCC's will still be standing long after United has sunk and Air Canada died, and, yes, BA slides under. Why? Unlike consumer durables, such as cars as mentioned in the previous post, a so-called "fast- moving consumer good", (FMCG), such as an airline seat, can not bring enough added value to the marketplace to sustain the wide price differential between a full service product and a low cost one.
Nor can a full service seat generate enough return on the capital employed to create it to sustain the company who brings it to the market. All the so-called "legacy carriers" are, to a greater or lesser extent, in this position as their operating cashflows show when compared to the low cost operators.
As the legacy carriers are choked-off by their own unprofitability the LCC's will expand to fill the former legacy carriers markets too. Even Boeing sees this as inevitable and is building a point-to-point aircraft for longhaul, the 7E7.
There is a further phenomenon at work, so-called "core pricing theory".
This states that, in a rational market, even the most full-blooded competition will lead over time to each player in that market setting a broadly rational price for their product, such that the price has bears some economic resemblance to the cost of creating the product itself.
An example would be the newspaper price wars in the UK where the Murdoch press sold The Times for a cover price that undercut the established broadsheet rivals by over 50% for a substantial period of time to seek to drive out competitors from the marketplace.
Eventually, however, a rational pricing model reasserted itself and the paper now sells for a price broadly in line with its competitors and reflects the true cost of production. Competition between players in the market returned to the added features of the product that differentiate it from competitors, (in this case, the way it covers news), and each player in that market set a rational price that covered production costs.
This might be expected to be the way the airline seat market would stabilise over time, but it has not.
Given that the "cost of production" of another airline seat is relatively low: a little more fuel, another drinks can etc, there is both a tendancy to excess capacity in a given market and a compelling urge to sell a product that has a totally finite shelf life, (i.e. once the plane leaves on a given day with an empty seat that product is worthless), for almost any price to generate some cash for it. The problem is that excess capacity is such a feature of this marketplace that a rational pricing model, (a so-called "core price", hence the name of the theory), never establishes itself.
The only way to "win" is to establish the lowest seat mile cost of all the operators in the arena, sell for the lowest price because the seat has become a commodity sold on that primary criteria, and sit back and wait for the results.
And what results they are. Ryan is now "Europes favourite airline" in terms of emplanements, total numbers carried. It has torn the heart out of BA's European model, which haemorrages money. And then there is easyjet to contend with, who fly to city-linked airports as well.
As we retreat at LGW the orange tails multiply.
As Ryan's cash postion solidifies it is expanding across Europe. The leisure product is theirs, so do we have a big enough business market to sustain us? In the absence of a player like easyjet who fly to "proper" airports, (i.e. near the citys they serve), perhaps. But in the face of them too, no we don't.
Easyjet also compete using low price as the primary "uniqe selling point" and, on short stage lengths, it is now the primary selection criteria for buying an airline seat as businesses seek to trim more and more costs.
Where does this leave BA? As the shorthaul market is lost we lose feed to longhaul, the leisure element of which is becoming a price driven market too, (witness the planned creation of 'Backpacker Air', a longhaul outfit to fly the leisure traveller on the Kangaroo route for rock bottom prices). As longhaul becomes a price driven market we lose market share and the yields on what we do have falls to the point of unsustainability.
We have to change totally as an airline. Far from being a businessman or woman's airline we must slash our cost base to the bone and out Ryan air ryanair, as it were.
Staff must get used to the idea of losing literally every aspect of the compensation package that made them join BA in the first place, because we will have to pay FAR lower wages than Ryanair to pay-off all our existing corporate debts, which they and easyjet do not have.
The LCC's have a stupendous head start by being pretty-much debt free in comparison to ourselves, and the only way to catch up in terms of financial performance will be to massacre our cost base. And yet Good Old "Mr. Grumpy", as I hear Mr O' Le@ry is called, has stated publicly that whatever his competitors try and do to "out low cost" him, he will undercut.
Do any of us see a collective "vote for Christmas" amongst all the metaphorical turkeys on the BA farm, i.e. are we all going to see a reduction in non-frontline headcount to that approximating on the employe- to-passenger ratios that we see at a typical LCC? Er, no.
Sell your house and go into rented, get rid of every financial encumberance you have that you possibly can, and hang on for the ride of your life. The banks will insist on the massive wage and benefit cuts to come as the price for "saving the company" and if you dont hand it over the company is, it would seem, doomed anyway, ("We're doomed, DOOMED", etc etc). Look at what's happening at Air Canada.
Either that or leave now and try and establish a new career outside aviation.
Its as simple as that. If someone can provide a COMPELLING alternative thesis I'd be fascinated, but I cant see one.
Last edited by loaded1; 26th Apr 2004 at 00:24.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Waterside
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the whining continues................
I suggested a long while back, that if anyone could identify surplus positions or roles, they should email RE. There are still posts like "1000's of managers locked up in an office protecting each others positions with (some) pointless projects..."
Has anyone identified any, and emailed RE? I think not.
Anyway, I have only posted fact, so here is a bit more, which should make our ground engineers, check-in and other staff particularly chuffed.
Our cabin crew, those poor souls who havent actually posted their gross salaries here, get a substantial uplift from their allowances. Here is a peek into their world:
For CSD Purser Main Crew respectively:
For doing a "Back to Back" trip, where they stay in a hotel at BA's expense: 175.95 each
Those oft discussed Unpopular Destination Payments, 65.71 each, from LHR, and 52.48 each from LGW
On "Long Range Sectors" after 12:00hrs: 42.42 39.97 37.56 each respectively, per hour.
On "Long Range Sectors" after 15:00hrs: 54.77 48.46 42.42 each respectively, per hour.
And those "Box Payments" I asked about earlier:
Box 1 (1231-1300/night1201-1300) 138.10 124.27 100.81
Box 2 (1301-1400) 193.34 174.01 139.47
Box 3 (1401-1529) 225.08 208.52 160.18
Box 4 (1530-1730) 283.10 251.33 202.99
Box 5 (1731+) 372.83 317.61 247.19
...................and still they ask the pilots to fly or taxi slowly so that they can "make the next box". Should give the Engineers a warm glow next time they are changing a wheel assembly in the rain.
And people wonder why BA is losing money.
Swiss_tonni
One of those faceless "suits" who makes sure you get paid, or makes sure we have bums on seats, or makes sure that we are in legal compliance, or makes sure that aircraft are leased, or makes sure that crew are rostered correctly, or makes sure that engineering checks are done to the manufacturers specification..............
I suggested a long while back, that if anyone could identify surplus positions or roles, they should email RE. There are still posts like "1000's of managers locked up in an office protecting each others positions with (some) pointless projects..."
Has anyone identified any, and emailed RE? I think not.
Anyway, I have only posted fact, so here is a bit more, which should make our ground engineers, check-in and other staff particularly chuffed.
Our cabin crew, those poor souls who havent actually posted their gross salaries here, get a substantial uplift from their allowances. Here is a peek into their world:
For CSD Purser Main Crew respectively:
For doing a "Back to Back" trip, where they stay in a hotel at BA's expense: 175.95 each
Those oft discussed Unpopular Destination Payments, 65.71 each, from LHR, and 52.48 each from LGW
On "Long Range Sectors" after 12:00hrs: 42.42 39.97 37.56 each respectively, per hour.
On "Long Range Sectors" after 15:00hrs: 54.77 48.46 42.42 each respectively, per hour.
And those "Box Payments" I asked about earlier:
Box 1 (1231-1300/night1201-1300) 138.10 124.27 100.81
Box 2 (1301-1400) 193.34 174.01 139.47
Box 3 (1401-1529) 225.08 208.52 160.18
Box 4 (1530-1730) 283.10 251.33 202.99
Box 5 (1731+) 372.83 317.61 247.19
...................and still they ask the pilots to fly or taxi slowly so that they can "make the next box". Should give the Engineers a warm glow next time they are changing a wheel assembly in the rain.
And people wonder why BA is losing money.
Swiss_tonni
One of those faceless "suits" who makes sure you get paid, or makes sure we have bums on seats, or makes sure that we are in legal compliance, or makes sure that aircraft are leased, or makes sure that crew are rostered correctly, or makes sure that engineering checks are done to the manufacturers specification..............
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi swiss toni. No whining from me - just the bald facts.
I have absolutely nothing against ANY other BA employee and will not join in the fractious mud slinging, (OK - I regret the Turkey analogy), however the serious point remains that the LCC's operate with a staff to passenger ration that is exponentially lower than ours.
How do we compete with them if we carry on as we are?
I know we need aircraft leases and staff hired but somehow we have to out-do the LCC's at costs or we are finished. We may be dying in slow motion, but we are still dying. Look at the financials.
Your thoughts?
I have absolutely nothing against ANY other BA employee and will not join in the fractious mud slinging, (OK - I regret the Turkey analogy), however the serious point remains that the LCC's operate with a staff to passenger ration that is exponentially lower than ours.
How do we compete with them if we carry on as we are?
I know we need aircraft leases and staff hired but somehow we have to out-do the LCC's at costs or we are finished. We may be dying in slow motion, but we are still dying. Look at the financials.
Your thoughts?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fiji
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 pages of mostly negative stuff about cabin crew!
Not nice to be part of a such a despised group.
First of all, I'd like to say what good posts those were from loaded1 and NM163...............didn't make for very pleasant reading but they were written well, and were thought provoking.
Can't say the same for Swiss_tonni though.
Swiss_tonni wrote <<<<<<<<<<<Our cabin crew, those poor souls who havent actually posted their gross salaries here>>>>>>>>
Why should we? I was always under the impression that salary / pay was a very private affair, not to be discussed in public. What makes you think our salaries are for publicising in this way?
What about posting your own remuneration package? As you obviously can't be earning as much as cabin crew, it would give us all a good laugh if nothing else.
May I just add, that the ''boxes'' and other payments you see fit to show to the rest of the world, are actually overtime Lots of people, especially manual workers (you'll like that bit) get overtime.
The back to back payment (as I'm sure has already been explained on here) was actually our money anyway. Under BEP, payments were shifted around, and this was left over in the pot (as were what is now ''destination payments''). It was decided to retain it as a B2B payment.
Time this cabin crew bashing came to an end eh? Please? Before you do even more damage to our already battered morale.
Not nice to be part of a such a despised group.
First of all, I'd like to say what good posts those were from loaded1 and NM163...............didn't make for very pleasant reading but they were written well, and were thought provoking.
Can't say the same for Swiss_tonni though.
Swiss_tonni wrote <<<<<<<<<<<Our cabin crew, those poor souls who havent actually posted their gross salaries here>>>>>>>>
Why should we? I was always under the impression that salary / pay was a very private affair, not to be discussed in public. What makes you think our salaries are for publicising in this way?
What about posting your own remuneration package? As you obviously can't be earning as much as cabin crew, it would give us all a good laugh if nothing else.
May I just add, that the ''boxes'' and other payments you see fit to show to the rest of the world, are actually overtime Lots of people, especially manual workers (you'll like that bit) get overtime.
The back to back payment (as I'm sure has already been explained on here) was actually our money anyway. Under BEP, payments were shifted around, and this was left over in the pot (as were what is now ''destination payments''). It was decided to retain it as a B2B payment.
Time this cabin crew bashing came to an end eh? Please? Before you do even more damage to our already battered morale.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as predicted, the end of the existing remuneration package has begun, but it alone wont be enough.
BA are looking for Direct Entry Pilots now, with their own type rating to hand, to join without the benefit of NAPS, the existing, (but closed), final salary pension scheme, but instead on a money purchase scheme described as "one of the worst in the industry".
We cant afford to offer ANY pension scheme: Ryanair don't so how can we?
We pay less than they do to pilots overall IF you take out the pension element, and, perhaps, with BAMPS,( the new pension scheme), our overall package is in fact less than Ryanairs'. If so GOOD - the first steps to survival.
This is excellent news because it should put the rest of the pilot workforce within NAPS on notice that it will soon be closed to existing entrants once enough new-joiners are on BAMPS and the deficit is closed enough to pay off the NAPS members.
I can only assume that cabin crew are headed the same way, in fact the WHOLE airline HAS to be if we are to survive AT ALL, and according to everything we are told survival is very much in doubt.
Just to reiterate numbers: Ryanair has an operating ratio in the twenties to high teens whilst we at BA muddle along with around 4 to 5%. It is totally unsustainable, and Mr. Tarry, the well-regarded aviation analyst, has said that access to capital, i.e. the will of institutions to lend to an airline, will determine the survivors in the clash of the dinosaurs that passenger airline flying has become.
BA will be able to borrow, but at very uncompetitive rates, and when we need to borrow £3.5 BILLION that means a lot. Especially when our main competitors are all but debt free, (Ryanair cash POSITIVE from money on deposit at the bank).
Further problems are that Ryan is based for regulatory purposes in Ireland where the Flight Time Liimitation Scheme (FTL) is far more generous about allowing multiple early starts, which are critical to a shorthaul operation, especially one that does without the expense of nightstops, (that are currently part and parcel of the BA way of life, but all-but unheard of in the LCC's).
So, we must lobby the company either: a) to locate to Ireland, or b), lets face it the more likely option, to lobby the CAA for a change in CAP 371, the UK document for FTL, allowing us to compete on a level playing field with other operators.
We must also do as they do: no bidline, no crew meals, no tea, coffee, or H20 aboard that is not paid for by the crew, buy your own uniform, pay for your own licence renewal, no loss of license insurance, rostering straight out to legal limits, (and, as discussed, those limits MUST be increased to allow fair competition), 25 minute turn-arounds, no nightsops in shorthaul, longhaul crew to minimum rest downroute and locate to the cheapest hotels available, no minimum base turnarounds, (i.e time off), once back at LHR, multiple back-to-backs ( i.e straight in from a transatlantic and then straight back out on another the next day), to legal limits.
A lot of this is couched in "pilot" terms, but it applies to the cabin crew too.
Will this be enough?
NO!
The MASSIVE competitve advantage enjoyed by the LCC's in being debt free has to be faced. BA is like a person with too big a mortgage. The only way to address this is deep wage cuts too. This will enable BA to try and pay-off our stupendous debts.
Lets face it, a seniority based promotions structure means that people just cannot "leave" and go elsewhere without HUGE financial disadvantage. Its like a tied worker in his or her tied cottage on the master's estate: leave? Sure! But where will you live? Who is seriously going to leave and go to the bottom of another seniority list? CC work a seniority-based system too.
At a back of fag packet guess we need to following salary structure:
CC = only 2 grades, "cabin crew" and "senior". CC = £15000 a year, "senior" £20,000.
Pilots: only 2 grades, FO and Captain. FO £30,000 a year, Captain £48, 000.
ALL of these salaries to be without ANY pension entitlement and applicable to ALL fleets. Dont forget the massive reduction in National Insurance contributions that the company will gain from this bold but essential move.
Like it or not, swiss toni, the ratio of staff to passengers in BA must become BETTER than the existing Lo Cost Carrier ratio if we are to do more than survive but actually gain competitive advantage. No good asking the frontline where those jobs are - we dont know- but they too will HAVE to go.
With all of this we just MIGHT survive, but it doesn't look good from any open source you care to look at.
The party's over and its time to recognise that a career in civil aviation is just like any other service sector job, low pay, long hours, ferocious competition, few prospects that this will ever change.
If you think I am being too negative consider this: EU enlargement. What's to stop an operator in one of the new Eastern accession countries from starting point-to-point services within the EU from one of the smaller western airports where slots etc are easy to come by. They can and will pay a crew significantly less in dollar amounts than what I have quoted as the necessary salaries in pound terms above. We will HAVE to compete with them too.
Its "beggar my neighbour" in the new de-regulated aviation world we live in, and I will bet a large sum of money that the gloomy predictions posted here will not only come true but WORSE.
The competitive environment assures that this will happen and , as the saying has it, "you can't buck the market"!
Best of luck to all.
BA are looking for Direct Entry Pilots now, with their own type rating to hand, to join without the benefit of NAPS, the existing, (but closed), final salary pension scheme, but instead on a money purchase scheme described as "one of the worst in the industry".
We cant afford to offer ANY pension scheme: Ryanair don't so how can we?
We pay less than they do to pilots overall IF you take out the pension element, and, perhaps, with BAMPS,( the new pension scheme), our overall package is in fact less than Ryanairs'. If so GOOD - the first steps to survival.
This is excellent news because it should put the rest of the pilot workforce within NAPS on notice that it will soon be closed to existing entrants once enough new-joiners are on BAMPS and the deficit is closed enough to pay off the NAPS members.
I can only assume that cabin crew are headed the same way, in fact the WHOLE airline HAS to be if we are to survive AT ALL, and according to everything we are told survival is very much in doubt.
Just to reiterate numbers: Ryanair has an operating ratio in the twenties to high teens whilst we at BA muddle along with around 4 to 5%. It is totally unsustainable, and Mr. Tarry, the well-regarded aviation analyst, has said that access to capital, i.e. the will of institutions to lend to an airline, will determine the survivors in the clash of the dinosaurs that passenger airline flying has become.
BA will be able to borrow, but at very uncompetitive rates, and when we need to borrow £3.5 BILLION that means a lot. Especially when our main competitors are all but debt free, (Ryanair cash POSITIVE from money on deposit at the bank).
Further problems are that Ryan is based for regulatory purposes in Ireland where the Flight Time Liimitation Scheme (FTL) is far more generous about allowing multiple early starts, which are critical to a shorthaul operation, especially one that does without the expense of nightstops, (that are currently part and parcel of the BA way of life, but all-but unheard of in the LCC's).
So, we must lobby the company either: a) to locate to Ireland, or b), lets face it the more likely option, to lobby the CAA for a change in CAP 371, the UK document for FTL, allowing us to compete on a level playing field with other operators.
We must also do as they do: no bidline, no crew meals, no tea, coffee, or H20 aboard that is not paid for by the crew, buy your own uniform, pay for your own licence renewal, no loss of license insurance, rostering straight out to legal limits, (and, as discussed, those limits MUST be increased to allow fair competition), 25 minute turn-arounds, no nightsops in shorthaul, longhaul crew to minimum rest downroute and locate to the cheapest hotels available, no minimum base turnarounds, (i.e time off), once back at LHR, multiple back-to-backs ( i.e straight in from a transatlantic and then straight back out on another the next day), to legal limits.
A lot of this is couched in "pilot" terms, but it applies to the cabin crew too.
Will this be enough?
NO!
The MASSIVE competitve advantage enjoyed by the LCC's in being debt free has to be faced. BA is like a person with too big a mortgage. The only way to address this is deep wage cuts too. This will enable BA to try and pay-off our stupendous debts.
Lets face it, a seniority based promotions structure means that people just cannot "leave" and go elsewhere without HUGE financial disadvantage. Its like a tied worker in his or her tied cottage on the master's estate: leave? Sure! But where will you live? Who is seriously going to leave and go to the bottom of another seniority list? CC work a seniority-based system too.
At a back of fag packet guess we need to following salary structure:
CC = only 2 grades, "cabin crew" and "senior". CC = £15000 a year, "senior" £20,000.
Pilots: only 2 grades, FO and Captain. FO £30,000 a year, Captain £48, 000.
ALL of these salaries to be without ANY pension entitlement and applicable to ALL fleets. Dont forget the massive reduction in National Insurance contributions that the company will gain from this bold but essential move.
Like it or not, swiss toni, the ratio of staff to passengers in BA must become BETTER than the existing Lo Cost Carrier ratio if we are to do more than survive but actually gain competitive advantage. No good asking the frontline where those jobs are - we dont know- but they too will HAVE to go.
With all of this we just MIGHT survive, but it doesn't look good from any open source you care to look at.
The party's over and its time to recognise that a career in civil aviation is just like any other service sector job, low pay, long hours, ferocious competition, few prospects that this will ever change.
If you think I am being too negative consider this: EU enlargement. What's to stop an operator in one of the new Eastern accession countries from starting point-to-point services within the EU from one of the smaller western airports where slots etc are easy to come by. They can and will pay a crew significantly less in dollar amounts than what I have quoted as the necessary salaries in pound terms above. We will HAVE to compete with them too.
Its "beggar my neighbour" in the new de-regulated aviation world we live in, and I will bet a large sum of money that the gloomy predictions posted here will not only come true but WORSE.
The competitive environment assures that this will happen and , as the saying has it, "you can't buck the market"!
Best of luck to all.
Last edited by loaded1; 27th Apr 2004 at 12:52.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swiss its the same ol cr@p again and again.
I have been over the facts surronding B2B and destination payments a few times yet again we have them posted.
The overtime as I said starts at 12hrs 30 mins and only LHR WW get it really.
Truthfully we would like to go onto the same system as the pilots and therefore not have overtime.
Swiss how many times have you been at work for say 17 hours?
If you did would you not require payment?
Hotwings, you are a little upside down with your thinking regarding BA and Virgin you posted
I love hearing BA cabin crew complaining about working hard - 15 or 16 crew looking after approx. 290 pax on a 744, compared with 17 crew at Virgin looking after 439 pax
Firstly you have to realise that it is more manpower intensive to look after a premium customer hense if we were working with the same config as Virgin we wouldn't have use for a galley person.
Effectivly if we changed the config to match Vigins we would have less crew not more IE only 14.
Your arguement is upside down
The other posts are at least original if not frighteningly to the point about our LCC competitors.
Does anybody have any Ideas about how many managers per aircraft BA has versus Ryan or easy?
What a shame that we have getting on 20 pages of dislike aimed at BA cabin crew, hardly any suprise that so many are leaving then is it?
I have been over the facts surronding B2B and destination payments a few times yet again we have them posted.
The overtime as I said starts at 12hrs 30 mins and only LHR WW get it really.
Truthfully we would like to go onto the same system as the pilots and therefore not have overtime.
Swiss how many times have you been at work for say 17 hours?
If you did would you not require payment?
Hotwings, you are a little upside down with your thinking regarding BA and Virgin you posted
I love hearing BA cabin crew complaining about working hard - 15 or 16 crew looking after approx. 290 pax on a 744, compared with 17 crew at Virgin looking after 439 pax
Firstly you have to realise that it is more manpower intensive to look after a premium customer hense if we were working with the same config as Virgin we wouldn't have use for a galley person.
Effectivly if we changed the config to match Vigins we would have less crew not more IE only 14.
Your arguement is upside down
The other posts are at least original if not frighteningly to the point about our LCC competitors.
Does anybody have any Ideas about how many managers per aircraft BA has versus Ryan or easy?
What a shame that we have getting on 20 pages of dislike aimed at BA cabin crew, hardly any suprise that so many are leaving then is it?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: manchester
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read this post with great interest, a wry smile and an odd tear! Having left BA two years ago i am astounded that this sort of carry on still goes on - people from different departments being wound up by ‘how come there getting it and were not!' and yes i was an engineer, and yes i was at Manchester and yes was forced to leave.
The irony comes that when i applied for cabin crew, they wanted me for interview and when speaking to cranebank on the they were pretty certain i would @ walk it@ in his terms - what put me off - the childish rantings that still seem to go on!
So what if a small percentage of cc will be paid a supp if they have to work one down - from my experience in eng - we work one down then the aircraft tended to go out a little late - cc could hardly decided to serve to pax a little slower or evacuate them in over 90 sec cos they were one down - they will have to work harder so yeah, they should get rewarded.
Were does the fault lie - hate to say it mangers and the unions - cabin crew; you have managers on your side (majority of the time) and a bloody strong union that backs you up. If you don’t get want you want, you strike, the airline grinds to a halt. Engineers or any other tech ops department threatens strike they get threatened to be sold off to a third party or the managers suddenly get there licences reinstated - the airline carries on!
I have come across 1000's of cc as an eng 95% were fantastic, friendly helpful, funny - 5% were rude snotty and though i was beneath them (tended to be about 21, blonde and clueless) - the same goes for engineers, check in staff, mt, it, staff travel the whole board.
Eng go through years of training, have tonnes of responsibility but get a little more time to do their work and make sure the 400 people on the 747 arrive at JFK safely
CC go through threes weeks, are the face of the airline, work un-sociable hours and get paid roughly the same - and oh yeah between 15 off them have to evacuate 400 people from a burning 747 that crashed on approach to JFK in a storm
So come on people - stop bitch slapping each other and accept it - tech ops departments have s**t managers who look out for them and don’t give a s**t about their staff (not even mentioning the unions)
cc are bloody lucky to have unions that are strong and mangers that are scared
Its a simple case of jealousy and if you don’t like it then leave - i did and I’ve never looked back... never went for that cc interview
, I earn enough in my new job to see the world from a pax (and sometimes j) seat ;-)
The irony comes that when i applied for cabin crew, they wanted me for interview and when speaking to cranebank on the they were pretty certain i would @ walk it@ in his terms - what put me off - the childish rantings that still seem to go on!
So what if a small percentage of cc will be paid a supp if they have to work one down - from my experience in eng - we work one down then the aircraft tended to go out a little late - cc could hardly decided to serve to pax a little slower or evacuate them in over 90 sec cos they were one down - they will have to work harder so yeah, they should get rewarded.
Were does the fault lie - hate to say it mangers and the unions - cabin crew; you have managers on your side (majority of the time) and a bloody strong union that backs you up. If you don’t get want you want, you strike, the airline grinds to a halt. Engineers or any other tech ops department threatens strike they get threatened to be sold off to a third party or the managers suddenly get there licences reinstated - the airline carries on!
I have come across 1000's of cc as an eng 95% were fantastic, friendly helpful, funny - 5% were rude snotty and though i was beneath them (tended to be about 21, blonde and clueless) - the same goes for engineers, check in staff, mt, it, staff travel the whole board.
Eng go through years of training, have tonnes of responsibility but get a little more time to do their work and make sure the 400 people on the 747 arrive at JFK safely
CC go through threes weeks, are the face of the airline, work un-sociable hours and get paid roughly the same - and oh yeah between 15 off them have to evacuate 400 people from a burning 747 that crashed on approach to JFK in a storm
So come on people - stop bitch slapping each other and accept it - tech ops departments have s**t managers who look out for them and don’t give a s**t about their staff (not even mentioning the unions)
cc are bloody lucky to have unions that are strong and mangers that are scared
Its a simple case of jealousy and if you don’t like it then leave - i did and I’ve never looked back... never went for that cc interview
, I earn enough in my new job to see the world from a pax (and sometimes j) seat ;-)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure you're not Michael O'Leary loaded1, 'cos you certainly sound like him. Anyone would be a fool to not to realise BA is in a bad way, but they'd be equally foolish to swallow your hyperbole about the future. You seem absolutely convinced that Ryanair are on the road to world domination, that their business model is the only viable one and they spell the end for BA. Well I see the world as a little less black and white. For a start, the UK market has virtually reached saturation point for LCCs, as even O'Leary recently admitted. Ryanair has just got itself thrashed in the Low Cost market at BHX and had to relocate to EMA. O'Leary even let the door hit his a*se on the way out by claiming he had to go because BHX had raised its landing fees, which BHX pointed out it hadn't.
Secondly, BA don't need to borrow £3.5 billion pounds. They've already done that, and when you owe that much money it's as much the banks problem as it is yours. Unlike someone with too large a mortgage, the banks can't sell this house and get the money back, and they are in no rush at all to foreclose on BA.
Thirdly, relaxing FTLs. Its not FTLs thats making BA uncompetitive. Few competitors are flying significantly more hours, Easyjet certainly aren't and they're making money. You also mention no bidline (which actually allows BA to roster you up to 900 hours, it just stops them dicking you about), no water, no anything on board. Well I wonder how much that costs each year? Probably a drop in the ocean. Then you go on about no nightstops, as if that was some sort of luxury retained for crews. Its evidently escaped your attention that nightstops exist as part of the fundamental competition strategy in Europe of being first into London in the morning. Even seen the Club loads on that flight. Think we could sustain a profit if we cancelled the nightstop and flew an empty aircraft out to pick up those pax at 2 am (not to mention we couldn't get a night slot at LHR). 25 minute turnarounds. Remind me again where our main base is, and where our customers want to fly to/from. They want punctuality, and you aren't going to get it planning a 25min turnaround at LHR.
You've not really seen many service sector jobs have you. Been down to the City lately? Lots of effective service industry jobs there, hard work but huge rewards. Premium pay for premium products. Haven't seen many Goldman Sachs customers rushing of to TSB lately.
But they'll still pay the same for everything else. There's more to a business than just paying peanuts wages.
Your prognoses are not only excessively doom-laden but also over-simplistic. In your world their is no consumer preference, cost is the only driver. The real world is somewhat different, or we'd all be driving Skodas, shopping at Lidl and taking our holidays on the Costa Blanca. Ryanair are big, they're succesful, but, as you pointedly failed to mention, they don't compete directly with BA. STN aside, they go from small airports to other small airports. They don't fly to the big hubs that some customers want, they don't offer through-ticketed connections, they have no appeal for the business traveller. You can't force people to travel and fill your aeroplanes, you have to entice them on-board, and cost is not the only factor. BA can't compete for the bargain bucket travellers and it's never really tried to, but it certainly compete for the discerning traveller which Ryanair can't. Thats BAs market and where it makes it's profits. There is enough business in our core market to sustain us if the costs are kept under control, the bulk of Ryanairs future growth will be intra-continental europe, hammering at our competitors. Europes not as open a market as you think and Ryanair will have a hard time matching their success in the UK as they will in Europe.
One more tip - if Michael O'Leary offers you a big vat of Kool-aid, don't drink it.
Secondly, BA don't need to borrow £3.5 billion pounds. They've already done that, and when you owe that much money it's as much the banks problem as it is yours. Unlike someone with too large a mortgage, the banks can't sell this house and get the money back, and they are in no rush at all to foreclose on BA.
Thirdly, relaxing FTLs. Its not FTLs thats making BA uncompetitive. Few competitors are flying significantly more hours, Easyjet certainly aren't and they're making money. You also mention no bidline (which actually allows BA to roster you up to 900 hours, it just stops them dicking you about), no water, no anything on board. Well I wonder how much that costs each year? Probably a drop in the ocean. Then you go on about no nightstops, as if that was some sort of luxury retained for crews. Its evidently escaped your attention that nightstops exist as part of the fundamental competition strategy in Europe of being first into London in the morning. Even seen the Club loads on that flight. Think we could sustain a profit if we cancelled the nightstop and flew an empty aircraft out to pick up those pax at 2 am (not to mention we couldn't get a night slot at LHR). 25 minute turnarounds. Remind me again where our main base is, and where our customers want to fly to/from. They want punctuality, and you aren't going to get it planning a 25min turnaround at LHR.
The party's over and its time to recognise that a career in civil aviation is just like any other service sector job, low pay, long hours, ferocious competition, few prospects that this will ever change.
What's to stop an operator in one of the new Eastern accession countries from starting point-to-point services within the EU from one of the smaller western airports where slots etc are easy to come by. They can and will pay a crew significantly less in dollar amounts than what I have quoted as the necessary salaries in pound terms above.
Your prognoses are not only excessively doom-laden but also over-simplistic. In your world their is no consumer preference, cost is the only driver. The real world is somewhat different, or we'd all be driving Skodas, shopping at Lidl and taking our holidays on the Costa Blanca. Ryanair are big, they're succesful, but, as you pointedly failed to mention, they don't compete directly with BA. STN aside, they go from small airports to other small airports. They don't fly to the big hubs that some customers want, they don't offer through-ticketed connections, they have no appeal for the business traveller. You can't force people to travel and fill your aeroplanes, you have to entice them on-board, and cost is not the only factor. BA can't compete for the bargain bucket travellers and it's never really tried to, but it certainly compete for the discerning traveller which Ryanair can't. Thats BAs market and where it makes it's profits. There is enough business in our core market to sustain us if the costs are kept under control, the bulk of Ryanairs future growth will be intra-continental europe, hammering at our competitors. Europes not as open a market as you think and Ryanair will have a hard time matching their success in the UK as they will in Europe.
One more tip - if Michael O'Leary offers you a big vat of Kool-aid, don't drink it.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er... just watch Easyjet or FlyBE boarding one day. Any idea that business travellers are a captive market of the traditional carriers is a myth. Companies are under just as much cost pressure as the airlines and if they can get a good quality cheaper deal they will increasingly go for it. Perception of service is about style as much as anything else,- maybe more than anything else,-and the low costs crews are usually cheerful and friendly. Dont under- rate them or what they mean to the future of BA etc..........
... and dont forget that Ryan is the only low cost to rely on secondary airports. Easy are in the big ones, except LHR of course, and the LGW early morning lineup is looking distinctly orange.
... and dont forget that Ryan is the only low cost to rely on secondary airports. Easy are in the big ones, except LHR of course, and the LGW early morning lineup is looking distinctly orange.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thats rather my point Skylion. Loaded1 has gone on about how Ryanair will be the end of us all, but it's Easy who compete with BA from LGW and to all the main airports. They are the low-cost competition BA need to be watching. BA can also compete on price with Easyjet and are often cheaper (I know because I've tried booking with them!). FlyBe are something of a quirk as they are a traditional airline trying to turn themselves into a low cost. They've made their presence felt in the regions but they've got minimal presence at LHR at the moment and have actually sold off some of their slots.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I am not Michaeal O Leery and I dont want to fly for him either. But I am right about the LCC phenomenon and what it means for EVERY established operator.
Hand Solo you said:
"Thats BAs market and where it makes it's profits."
You have, I respectfully suggest, missed the point. There is nowhere near enough profit to sustain the business if we carry on as we are. It is finished. Look at the operating ratio and compare it to a LCC.
I wrote my last post before reading today's FT (1) and Flight (2):
1) Boeing says:
"the 7E7 is being studied by LCC's who wish to expand their business model into new markets".
2) EU accession countries wish to emulate the low cost model and OUT low-cost it, (using their below rock-bottom salary structure).
A guy from Latvia is quoted as saying he will make the cost of flying more competitive than using buses and ferries. There is no reason at all to confine that model to the borders of the origin country alone, after all Ryan don't and nor does Easyjet.
I repeat: sell your house, go into rented, take your kids out of private school, (if they are there), get rid of every and any financial encumberance you have and stand by for permanent DEEP pay cuts as a way of life.
The market wants more of a social good - air travel - and it wants it at the lowest achievable price. I repeat YOU CANT BUCK THE MARKET. Competition, already murderous, is going to get HELLISH. Watch as Alitalia and Air Canada go bust. Marvel as US Air sinks out of sight. I am not being glib: there is TOO MUCH capacity in the market, which also means too many pilots, hosties, engineers etc etc. There will soon be 000's of type-rated, experienced pilots on the market: face it - salaries and conditions are heading for the floor.
As for comparing the City to Flying: for goodness sake!! If you can get in and get one of those jobs : bully for you, but for the rest of us flying is heading on down to the level of bus driving as regards the respect and remuneration aspects. The BA engineers have been taken there already, we are next, and then the CC too.
The real irony is that if we dont go there, then there wont be a BA anyway.
Old adage number one thousand and ten:
"Just because you're busy, it doesnt mean your getting rich!".
BA's planes are full but to get them there we are selling at prices that are UNSUSTAINABLE against costs long term. We are not even close to the operating ratios of the LCC's and until we are we are in a slow motion free fall to extinction.
Hand Solo you said:
"Thats BAs market and where it makes it's profits."
You have, I respectfully suggest, missed the point. There is nowhere near enough profit to sustain the business if we carry on as we are. It is finished. Look at the operating ratio and compare it to a LCC.
I wrote my last post before reading today's FT (1) and Flight (2):
1) Boeing says:
"the 7E7 is being studied by LCC's who wish to expand their business model into new markets".
2) EU accession countries wish to emulate the low cost model and OUT low-cost it, (using their below rock-bottom salary structure).
A guy from Latvia is quoted as saying he will make the cost of flying more competitive than using buses and ferries. There is no reason at all to confine that model to the borders of the origin country alone, after all Ryan don't and nor does Easyjet.
I repeat: sell your house, go into rented, take your kids out of private school, (if they are there), get rid of every and any financial encumberance you have and stand by for permanent DEEP pay cuts as a way of life.
The market wants more of a social good - air travel - and it wants it at the lowest achievable price. I repeat YOU CANT BUCK THE MARKET. Competition, already murderous, is going to get HELLISH. Watch as Alitalia and Air Canada go bust. Marvel as US Air sinks out of sight. I am not being glib: there is TOO MUCH capacity in the market, which also means too many pilots, hosties, engineers etc etc. There will soon be 000's of type-rated, experienced pilots on the market: face it - salaries and conditions are heading for the floor.
As for comparing the City to Flying: for goodness sake!! If you can get in and get one of those jobs : bully for you, but for the rest of us flying is heading on down to the level of bus driving as regards the respect and remuneration aspects. The BA engineers have been taken there already, we are next, and then the CC too.
The real irony is that if we dont go there, then there wont be a BA anyway.
Old adage number one thousand and ten:
"Just because you're busy, it doesnt mean your getting rich!".
BA's planes are full but to get them there we are selling at prices that are UNSUSTAINABLE against costs long term. We are not even close to the operating ratios of the LCC's and until we are we are in a slow motion free fall to extinction.