GB latest ,get this.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this thread with interest as I can't see the argument here. I am led to believe that the routes that GB operate are ones that BA can't profitably operate and so have given them to GB under the franchise. So GB pays BA a franchise fee and offer onward connections to BA ,whereas GB benefit from the brand. So why the bitterness? Concentrate on the big orange!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: California (Highway Patrol)
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also hear that GB have taken on G-BUSJ (an old ex BCAL/BA A320),........... soon, they will have taken all BA short haul under their wing,.......
BA short haul might actually make some money then!!!
As for GB not taking FOs from BA for command training,....... its a separate company, and they would probably take a pay cut in order to fly left seat for GB,...... dont think there would be too many takers,.... and it might upset the unions too!!
FP
BA short haul might actually make some money then!!!
As for GB not taking FOs from BA for command training,....... its a separate company, and they would probably take a pay cut in order to fly left seat for GB,...... dont think there would be too many takers,.... and it might upset the unions too!!
FP
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If GB had to pay its true share of the BA overhead, it wouldn't make a profit, just as BACX found when it was taken in to the BA fold as a wholly-owned subsidiary.
The very great majority of the BA overhead has very little to do with pilot pay differentials and everything to do with overheads and working practises over which BA pilots have no control - even BA itself seems unable or unwilling to tackle them - perhaps WW will change that.
Most BA longhaul pilots fly 900 hours a year, shorthaul is up around 800 or so. I dont think we are that far out of touch with reality, and, for what its worth, the 'cheeseboard' went many years ago.
Most of us are concerned about easyjet and watch with interest their expansion. One of our ex-managers is amongst you.
I fly for a living. Of course my company's financial health is of vital interest to me. Would we, as BA pilots, like to compete effectively? Sure. Get rid of 100 anomalies I can name in the BA modus operandi, and then take a swathe through the job creation scheme that is our corporate HQ, Waterworld, and we could do just that.
I guess I fell into the well-laid trap that has BA affiliate pilots loathing us, us wary of them , and everyone adopting self-rightous attitudes to everyone else ("look - I wear a harsher horsehair shirt than you do") which leads to the the kind of downward spiral in all our working lives where, in some operators, "competition" has reached the stage of having to buy a glass of water from your employer company if you wish to hydrate on the flightdeck, and paying for your own sim conversions is the norm.
Heaven help the industry, and wannabes beware.
The very great majority of the BA overhead has very little to do with pilot pay differentials and everything to do with overheads and working practises over which BA pilots have no control - even BA itself seems unable or unwilling to tackle them - perhaps WW will change that.
Most BA longhaul pilots fly 900 hours a year, shorthaul is up around 800 or so. I dont think we are that far out of touch with reality, and, for what its worth, the 'cheeseboard' went many years ago.
Most of us are concerned about easyjet and watch with interest their expansion. One of our ex-managers is amongst you.
I fly for a living. Of course my company's financial health is of vital interest to me. Would we, as BA pilots, like to compete effectively? Sure. Get rid of 100 anomalies I can name in the BA modus operandi, and then take a swathe through the job creation scheme that is our corporate HQ, Waterworld, and we could do just that.
I guess I fell into the well-laid trap that has BA affiliate pilots loathing us, us wary of them , and everyone adopting self-rightous attitudes to everyone else ("look - I wear a harsher horsehair shirt than you do") which leads to the the kind of downward spiral in all our working lives where, in some operators, "competition" has reached the stage of having to buy a glass of water from your employer company if you wish to hydrate on the flightdeck, and paying for your own sim conversions is the norm.
Heaven help the industry, and wannabes beware.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a former employee of another former BA franchise airline, the above arguments are familiar to me.
Of course GB would not be as successful as they are now without the strength of the BA brand. This is/was true of all the franchise partners.
However, they do clearly demonstrate that it is possible to make money out of short-haul at LGW.....something many in Waterside, with head in sand, refuse to believe, yet continue to accept some of the ludicrous overheads associated with their own SH operation.
The GB operation is, of course, mutually beneficial. BA obtain their franchise fee, and other fees for provision of the many other services (reservations, yield control, etc.) plus a proportion of each seat sold, and also feed onto the BA longhaul network.....drastically diminished at LGW in recent years but nonetheless a key strength. If BA were to operate such feed routes themselves it would invariably be at a loss.
I am not blaming the flying community for BA's woes.......BA need to tackle head-office and ground-based costs. However, there are still, I'm afraid, many BA pilots with a "job for life" mentality who continue to ignore the harsh reality of what's going on outside their cockpit window.......the fact that the apron at LGW is progressively turning Orange. As someone commented previously, "wake up and smell the coffee" and recognise that GB at LGW could be the saviours of a BA presence, rather than the enemy.
Of course GB would not be as successful as they are now without the strength of the BA brand. This is/was true of all the franchise partners.
However, they do clearly demonstrate that it is possible to make money out of short-haul at LGW.....something many in Waterside, with head in sand, refuse to believe, yet continue to accept some of the ludicrous overheads associated with their own SH operation.
The GB operation is, of course, mutually beneficial. BA obtain their franchise fee, and other fees for provision of the many other services (reservations, yield control, etc.) plus a proportion of each seat sold, and also feed onto the BA longhaul network.....drastically diminished at LGW in recent years but nonetheless a key strength. If BA were to operate such feed routes themselves it would invariably be at a loss.
I am not blaming the flying community for BA's woes.......BA need to tackle head-office and ground-based costs. However, there are still, I'm afraid, many BA pilots with a "job for life" mentality who continue to ignore the harsh reality of what's going on outside their cockpit window.......the fact that the apron at LGW is progressively turning Orange. As someone commented previously, "wake up and smell the coffee" and recognise that GB at LGW could be the saviours of a BA presence, rather than the enemy.
Biggles: if you fly with BA LGW to Europe I think you'll find there isn't any IFE on the (ex DanAir) 737s. Nor hot meals, typically, it's a sandwich box and one drinks service.
In trim and NSF: Agree entirely.
ShortFinalFred: I think you're missing the point regarding overheads. GB, I suspect, has lower overheads because it runs a leaner operation than BA. Look at the Beehive, for example, would BA be able to run an operation of a comparable size from such a building. What about pensions? GB may have shiny new Airbuses but the pilots won't enjoy a Final salary scheme at age 55.
I'm not having a go at BA here, but I do feel that it's very easy for some at BA to fail to understand that BOTH BA and GB do well from the franchise arrangement. I sincerely don't hope so but if ever BA retreats from LGW shorthaul the beginning of the end began when you first heard: "Easy 123 request clearance to........"
In trim and NSF: Agree entirely.
ShortFinalFred: I think you're missing the point regarding overheads. GB, I suspect, has lower overheads because it runs a leaner operation than BA. Look at the Beehive, for example, would BA be able to run an operation of a comparable size from such a building. What about pensions? GB may have shiny new Airbuses but the pilots won't enjoy a Final salary scheme at age 55.
I'm not having a go at BA here, but I do feel that it's very easy for some at BA to fail to understand that BOTH BA and GB do well from the franchise arrangement. I sincerely don't hope so but if ever BA retreats from LGW shorthaul the beginning of the end began when you first heard: "Easy 123 request clearance to........"
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that BA pilots always miss the Bigger picture ???
BALPA and BA pilots are not very happy with the GB expansion at MAN but hear that Senior Managers saw that one off.
Why be bitter chaps -- You guys don't even wave to the GB chaps at LGW/LHR anymore ??
And why get your knickers in a twist when you are told to follow the company A321 at LGW ???
BALPA and BA pilots are not very happy with the GB expansion at MAN but hear that Senior Managers saw that one off.
Why be bitter chaps -- You guys don't even wave to the GB chaps at LGW/LHR anymore ??
And why get your knickers in a twist when you are told to follow the company A321 at LGW ???
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that BA pilots always miss the Bigger picture ???
Theres over 3,000 of us. Believe or not, some of us still have some tenuous grasp of reality.
CPB
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
"As for GB not taking FOs from BA for command training,....... its a separate company, and they would probably take a pay cut in order to fly left seat for GB,...... dont think there would be too many takers"
Perhaps you should tell that to the GSS F/O's.
Airclues
"As for GB not taking FOs from BA for command training,....... its a separate company, and they would probably take a pay cut in order to fly left seat for GB,...... dont think there would be too many takers"
Perhaps you should tell that to the GSS F/O's.
Airclues
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggles
The average punter who had the choice, wouldn't fly BA. Cr@@p food, miserable staff, one drink, throw "dinner" at you and then off to the bunk. Don't be jealous matey, get a life. Don't worry about "them" flying in your colours,......... you'll soon be working for them.
The average punter who had the choice, wouldn't fly BA. Cr@@p food, miserable staff, one drink, throw "dinner" at you and then off to the bunk. Don't be jealous matey, get a life. Don't worry about "them" flying in your colours,......... you'll soon be working for them.
Last edited by Jim Kirk; 22nd Mar 2005 at 14:37.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One point that has probably been missed by most.
These threads appear on a fairly regular basis with a few from BA 'discussing' the benefits of this and that with GB and visa versa, sometimes rather heatedly.
However, the guys 'in charge' who make the decisions are entirely happy with the franchise situation. They have regular meetings, audits, flight safety sharing systems to name some, that make the BA management chuffed to bits with GB and the way they fly the flag.
And from the other point of view, GB management are chuffed to bits with the way things are going, making money, opening bases and ordering more aircraft.
"Back scratching" and "Two to tango" are expressions that come to mind. If any pilot from either airline thinks that their say will influence any outcome in a significant way is rather deluded.
One last thing also is, RE and soon WW will, and always have dealt with the biggest problems first. The GB thing is far from the top of that list and by the look of things to come will not feature at the top of the agenda for some time.
Good luck to both sides, I think that they are both excellent setups that provide superb opportunities to both sets of pilots.
(And.......... no I'm not management!!)
These threads appear on a fairly regular basis with a few from BA 'discussing' the benefits of this and that with GB and visa versa, sometimes rather heatedly.
However, the guys 'in charge' who make the decisions are entirely happy with the franchise situation. They have regular meetings, audits, flight safety sharing systems to name some, that make the BA management chuffed to bits with GB and the way they fly the flag.
And from the other point of view, GB management are chuffed to bits with the way things are going, making money, opening bases and ordering more aircraft.
"Back scratching" and "Two to tango" are expressions that come to mind. If any pilot from either airline thinks that their say will influence any outcome in a significant way is rather deluded.
One last thing also is, RE and soon WW will, and always have dealt with the biggest problems first. The GB thing is far from the top of that list and by the look of things to come will not feature at the top of the agenda for some time.
Good luck to both sides, I think that they are both excellent setups that provide superb opportunities to both sets of pilots.
(And.......... no I'm not management!!)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: venus
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShortfinalFred
You said:-
"If GB had to pay its true share of the BA overhead, it wouldn't make a profit just as BACX found when it was taken in to the BA fold as a wholly-owned subsidiary."
That, I'm afraid, says everything about fat BA overheads and how much BACX have been disadvantaged now they are unable to negotiate the going rate for handling with their new owners. A quick look at this would provide a perfect illustration to WW of inefficiencies, the solutions to which are painfully obvious in this particular case.
In my experience as a regular pasenger, GB are a pleasure to fly with, although this pleasure has been somewhat eroded since last year, when the catering was downgraded to the standard BA shorthaul fare. All day Deli indeed!
You said:-
"If GB had to pay its true share of the BA overhead, it wouldn't make a profit just as BACX found when it was taken in to the BA fold as a wholly-owned subsidiary."
That, I'm afraid, says everything about fat BA overheads and how much BACX have been disadvantaged now they are unable to negotiate the going rate for handling with their new owners. A quick look at this would provide a perfect illustration to WW of inefficiencies, the solutions to which are painfully obvious in this particular case.
In my experience as a regular pasenger, GB are a pleasure to fly with, although this pleasure has been somewhat eroded since last year, when the catering was downgraded to the standard BA shorthaul fare. All day Deli indeed!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBK makes an excellent point about pensions. As a BA retiree at 55 you can then get taken on by GB as flight crew and your pension will still be more than the GB crew that you are working with. Unrealistc ? I work in a small airline where we regularly employ ex BA pilots, the sweetie money they earn with us helps fuel their Jags which clog up the company car park !!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to the initial questions on the first post.
Yes the pay rise was 4.0% for this coming year starting in April. The private pension contribution from the company was raised from 10% salary to 14.5% and other small (RPI)rises to hourly allowances etc.
This was entirely due to a tracker pay system (which compares 6 equivalent airlines - Monarch and others) negotiated some years ago by BALPA through the solid membership of the pilots. The company got a good deal too - a contented workforce who get fair and competitive pay for the work they do.
Any reasonably qualified pilot can apply for the vacancies that come about. Only the better ones are recruited. There is no secret agenda, there is no PC, corporate mumbo jumbo or spin. Pilots (male and female) come from all sorts of airlines (and the forces too) at all sorts of ages. Many ex - BA pilots work for the airline. They tend to come at age 55 on retirement from BA and stay until 60, often on part time contracts. Some stay on after 60 as F/Os (due to flight restrictions in France). They seem to enjoy their time with GB, and I have never heard other pilots complain about their presence, flying abilities or commitment to work. Perhaps the only distinguishing feature that these pilots have, is their very expensive car in the company car park, presumably paid out of the fruits of a long career with BA mailine. The few exceptions, in smaller cars, are recovering from divorces.
So, Magic2, looking forward to seeing you - perhaps when you are 55. You might, by that time, find you move from a very shiny new Boeing Dreamliner with BA to sit in an old GB A321 with the latest cabin upgrade.
GB first started flying in 1931 , which makes it almost as old as Imperial Airways, and I'm sure GB will be around for many more years. It might not still be a BA Franchise by the time you join - that depends on big BA, the attitude of BA Balpa CC and of course the Gibraltar family that own GB. If Easyjet don't go bust over the next few years, it may even be as an Easyjet partner. Now that's bound to start a new thread.
Yes the pay rise was 4.0% for this coming year starting in April. The private pension contribution from the company was raised from 10% salary to 14.5% and other small (RPI)rises to hourly allowances etc.
This was entirely due to a tracker pay system (which compares 6 equivalent airlines - Monarch and others) negotiated some years ago by BALPA through the solid membership of the pilots. The company got a good deal too - a contented workforce who get fair and competitive pay for the work they do.
Any reasonably qualified pilot can apply for the vacancies that come about. Only the better ones are recruited. There is no secret agenda, there is no PC, corporate mumbo jumbo or spin. Pilots (male and female) come from all sorts of airlines (and the forces too) at all sorts of ages. Many ex - BA pilots work for the airline. They tend to come at age 55 on retirement from BA and stay until 60, often on part time contracts. Some stay on after 60 as F/Os (due to flight restrictions in France). They seem to enjoy their time with GB, and I have never heard other pilots complain about their presence, flying abilities or commitment to work. Perhaps the only distinguishing feature that these pilots have, is their very expensive car in the company car park, presumably paid out of the fruits of a long career with BA mailine. The few exceptions, in smaller cars, are recovering from divorces.
So, Magic2, looking forward to seeing you - perhaps when you are 55. You might, by that time, find you move from a very shiny new Boeing Dreamliner with BA to sit in an old GB A321 with the latest cabin upgrade.
GB first started flying in 1931 , which makes it almost as old as Imperial Airways, and I'm sure GB will be around for many more years. It might not still be a BA Franchise by the time you join - that depends on big BA, the attitude of BA Balpa CC and of course the Gibraltar family that own GB. If Easyjet don't go bust over the next few years, it may even be as an Easyjet partner. Now that's bound to start a new thread.
Last edited by fiftyfour; 17th Mar 2005 at 15:08.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason BA are recruiting is because there is no demise of shorthaul at LHR or LGW. If there is then tell me why I am flying 90 hours a month.... In a nice shiny 321 with IFE (some times).