BA considers quitting shorthaul-BBC
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggs,
You state:
"I'll think that you will find that it was BALPA who insisted that CFE be brought in house."
I do not know how much influence BALPA had in the decision....I thought one of the main union issues was the North Terminal ground staff.
At the time of the decision no-one could have foreseen the state of the industry now, post September 11th. However, EOG were still in a pretty bad state and losing money on much of the short-haul operation.
Does this not demonstrate, therefore, the shortsightedness of many within EOG and BALPA to be pushing for CFE to be integrated into the North Terminal operation (on pretty much EOG terms and conditions) which would increase CFE costs and thus further jeopardise a BA future at LGW.
Surely pilots working for a loss-making operation (EOG) should have been looking longer-term which could have produced a better, more cost-effective, BA presence at LGW, perhaps with compromise T and C's midway between the prevailing CFE and EOG levels.
As stated above, none of us could have foreseen Sept 11th and its effects, but let us not forget what a sorry state BA LGW was already in!
CFE crews were pushing for EOG/BA T & C's, and now everyone wearing a BA uniform at LGW is concerned for the future, whilst the likes of easyJet, with sensible cost-control measures, are waiting in the wings!
You state:
"I'll think that you will find that it was BALPA who insisted that CFE be brought in house."
I do not know how much influence BALPA had in the decision....I thought one of the main union issues was the North Terminal ground staff.
At the time of the decision no-one could have foreseen the state of the industry now, post September 11th. However, EOG were still in a pretty bad state and losing money on much of the short-haul operation.
Does this not demonstrate, therefore, the shortsightedness of many within EOG and BALPA to be pushing for CFE to be integrated into the North Terminal operation (on pretty much EOG terms and conditions) which would increase CFE costs and thus further jeopardise a BA future at LGW.
Surely pilots working for a loss-making operation (EOG) should have been looking longer-term which could have produced a better, more cost-effective, BA presence at LGW, perhaps with compromise T and C's midway between the prevailing CFE and EOG levels.
As stated above, none of us could have foreseen Sept 11th and its effects, but let us not forget what a sorry state BA LGW was already in!
CFE crews were pushing for EOG/BA T & C's, and now everyone wearing a BA uniform at LGW is concerned for the future, whilst the likes of easyJet, with sensible cost-control measures, are waiting in the wings!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In trim,
losses allegedly attributable to EOG have nothing to do with Pilot and Cabin crew costs, salary levels, or their T's + C's.
As far as employee costs go, EOG has the best cost base in BA mainline fullstop. It did beforehand, and does even moreso now that CFE are integrated.
At LGW the money is bleeding away in plenty other places.
losses allegedly attributable to EOG have nothing to do with Pilot and Cabin crew costs, salary levels, or their T's + C's.
As far as employee costs go, EOG has the best cost base in BA mainline fullstop. It did beforehand, and does even moreso now that CFE are integrated.
At LGW the money is bleeding away in plenty other places.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bumblebee,
I agree with what you say. However, where EOG is bleeding money in "all those other places", CFE had those places under control!
The point I am trying to make does not relate solely to crew T+C's (though I acknowledge my post did sound a bit that way). The point I was trying to make is that, regardless of where the cost problems were within EOG, the fact is BALPA and other pressures were pushing for a profitable CFE to be integrated into an organisation with serious cost-control problems, and without the proper management focus that a shorthaul operation at LGW requires to be successful.
I still believe that any pressures which pushed the integration in this direction (even discounting subsequent effects of September 11th) were foolhardy and shortsighted, and not conducive to producing a robust, profitable, 'BA' product at LGW.
In trim.
I agree with what you say. However, where EOG is bleeding money in "all those other places", CFE had those places under control!
The point I am trying to make does not relate solely to crew T+C's (though I acknowledge my post did sound a bit that way). The point I was trying to make is that, regardless of where the cost problems were within EOG, the fact is BALPA and other pressures were pushing for a profitable CFE to be integrated into an organisation with serious cost-control problems, and without the proper management focus that a shorthaul operation at LGW requires to be successful.
I still believe that any pressures which pushed the integration in this direction (even discounting subsequent effects of September 11th) were foolhardy and shortsighted, and not conducive to producing a robust, profitable, 'BA' product at LGW.
In trim.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bumblebee - EoG crew terms and conditions may be more competitive than those of mainline but there's still a lot of hidden costs to the company not immediately obvious from the BALPA salary comparisons. For example, in these difficult times, why are the CFE crews now being swamped with masses of crew food which they don't have time to eat? I know the prevous management was pretty stingy on the food side but the pendulum has now swung far too far in the opposite direction. Why has much of the hotac been changed to more expensive, off airport hotels? Could it be because BA pilots insist that on full rest (as opposed to split duty) nightstops airport hotels are not acceptable, even 5* ones? It seems to me that there are problems all over BA, and if each individual group, be they pilots, cabin crew, engineers, managers or whatever continue to insist that 'its not our fault, its everyone else' there's little chance of getting BA fixed.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 4th Quark Galaxy
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Trim,
What you are saying is sensible stuff but it goes away from the main thrust of the arguement at the time, ie that CFE were flying BA routes and therefore undermining 'proper' (mainline) BA by doing the same thing for poorer pay & conditions. The thin end of the wedge was getting thicker and it wouldn't be too long before our illustrious management decided this was such a good deal that CFE and Co could do BA shorthaul and it was not beyond the realms of possibilty that JMC could have ended up doing the longhaul side of things. The Ayling dream of a virtual airline.
What BALPA, and by that I mean we, decided was that this broke our scope agreement with BA (that BA routes should be flown by BA aircraft and BA pilots) and that this was not good for the long-term prospects of BA mainline. EoG was already the cheap option and there was no way we were going to erode those conditions any more. So how about the idea of raising CFE's conditions, agreeing with the company that since they would now be BA pilots on BA T & Cs, they could now fly any of the routes and the company can have the flexibility of using the 737 & RJ when it wished.
At the time our management were going for their, now standard, divide and rule plan. It would only affect SH so the LH guys won't take any notice, type thing. Fortunately, ALL of us saw this for what it was worth. BA trying to undercut our existing T & Cs. That's why there was a fantastic repsonse to industrial action if it was required.....and why the company backed down pretty sharpish.
This is not a story of greedy pilots going for more, but a story of pilots just trying to protect what they have. It was great news for the CFE pilots (I hope they'll agree) and the company got it's flexibilty wish. Of course, things have changed dramatically recently, but that is not an excuse (as the company is trying to use it as) to then toss out all the existing agreements on the basis of cost-cutting. Rod needs to take a VERY hard look at where the money is going and if he looked out of his office at all the coffee drinkers down by the stream, I'm sure he can get a very good idea.
I can understand your arguement that by bringing CFE up, we have increased the costs and so now endanger them as well as mainline. Well, how far do you go with this stuff? There will always be a cheaper option and a few hundred pilots on higher dosh is not the cause of BA's current problems and would not be the solution. BA pilots are very efficient and the cheapest longhaul crews in the World. It's the huge, unecessary, infra-structure that surrounds us that needs to be looked. We're an airline and should stick to flying aircraft. We are not a computer company, employment agency, health service, education department or consultation service and should stop trying to be so. That's where the money saving has to come.
Cheers for now,
Recover
What you are saying is sensible stuff but it goes away from the main thrust of the arguement at the time, ie that CFE were flying BA routes and therefore undermining 'proper' (mainline) BA by doing the same thing for poorer pay & conditions. The thin end of the wedge was getting thicker and it wouldn't be too long before our illustrious management decided this was such a good deal that CFE and Co could do BA shorthaul and it was not beyond the realms of possibilty that JMC could have ended up doing the longhaul side of things. The Ayling dream of a virtual airline.
What BALPA, and by that I mean we, decided was that this broke our scope agreement with BA (that BA routes should be flown by BA aircraft and BA pilots) and that this was not good for the long-term prospects of BA mainline. EoG was already the cheap option and there was no way we were going to erode those conditions any more. So how about the idea of raising CFE's conditions, agreeing with the company that since they would now be BA pilots on BA T & Cs, they could now fly any of the routes and the company can have the flexibility of using the 737 & RJ when it wished.
At the time our management were going for their, now standard, divide and rule plan. It would only affect SH so the LH guys won't take any notice, type thing. Fortunately, ALL of us saw this for what it was worth. BA trying to undercut our existing T & Cs. That's why there was a fantastic repsonse to industrial action if it was required.....and why the company backed down pretty sharpish.
This is not a story of greedy pilots going for more, but a story of pilots just trying to protect what they have. It was great news for the CFE pilots (I hope they'll agree) and the company got it's flexibilty wish. Of course, things have changed dramatically recently, but that is not an excuse (as the company is trying to use it as) to then toss out all the existing agreements on the basis of cost-cutting. Rod needs to take a VERY hard look at where the money is going and if he looked out of his office at all the coffee drinkers down by the stream, I'm sure he can get a very good idea.
I can understand your arguement that by bringing CFE up, we have increased the costs and so now endanger them as well as mainline. Well, how far do you go with this stuff? There will always be a cheaper option and a few hundred pilots on higher dosh is not the cause of BA's current problems and would not be the solution. BA pilots are very efficient and the cheapest longhaul crews in the World. It's the huge, unecessary, infra-structure that surrounds us that needs to be looked. We're an airline and should stick to flying aircraft. We are not a computer company, employment agency, health service, education department or consultation service and should stop trying to be so. That's where the money saving has to come.
Cheers for now,
Recover
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be that there is something in the rumours about BA & GB, but if there is then none of the pilots know about it. There has not been so much of a sniff along these lines.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recover,
I accept some of what you are saying, but refer you back to my second post where I acknowledge that the T's+C's are a fairly small cost issue in relation to the waste elsewhere within BA....and I definitely agree about the coffee-drinkers by the stream!
Scope clauses or not, I still maintain that when EOG had not even come close to identifying or sorting out their own costs (albeit many of these costs being at head office), it makes no business sense to integrate a profitable CFE operation in this way into EOG.
Even if the atrocities of September 11th had never happened, I am certain that the whole of BA shorthaul at LGW (EOG + CFE) would end up losing money, and Rod would be back with his knife to make drastic cuts....having now demonstrated that short-haul at LGW does not work!
End result.....BA pilot job losses at LGW! Surely a more practical business approach, rather than integrating in this way, would have been the better long-term solution?
Again I would re-state that within months of the integration starting, CFE routes were beginning to deteriorate as the focus and expertise was lost on yield management, and costs started going through the roof.
Commercial suicide? I think so.
In trim.
I accept some of what you are saying, but refer you back to my second post where I acknowledge that the T's+C's are a fairly small cost issue in relation to the waste elsewhere within BA....and I definitely agree about the coffee-drinkers by the stream!
Scope clauses or not, I still maintain that when EOG had not even come close to identifying or sorting out their own costs (albeit many of these costs being at head office), it makes no business sense to integrate a profitable CFE operation in this way into EOG.
Even if the atrocities of September 11th had never happened, I am certain that the whole of BA shorthaul at LGW (EOG + CFE) would end up losing money, and Rod would be back with his knife to make drastic cuts....having now demonstrated that short-haul at LGW does not work!
End result.....BA pilot job losses at LGW! Surely a more practical business approach, rather than integrating in this way, would have been the better long-term solution?
Again I would re-state that within months of the integration starting, CFE routes were beginning to deteriorate as the focus and expertise was lost on yield management, and costs started going through the roof.
Commercial suicide? I think so.
In trim.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right! I've had it with this "City Flyer were the best thing since sliced bread" attitude and how the merge into 1 operation at EOG has ruined CF. Let me put a few things straight.
The difference between BA and City Flyer is plain and simple - QUALITY. Quality starts from the ground up and quality costs money. It starts with selecting high quality flight and cabin crews who are highly motivated and customer focussed. It continues with top quality flight training (initial and more importantly recurrent) and with safety tools like SESMA(BASIS) (which BA "invented" and is now the envy of the world's airlines). Even if they don't pay the best salaries to their flight crew at least they are decent wages and T&Cs (at the moment!).
Compare this to City Flyer. The worst wages and T&Cs operating out of portacabins. Cabin crew who on interview don't know that CF are a BA Franchise AND ARE STILL SELECTED! (True story) Ever done a 5 day 14 sector trip Willy Wombat? Fancy spending those nights down route in airport hotels in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do - it wouldn't be much of a life would it? As for too much crew food, research proves that if you don't eat regular meals you don't perform - how exactly are you supposed to eat breakfast at a sensible time on a 5am pickup? You might be able to take your own lunch on a day trip but once you're down route there's no way.
Get real Willy Wombat and co - you CF guys were exploited as cheap labour and its as simple as that. The rest of us know better!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fluke,
I won't repeat what I've already said, and I'm definitely not saying CF was the best thing since sliced bread. However.....
Training....Are you suggesting CF training was substandard? Definitely not the case.
Look at BA's own surveys regarding cabin service and you will see where CF consistently scored!
And as far as other 'Quality' systems....CF had BASIS (The more advanced version than BA, I hasten to add), and SESMA was on the way....held up only by system/compatability issues within BA in trying to integrate with the Quick Access Recorders on the RJ.
I do agree there were issues with CF T+C's. However, BA shorthaul at LGW is not in a pretty state at the moment, whether you care to admit it or not.
Yes, there are many reasons for this, and I am not blaming flight crew T+C's as putting EOG into this state. However, if Rod does come along with a big knife (which I believe would have happened at LGW regardless of Sept. 11th), there will be many guys who would dearly wish to go back to the old CFE lifestyle in exchange for greater job security.
I won't repeat what I've already said, and I'm definitely not saying CF was the best thing since sliced bread. However.....
Training....Are you suggesting CF training was substandard? Definitely not the case.
Look at BA's own surveys regarding cabin service and you will see where CF consistently scored!
And as far as other 'Quality' systems....CF had BASIS (The more advanced version than BA, I hasten to add), and SESMA was on the way....held up only by system/compatability issues within BA in trying to integrate with the Quick Access Recorders on the RJ.
I do agree there were issues with CF T+C's. However, BA shorthaul at LGW is not in a pretty state at the moment, whether you care to admit it or not.
Yes, there are many reasons for this, and I am not blaming flight crew T+C's as putting EOG into this state. However, if Rod does come along with a big knife (which I believe would have happened at LGW regardless of Sept. 11th), there will be many guys who would dearly wish to go back to the old CFE lifestyle in exchange for greater job security.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fluke Skywalker - Your talking "B*ll**ks.
Until you start talking some sense, do us all a favour and keep quiet.
Whilst CFE wasn't perfect, as already mentioned by a number of posts, it was a stable and safe operation due to the motivation and team spirit of staff and management, in all departments.
Did you get that?
"TEAM SPIRIT AND MOTIVATION".
If BA had only a modicum of this, they wouldn't be in such a dire situation.
Until you start talking some sense, do us all a favour and keep quiet.
Whilst CFE wasn't perfect, as already mentioned by a number of posts, it was a stable and safe operation due to the motivation and team spirit of staff and management, in all departments.
Did you get that?
"TEAM SPIRIT AND MOTIVATION".
If BA had only a modicum of this, they wouldn't be in such a dire situation.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fluke Skywalker - thank you for your posting because it totally confirms the key point that I made in my earlier posting i.e. that it seems that within BA every department thinks that it is perfect and the problems are all due to other departments, which is clearly your view as far as BA/EOG pilots and their T&Cs are concerned. My point again is that if those at BA don't soon start to accept that there can be problems in their own areas, as well as in other areas, and thus make no efforts to put their own house in order, I suspect that BA's LGW operation will continue to steadily disappear up its own jet pipe to the great benefit of Stelios and others like him.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topman, In trim, Willy wombat, and tech..again.
Agree with you all. Fluke Skywalker appears to be suffering from the increasingly common "BA head up arse" syndrome and will not acknowledge that there are problems until it's too late.
I would suggest that he 'wakes up and looks around him' but unfortunately all he would see is rectal wall!
Agree with you all. Fluke Skywalker appears to be suffering from the increasingly common "BA head up arse" syndrome and will not acknowledge that there are problems until it's too late.
I would suggest that he 'wakes up and looks around him' but unfortunately all he would see is rectal wall!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fluke
I work for a BA franchise. Are you saying to me that we are substandard to BA? If that's a yes then explain HOW and WHY?
I mean, did BA employees come from a different planet? If yes are they heading to somewhere wonderful right now by having been so fantastic in the last few years? NOT.
I work for a BA franchise. Are you saying to me that we are substandard to BA? If that's a yes then explain HOW and WHY?
I mean, did BA employees come from a different planet? If yes are they heading to somewhere wonderful right now by having been so fantastic in the last few years? NOT.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I was going to comply with Topman's request (he's clearly quite skilled in CRM), but I've had so many replies that I'm going to respond (may the force...)
Does anyone remember the forecasts for BA at the start of this year? Profits of £400 million+ were predicted by Merril Lynch and co. That was with the current workforce and the "problems in all areas".
The problems started with Bob Ayling's inspired strategy of focussing on Premium traffic which led initially to profits and the above mentioned forecasts BUT at the same time was (is) a very high risk strategy, leaving BA at the mercy of the world, and in particular the American, economy.
Before September 11th forward bookings had dropped off the planet, so to speak, due to the downturn (and now recession) in the US economy. That dreadful day compounded the situation and has left us all in the situation we ALL find ourselves in.
My point is that the strategy is very high risk: it's brilliant when the economy is booming, but when it slumps it's disastrous. Hence we find ourselves in a fight for survival where any option is considerable - including getting rid of shorthaul. The focus seems to have been distorted: if PAX want to fly from A to B we should be able to offer them a product that provides them with the service at a realistic price. Unfortunately we can't because put plainly and simply our overheads are too high, far too high, and the reason for that is that we employ too many people who contribute little or nothing at all to the end product of flying an a/c from A to B. It's not too many crew meals, or hotac in "glamourous" city locations and it's certainly not the Flight and Cabin Crews at EOG, who are the hardest working and worst paid of all flying crew in BA.
As for Team Spirit and Motivation, there are 3000 Cabin Crew sitting around EOG and Crawley on Standby at the moment with very little work for them (since the 73s went to LHR), but there's no sign of bitching or complaining from them. On the contrary, they've been thoroughly professional and we continue to have cracking nightstops. As for Flight Crew, we just get on with it, don't we...
Finally, Mike-Hunt, I never said that BA franchise operators are sub-standard to BA, only that BA employ high quality crews. As I've never worked for one I can't compare the standards, so personally my mind is an open book. To be honest, however, there is a view in BA that our standards are amongst the best and I personally think it is justified.
Does anyone remember the forecasts for BA at the start of this year? Profits of £400 million+ were predicted by Merril Lynch and co. That was with the current workforce and the "problems in all areas".
The problems started with Bob Ayling's inspired strategy of focussing on Premium traffic which led initially to profits and the above mentioned forecasts BUT at the same time was (is) a very high risk strategy, leaving BA at the mercy of the world, and in particular the American, economy.
Before September 11th forward bookings had dropped off the planet, so to speak, due to the downturn (and now recession) in the US economy. That dreadful day compounded the situation and has left us all in the situation we ALL find ourselves in.
My point is that the strategy is very high risk: it's brilliant when the economy is booming, but when it slumps it's disastrous. Hence we find ourselves in a fight for survival where any option is considerable - including getting rid of shorthaul. The focus seems to have been distorted: if PAX want to fly from A to B we should be able to offer them a product that provides them with the service at a realistic price. Unfortunately we can't because put plainly and simply our overheads are too high, far too high, and the reason for that is that we employ too many people who contribute little or nothing at all to the end product of flying an a/c from A to B. It's not too many crew meals, or hotac in "glamourous" city locations and it's certainly not the Flight and Cabin Crews at EOG, who are the hardest working and worst paid of all flying crew in BA.
As for Team Spirit and Motivation, there are 3000 Cabin Crew sitting around EOG and Crawley on Standby at the moment with very little work for them (since the 73s went to LHR), but there's no sign of bitching or complaining from them. On the contrary, they've been thoroughly professional and we continue to have cracking nightstops. As for Flight Crew, we just get on with it, don't we...
Finally, Mike-Hunt, I never said that BA franchise operators are sub-standard to BA, only that BA employ high quality crews. As I've never worked for one I can't compare the standards, so personally my mind is an open book. To be honest, however, there is a view in BA that our standards are amongst the best and I personally think it is justified.
Ref.the twitterings of The Fluke, some of BA STILL think they're God's Lot !
God help the rest of us !!
God help the rest of us !!