BA considers quitting shorthaul-BBC
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainfrog2.
BA are not bright enough to turn the screws on the BAA. BA pay substantially higher prices for many services such as crew hotac, transport, IT, catering, ground handing, etc.
The exceptions are insurance and fuel where BA have good management and use their buying power effectively.
BA are not bright enough to turn the screws on the BAA. BA pay substantially higher prices for many services such as crew hotac, transport, IT, catering, ground handing, etc.
The exceptions are insurance and fuel where BA have good management and use their buying power effectively.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
euroboy -
Re the easy announcement regarding BFS-LHR....it was made very clear that this was "subject to obtaining the appropriate slots".
Realistically did easyJet ever expect to get the appropriate slots to mount a reasonable frequency operation at appropriate times of day?
Was it just a publicity exercise to paint easy as the good guys when BA pulled out?
I'm sure if they had got some decent slots they would have used them, but I'll let you make up your own mind regarding the above questions!
In trim
Re the easy announcement regarding BFS-LHR....it was made very clear that this was "subject to obtaining the appropriate slots".
Realistically did easyJet ever expect to get the appropriate slots to mount a reasonable frequency operation at appropriate times of day?
Was it just a publicity exercise to paint easy as the good guys when BA pulled out?
I'm sure if they had got some decent slots they would have used them, but I'll let you make up your own mind regarding the above questions!
In trim
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Position info not valid
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice to think that somewhere on that "blank bit of paper" where 5 managers are putting down their "think the thinkable" or was it "think the unthinkable" solutions to BAs problems that one of them might remember that whatever its faults CFE made money and had a commited workforce-that in its self might help BA deceid where it goes next-BA needs to change radically irrespective of the LH v SH argument and having a management and workforce structure thats not afraid of itself and can actually operate without being tied by every rule and proceedure invented by man cant be a bad start.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice to think even at this late stage BA could cut their loses by putting cityflyer back in their old portacabins seperating flight crew and engineers and running a low cost airline out of the south terminal, thus providing a bit of competition against the likes of the easyjets and the ryanairs. This also means that BA still has a competitve presence at LGW. Lets just hope the people in charge think the same way.
[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Flyer Freedom Fighter ]</p>
[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Flyer Freedom Fighter ]</p>
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only would BA have to admit it was wrong but over the last 12 months they have paid out lots and lots of money to the directors and managers who ran CityFlyer to leave the company and put their undoubted talents to use elsewhere!! CFE is like humpty dumpty now - you won't see it put back together.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willy wombat - Very true....
1. A lot of key CFE staff now have reasonable jobs elsewhere.
2. Slots have been given back, and easyJet and others have been let into Gatwick.
3. BA have pulled off some key CFE routes (NOT the best decision given some of the BA loss-making routes which should have been dropped first).
.....even if BA could wind the clock back to re-invent CityFlyer, how many of the management would want to give up jobs elsewhere knowing that the old CFE they used to work for (secure, profitable, and expanding) was now to operate within this new environment, greater competition, with the whole BA LGW presence under threat. I thoroughly enjoyed my years with CFE, but there is no way I would come back, and I suspect I'm not alone.
As for BA admitting they got it wrong....can't see they'll admit it openly, but in 12-18 months I suspect EOG will be virtually non-existent, with most BA short-haul ex LGW operated by CitiExpress and GB Airways......if that isn't an admission they got it wrong, then what is??!!
In trim
1. A lot of key CFE staff now have reasonable jobs elsewhere.
2. Slots have been given back, and easyJet and others have been let into Gatwick.
3. BA have pulled off some key CFE routes (NOT the best decision given some of the BA loss-making routes which should have been dropped first).
.....even if BA could wind the clock back to re-invent CityFlyer, how many of the management would want to give up jobs elsewhere knowing that the old CFE they used to work for (secure, profitable, and expanding) was now to operate within this new environment, greater competition, with the whole BA LGW presence under threat. I thoroughly enjoyed my years with CFE, but there is no way I would come back, and I suspect I'm not alone.
As for BA admitting they got it wrong....can't see they'll admit it openly, but in 12-18 months I suspect EOG will be virtually non-existent, with most BA short-haul ex LGW operated by CitiExpress and GB Airways......if that isn't an admission they got it wrong, then what is??!!
In trim
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think it is a case of admiting that they were wrong, i think we all know that they will never admit that, with the Sept 11 th events being used as an excuse.
I realise that they have spent an absolute fortune in trying to intergrate the two companys. They must now look at it as a case of damage limitation, they can carry on the fiasco by throwing good money after bad or try and salvage whats left.
The best option would be to bring all the CFE aircraft under the Citiexpress banner and run it as a seperate airline and let EOG fend for themselves, they are a lost cause.
I think the management would score some serious points and make LGW into a money making centre, whether or not they consider this as an option is an other thing.
I never could understand how BA could justify spending 75 million pounds on a company that only makes 15 million pounds a year, Madness. Its a shame that we are all now in the same boat with the risk of job loses, that none of us asked for.
Keep your head up guys and girls and hope for the best. Happy New Year.
[ 30 December 2001: Message edited by: Flyer Freedom Fighter ]</p>
I realise that they have spent an absolute fortune in trying to intergrate the two companys. They must now look at it as a case of damage limitation, they can carry on the fiasco by throwing good money after bad or try and salvage whats left.
The best option would be to bring all the CFE aircraft under the Citiexpress banner and run it as a seperate airline and let EOG fend for themselves, they are a lost cause.
I think the management would score some serious points and make LGW into a money making centre, whether or not they consider this as an option is an other thing.
I never could understand how BA could justify spending 75 million pounds on a company that only makes 15 million pounds a year, Madness. Its a shame that we are all now in the same boat with the risk of job loses, that none of us asked for.
Keep your head up guys and girls and hope for the best. Happy New Year.
[ 30 December 2001: Message edited by: Flyer Freedom Fighter ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor -
Afraid you've got that totally wrong. This might be true from a Pilot's perspective, but look at how CFE costs have risen as part of the integration....they were two completely different animals and CFE no longer exists.
I'm not going to start the debate about pilot T+C's again as we have agreed that this is only one element.
What made CFE successful was a management team who were experts in their field....short-haul LGW operations. They understood the economics, etc. better than most at BA.
You only have to look at how CFE (with dedicated Revenue Management teams for their routes) yield-managed their routes very differently from BA. You could compare any parallel route (CFE LGW-JER compared with BA LHR-JER, same for AMS, ZRH, NCL, etc.) The routes were managed subtly differently than the BA services from LHR, overseen by CFE commercial management, and the results were different....look at the costs and look at the yields! As soon as that dedicated 'CFE' yield management stopped, and the CFE routes were thrown in the pot with the rest of BA short-haul, with no focus whatsoever, results declined.
Handling costs are also an issue....whilst CFE did gain some benefits from the power of BA's buying, equally there were many stations where CFE got a better deal than BA....simply because the standard BA IATA Ground Handling contracts were so bloated with stuff that was not required for a short-haul operation. I have many examples of this.
Please please please understand that I have nothing against EOG, particularly the flight crews. However, do not think CFE made money only because we worked from Portacabins and paid lower salaries.....it took a lot more than that to make it successful!
Afraid you've got that totally wrong. This might be true from a Pilot's perspective, but look at how CFE costs have risen as part of the integration....they were two completely different animals and CFE no longer exists.
I'm not going to start the debate about pilot T+C's again as we have agreed that this is only one element.
What made CFE successful was a management team who were experts in their field....short-haul LGW operations. They understood the economics, etc. better than most at BA.
You only have to look at how CFE (with dedicated Revenue Management teams for their routes) yield-managed their routes very differently from BA. You could compare any parallel route (CFE LGW-JER compared with BA LHR-JER, same for AMS, ZRH, NCL, etc.) The routes were managed subtly differently than the BA services from LHR, overseen by CFE commercial management, and the results were different....look at the costs and look at the yields! As soon as that dedicated 'CFE' yield management stopped, and the CFE routes were thrown in the pot with the rest of BA short-haul, with no focus whatsoever, results declined.
Handling costs are also an issue....whilst CFE did gain some benefits from the power of BA's buying, equally there were many stations where CFE got a better deal than BA....simply because the standard BA IATA Ground Handling contracts were so bloated with stuff that was not required for a short-haul operation. I have many examples of this.
Please please please understand that I have nothing against EOG, particularly the flight crews. However, do not think CFE made money only because we worked from Portacabins and paid lower salaries.....it took a lot more than that to make it successful!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Trim of course you made money so would EOG if it got paid the going rate. The problem is that now CFE is effectively EOG you will be treated in the same way. That is you will be credited with only a very small portion of the fare charged as the bulk of that fare will go up to Damppatch to be credited for Longhaul assuming the pax is a tranfer pax. GB gets paid the full fare regardless of wether the pax is a transfer pax or not and therefore is able to make a good profit.
I feel we must hope that come the result of the review in Feb we are able to be credited with the full fare and not just a small % of it.
Airrage is right when he suggests that the company should be split in two, I think that's what may occur, just be thankfull though that you are on the master seniority list, at least you will be able to escape at some point up the road.
Its the new boys who will be recruited directly into the new company we should feel sorry for.
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">
I feel we must hope that come the result of the review in Feb we are able to be credited with the full fare and not just a small % of it.
Airrage is right when he suggests that the company should be split in two, I think that's what may occur, just be thankfull though that you are on the master seniority list, at least you will be able to escape at some point up the road.
Its the new boys who will be recruited directly into the new company we should feel sorry for.
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 4th Quark Galaxy
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
No matter how people want to dress it up, the reason BA paid 75 million for, what was at the time, a successful franchise operation was to stop Branston Pickle getting the LGW slots. It seems daft now, what with everybody cutting capacity, but at the time he would have loved to have bought CFE and got the slots that went along with the purchase. The only way BA could prevent that was to pay way over the odds. The franchise partnership was working very well, so why else would you want to turn it into a wholly owned subsidiary, with the associated costs and burdens?
And, not aimed at you, FFF:
The way people are talking, you'd think that CFE was the be all and end all of airlines. It would have been a VERY interesting exercise if, in the present climate, it was operating as a stand-alone airline, rather than as a BA franchise, which is when it started making 'proper' money. Sure, there were undoubtedly some good managers (if there is such a thing) but even BA has got some of those.I reckon you'd probably be looking at a Gill-type scenario if CFE hadn't done the franchise thing and the Sept 11 stuff had happened. Gift horses and mouths spring to mind.
Tandem Rotor is right. It's a new year and CFE continues to be brought into the BA fold, whether they like it or not. Whether BA admits it's wrong or not doesn't alter the fact that they are not going to U-turn and let CFE go and do its own thing, especially having forked out so much dosh. All CFE personnel are going to have to stop harking on how wonderful the portakabins were and try to help their new employer succeed. And, I have to agree, it will be interesting to see how the numbers suddenly change when the airline formely known as CFE has the longhaul costs imposed on its books, the way the rest of BA shorthaul does. it would be highly cynical of me to suggest that they stop making such a profit very soon, but I'll do it anyway.
Happy New Year to you all.
And.......
Recover
No matter how people want to dress it up, the reason BA paid 75 million for, what was at the time, a successful franchise operation was to stop Branston Pickle getting the LGW slots. It seems daft now, what with everybody cutting capacity, but at the time he would have loved to have bought CFE and got the slots that went along with the purchase. The only way BA could prevent that was to pay way over the odds. The franchise partnership was working very well, so why else would you want to turn it into a wholly owned subsidiary, with the associated costs and burdens?
And, not aimed at you, FFF:
The way people are talking, you'd think that CFE was the be all and end all of airlines. It would have been a VERY interesting exercise if, in the present climate, it was operating as a stand-alone airline, rather than as a BA franchise, which is when it started making 'proper' money. Sure, there were undoubtedly some good managers (if there is such a thing) but even BA has got some of those.I reckon you'd probably be looking at a Gill-type scenario if CFE hadn't done the franchise thing and the Sept 11 stuff had happened. Gift horses and mouths spring to mind.
Tandem Rotor is right. It's a new year and CFE continues to be brought into the BA fold, whether they like it or not. Whether BA admits it's wrong or not doesn't alter the fact that they are not going to U-turn and let CFE go and do its own thing, especially having forked out so much dosh. All CFE personnel are going to have to stop harking on how wonderful the portakabins were and try to help their new employer succeed. And, I have to agree, it will be interesting to see how the numbers suddenly change when the airline formely known as CFE has the longhaul costs imposed on its books, the way the rest of BA shorthaul does. it would be highly cynical of me to suggest that they stop making such a profit very soon, but I'll do it anyway.
Happy New Year to you all.
And.......
Recover
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Position info not valid
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The figures I heard quoted were that in the last 3 months of 00 CFE made 3m - in the first quater of 01 it made a 5m loss-same planes- same amount of pax crew wages same routes etc -differant accountant-differant management. Great shame-nowt anyone can do about it and whatever efforts are made to help our current employer back to profitability many will still be shafted. Nice people most of this new bunch just incompetant.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recover
I have always said that being a BA franchise was good for CFE, and I'd be surprised if you could find anyone that felt diferently (so your Gill scenario is irrelevant). The problems came about (and continue to come) ever since we were bought and more laterly managed by BA. I'm not going into details because I've done that before and it is not relevant at this juncture.
The reason you keeping hearing people say CFE was good is because it was. And the reason that I keep saying it is because I am fed up with BA people telling me I should be grateful.
My relationship with the rest of BA could be summarised as follows:
BA: You must be so glad to work for our amazing selves. Your life is to become so rosy, just wait and see!
Me: Actually, working at CFE had some good points. Fancy the BA pension though.
BA: Please stop whining about how brilliant CFE was!
Me: (Thinks) You brought it up......
CPB
I have always said that being a BA franchise was good for CFE, and I'd be surprised if you could find anyone that felt diferently (so your Gill scenario is irrelevant). The problems came about (and continue to come) ever since we were bought and more laterly managed by BA. I'm not going into details because I've done that before and it is not relevant at this juncture.
The reason you keeping hearing people say CFE was good is because it was. And the reason that I keep saying it is because I am fed up with BA people telling me I should be grateful.
My relationship with the rest of BA could be summarised as follows:
BA: You must be so glad to work for our amazing selves. Your life is to become so rosy, just wait and see!
Me: Actually, working at CFE had some good points. Fancy the BA pension though.
BA: Please stop whining about how brilliant CFE was!
Me: (Thinks) You brought it up......
CPB
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not trying to say that CFE was the be all and end all, but it was a company that worked and made good profits.
You have to understand now that we have all moved to our relevant areas we can see how you work, and believe me it is an eye opener. All i see is a company pushed around by union bullying, under CFE we never needed a union and the relationship between management and underlings was great, but now youve only got to mention new coloured toilet roll and the management is blamed and the union is brought in, it pisses you off.
It is very hard to adapt to backward company, where people whinge about everything, how many companies do you know where every employee complains about everything, but has stayed at that company for 20 years. Hmmm. Every body i have spoken to so far would give back perks, conditions, money , to go back to the way they were, to actually enjoy going to work again.
You have to understand now that we have all moved to our relevant areas we can see how you work, and believe me it is an eye opener. All i see is a company pushed around by union bullying, under CFE we never needed a union and the relationship between management and underlings was great, but now youve only got to mention new coloured toilet roll and the management is blamed and the union is brought in, it pisses you off.
It is very hard to adapt to backward company, where people whinge about everything, how many companies do you know where every employee complains about everything, but has stayed at that company for 20 years. Hmmm. Every body i have spoken to so far would give back perks, conditions, money , to go back to the way they were, to actually enjoy going to work again.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with CPB and FFF. No-one is suggesting that CFE would have got to where it was without the BA branding.....it probably would never have got the start-up capital at all without the initial codeshare agreement, and certainly I doubt it could have survived the early fare wars (with JEA, for example) had it not been for the strength of the BA brand.
So please understand....no-one is looking the gift horse in the mouth, and everyone at CFE appreciated the importance of the BA arrangement (despite some of the frustrations!).
So please understand....no-one is looking the gift horse in the mouth, and everyone at CFE appreciated the importance of the BA arrangement (despite some of the frustrations!).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When is this crap going to stop? We have a situation, its been done, its over, its finished. None of us are any better than anyone else. We need to stop all this bickering and get on with the job in hand, namely saving our futures. I know there are people going around from EOG, and not just flight crew either, telling all that they are the real BA people, I know crew from CFE think that they could be doing the job better, I know that there are crew who have lost out, I,m thinking particularly of the senior FO's just coming up to commands. What is all of this proving? If we don't want another Dan Air type situation developing at Gatwick can it and get on with the job PLEASE!
Oh and just in case anyone is interested, I was chatting to a senior financial chappy the other day-a personal friend-"there is no way we will ever pull out of Gatwick". Apparently something to do with slots and access etc! What is being seriously looked at is racking up the utilisation of the airframes and creating a much more flexible product, all actions that lower costs providing you get the bums on seats. So lets get on with continuing the reputation of LGW as the friendliest, most fun part of the Birdseed empire to work and stuff all this we're better than you rubbish into the past where it belongs. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Oh and just in case anyone is interested, I was chatting to a senior financial chappy the other day-a personal friend-"there is no way we will ever pull out of Gatwick". Apparently something to do with slots and access etc! What is being seriously looked at is racking up the utilisation of the airframes and creating a much more flexible product, all actions that lower costs providing you get the bums on seats. So lets get on with continuing the reputation of LGW as the friendliest, most fun part of the Birdseed empire to work and stuff all this we're better than you rubbish into the past where it belongs. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB, as far as I am aware GB gets the same percentage of revenue from transfer pax as do BA at LGW. GB is profitable, even now, because they have a great commercial team and, most of all, because they have the BA franchise! Without the Franchise they would still be flogging from GIB to TNG in old 737-200s. There is no doubt that they can continue to make good profits where seemingly BA cannot, but people should be aware that without the Franchise companies like GB could not exist in their current guise. The question is whether BA BALPA will be strong enough to stop Rod farming out more, if not all, of the short haul operation at LGW to companies like GB?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
If BA paid £75M for a company that is earning £15M, that would make a P/E (Price/Earnings) ratio of 5, very attractive I would say. And a lot less than BA's fancy valuation.
Gusty
If BA paid £75M for a company that is earning £15M, that would make a P/E (Price/Earnings) ratio of 5, very attractive I would say. And a lot less than BA's fancy valuation.
Gusty
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how ironic, we are constantly telling eog the difference between them and mainline and now it is natural for eog to 'pick' on another underdog ie, cityflyer, so dont take it personally, there is BA MAINLINE contracts (both LHR and LGW WW) and there is LGW (shorthaul). that is the concerned corner lock stock and barrell.