BA considers quitting shorthaul-BBC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA considers quitting shorthaul-BBC
British Airways is considering abandoning its loss-making shorthaul routes and consolidating as an intercontinental carrier, a report has said.
Rod Eddington, chief executive at the troubled airline, has told senior City investors that BA may retreat to longhaul as part of a "think the thinkable" review of operations, the Financial Times said.
The proposal is being dubbed the "BOAC" option, in a nod to British Overseas Airways Corporation, which merged with shorthaul-focused British European Airways in the early 1970s to form BA.
"We have to find a new way of casting the business proposition," a senior BA executive told the FT.
Qantas rumour
Separate reports that the airline is to cut its shareholding in Qantas were on Wednesday denied by the Australian flag carrier.
"At this stage, Qantas has not been advised of any proposal by British Airways to reduce its shareholding," Brett Johnson, Qantas general counsel said.
It was later announced that BA's holding in Qantas had been trimmed by one percentage point to 21.4%, but because of a share dilution rather than a stock sale.
Traffic decline
News of the "BOAC" option follows reports over the weekend that BA is mulling proposals for withdrawing from its second base at London's Gatwick airport, in an effort to avoid reporting its first loss since privatisation in 1987.
British Airways has seen passenger numbers decline for 10 successive months, with the 11 September attacks only adding to the airline's woes.
Passenger volumes were 17.8% lower last month than in November 2000.
BA chief executive Rod Eddington has said he is confident that BA can survive the current crisis, as it had £1.1bn in cash reserves and could draw on a further £800m.
Rod Eddington, chief executive at the troubled airline, has told senior City investors that BA may retreat to longhaul as part of a "think the thinkable" review of operations, the Financial Times said.
The proposal is being dubbed the "BOAC" option, in a nod to British Overseas Airways Corporation, which merged with shorthaul-focused British European Airways in the early 1970s to form BA.
"We have to find a new way of casting the business proposition," a senior BA executive told the FT.
Qantas rumour
Separate reports that the airline is to cut its shareholding in Qantas were on Wednesday denied by the Australian flag carrier.
"At this stage, Qantas has not been advised of any proposal by British Airways to reduce its shareholding," Brett Johnson, Qantas general counsel said.
It was later announced that BA's holding in Qantas had been trimmed by one percentage point to 21.4%, but because of a share dilution rather than a stock sale.
Traffic decline
News of the "BOAC" option follows reports over the weekend that BA is mulling proposals for withdrawing from its second base at London's Gatwick airport, in an effort to avoid reporting its first loss since privatisation in 1987.
British Airways has seen passenger numbers decline for 10 successive months, with the 11 September attacks only adding to the airline's woes.
Passenger volumes were 17.8% lower last month than in November 2000.
BA chief executive Rod Eddington has said he is confident that BA can survive the current crisis, as it had £1.1bn in cash reserves and could draw on a further £800m.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The key word here is considering, I think the BA rumour mill (it's most productive division ) is being unleashed on a wider world, makes a change from just the staff.
When Cityflyer merged with BA Gatwick a lot was said then which doesn't seem to have come to pass, and I'm now on a fake BA contract (BA at the top Cityflyer T&C, oh no sorry, I don't have a portacabin as a crew room anymore) so basically I'm now s*****d both ways. I don't get any of the benefits yet my head is still on the block.
Also if BA pulls out of short haul europe how will it's remaining franchises fare. Will BA allow those franchises to take on some of the routes it couldn't make pay.
I would imagine not, because if those said franchises proceeded to make those routes pay BA would be left with a massive amount of egg on it's face which would expose it for what it is.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: mainfrog2 ]
When Cityflyer merged with BA Gatwick a lot was said then which doesn't seem to have come to pass, and I'm now on a fake BA contract (BA at the top Cityflyer T&C, oh no sorry, I don't have a portacabin as a crew room anymore) so basically I'm now s*****d both ways. I don't get any of the benefits yet my head is still on the block.
Also if BA pulls out of short haul europe how will it's remaining franchises fare. Will BA allow those franchises to take on some of the routes it couldn't make pay.
I would imagine not, because if those said franchises proceeded to make those routes pay BA would be left with a massive amount of egg on it's face which would expose it for what it is.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: mainfrog2 ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA needs to take a long hard look at why it is making shorthaul losses with full aircraft, while the low cost airlines pay more, charge less and still make profits. But as I've said before - it takes a lot to get a manager to admit he is surplus to requirement.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one who works for BA is well aware of the sad, ridiculous waste.
As an example, in the last six weeks they have even opened a new "quest" centre at Glasgow. (As an explanation for non BA staff this is a "flashy" facility where crews can learn languages, new skills, book holidays, use the training programmes etc).
This is an example of expenditure that contributes nothing to our flying programmme and nothing to our passenger service.
We need BA to concentrate on selling tickets and operating flights. Nothing else really contributes. [/b]
Personally, I'd like to see massive cuts in every non flying activity.
Looking at recent press coments ;
There are some benefits I'd argue for RE and his directors to "propogate" the myth, that they may choose to pull out of shorthaul.
I'd suggest that frightening shorthaul pilots/crews/staff, particularly at LGW and perhaps BHX, makes it easier for them to achieve the planned changes.
For example; The fear of losing ones job may destroy any "will to fight" BA's plans to carry out further transfers of work to franchise airlies. (obviously, if you are BA crew, in the long term this type of transfer will mean the end of your job)
Basically, I conclude that It won't be as bad as they might have us beleive.
(i) Shorthaul will stay.
(ii)Pax will start returning.
But lets get everyone to realise that crews want changes (NOW) to reduce the massive overheads of non productive BA staff/managers/directors.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: knows ]
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: knows ]
As an example, in the last six weeks they have even opened a new "quest" centre at Glasgow. (As an explanation for non BA staff this is a "flashy" facility where crews can learn languages, new skills, book holidays, use the training programmes etc).
This is an example of expenditure that contributes nothing to our flying programmme and nothing to our passenger service.
We need BA to concentrate on selling tickets and operating flights. Nothing else really contributes. [/b]
Personally, I'd like to see massive cuts in every non flying activity.
Looking at recent press coments ;
There are some benefits I'd argue for RE and his directors to "propogate" the myth, that they may choose to pull out of shorthaul.
I'd suggest that frightening shorthaul pilots/crews/staff, particularly at LGW and perhaps BHX, makes it easier for them to achieve the planned changes.
For example; The fear of losing ones job may destroy any "will to fight" BA's plans to carry out further transfers of work to franchise airlies. (obviously, if you are BA crew, in the long term this type of transfer will mean the end of your job)
Basically, I conclude that It won't be as bad as they might have us beleive.
(i) Shorthaul will stay.
(ii)Pax will start returning.
But lets get everyone to realise that crews want changes (NOW) to reduce the massive overheads of non productive BA staff/managers/directors.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: knows ]
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: knows ]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"British Airways is considering abandoning its loss-making shorthaul routes and consolidating as an intercontinental carrier"
This is a smoke screen... What they really mean is that will get rid of what they perceive to be expensive staff and transfer the routes to their "franchise" partners who by the way, are wholly owned subsidiarys.
Seems to me that they can have the same routes and the same revenue with cheap flying staff. I presume that even more management will be required to administer this "lean and mean operation"
Applications on sale at a lottery outlet near you..£50 a shot...Now that is how to make money out of shorthaul.
This is a smoke screen... What they really mean is that will get rid of what they perceive to be expensive staff and transfer the routes to their "franchise" partners who by the way, are wholly owned subsidiarys.
Seems to me that they can have the same routes and the same revenue with cheap flying staff. I presume that even more management will be required to administer this "lean and mean operation"
Applications on sale at a lottery outlet near you..£50 a shot...Now that is how to make money out of shorthaul.
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all fits in with a rumour I heard a few weeks ago - which was to give GB all of BA's B737 operation including its Pilots. Thus securing LGW/LHR slots and keeping the whole operation in-house.
All of these pilots will be placed onto GB's salary scale (I assume its lower!) with BA paying the remainder to make up the difference...another saving!!
Not sure what BALPA will think! But turns GB into a major player, making it one of the largest fleets in the UK overnight!
All of these pilots will be placed onto GB's salary scale (I assume its lower!) with BA paying the remainder to make up the difference...another saving!!
Not sure what BALPA will think! But turns GB into a major player, making it one of the largest fleets in the UK overnight!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA shorthaul is unfairly penalised at the expense of longhaul when they feed pax into the longhaul system. A passenger who flies shorthaul to LHR and then longhaul to BOS has the WHOLE of his fair credited to longhaul - shorthaul does not get 1 penny.
Depsite this, shorthaul is actually the most cost effective area of BA ops - it seems to be longhaul that loses the money.
So then, how bad will longhaul look when it is not getting that shorthaul money fed in as a subsidy?
Depsite this, shorthaul is actually the most cost effective area of BA ops - it seems to be longhaul that loses the money.
So then, how bad will longhaul look when it is not getting that shorthaul money fed in as a subsidy?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all rather ironic. Not too long ago BA had the opportunity of transferring routes to CityFlyer to try to make them profitable. Now one or two talk about GB doing it. Great idea, go for a non-wholly owned franchise instead of the subsidiary.
Unfortunately, Gatwick was always going to come under the microscope because EOG is such a disaster financially. There are multiple reasons for this, but ultimately BA had the chance to rectify the situation, decided not to, and then really blew it by effectively shutting CityFlyer down. Idiots.
My best wishes to all individuals who are concerned.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Papillon ]
Unfortunately, Gatwick was always going to come under the microscope because EOG is such a disaster financially. There are multiple reasons for this, but ultimately BA had the chance to rectify the situation, decided not to, and then really blew it by effectively shutting CityFlyer down. Idiots.
My best wishes to all individuals who are concerned.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Papillon ]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Citiexpress = 100% owned by BA.
BA take all profits/losses
Q. If BA are "abandoning shorthaul" and giving routes / slots to BACE(BA Citiflyer Express) how can they claim to be getting out of shorthaul.
BA are not getting out of shorthaul, they are manipulating the workforce to drive wages down. The words do not reflect the truth.
BA take all profits/losses
Q. If BA are "abandoning shorthaul" and giving routes / slots to BACE(BA Citiflyer Express) how can they claim to be getting out of shorthaul.
BA are not getting out of shorthaul, they are manipulating the workforce to drive wages down. The words do not reflect the truth.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Usually in a cockpit
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wondered how long it would be before Rod wheeled out the s*rew the pilots template - used so well on Air NZ and CX crews.
If you wish to know how it all pans out contact the HKAOA - CX Pilots association. Future steps will be explained on detail.
Best of luck everyone.
If you wish to know how it all pans out contact the HKAOA - CX Pilots association. Future steps will be explained on detail.
Best of luck everyone.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: london
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is panic management if this occurs for ba.Surely better to temporarily suspend some routes ,and battle on.
If ba continue like this it leaves little option for the serious business travellers across europe.
They will merely switch to lufthansa,air france ,klm,etc.
Plus these european routes feed the long haul flights and vice versa.
If ba continue like this it leaves little option for the serious business travellers across europe.
They will merely switch to lufthansa,air france ,klm,etc.
Plus these european routes feed the long haul flights and vice versa.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with many of the above posts.....and wonder how different Gatwick would now look had Rod not decided to shaft, sorry, INTEGRATE, CityFlyer last year.
Had September 11th happened first, they could have transferred many of the North Terminal EOG routes to CityFlyer (as Bob Ayling wanted to do) with a much reduced union backlash. CFE could have continued to run BA routes (aircraft size reduced from 737 to RJ100 on some routes), make a profit (even in the current climate given the CFE management), and feed some short-haul pax onto BA's long-haul flights.
The CFE integration was entirely driven by politics, and made very little business sense. Even halfway through the integration process, costs were rising dramatically, yield management on some CFE routes was losing the focus that CFE management had, and it was clear that the integration was going to be a financial disaster.
Yes, CFE had its problems, but nothing that couldn't have been resolved. BA could have had a nice little 'BA' operation at Gatwick, managed by a management team who were specialists in the LGW short-haul market, and totally focussed on this. I wonder if Rod is regretting the decision now???
Had September 11th happened first, they could have transferred many of the North Terminal EOG routes to CityFlyer (as Bob Ayling wanted to do) with a much reduced union backlash. CFE could have continued to run BA routes (aircraft size reduced from 737 to RJ100 on some routes), make a profit (even in the current climate given the CFE management), and feed some short-haul pax onto BA's long-haul flights.
The CFE integration was entirely driven by politics, and made very little business sense. Even halfway through the integration process, costs were rising dramatically, yield management on some CFE routes was losing the focus that CFE management had, and it was clear that the integration was going to be a financial disaster.
Yes, CFE had its problems, but nothing that couldn't have been resolved. BA could have had a nice little 'BA' operation at Gatwick, managed by a management team who were specialists in the LGW short-haul market, and totally focussed on this. I wonder if Rod is regretting the decision now???
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at it another way, it could be a way of keeping the flight and cabin crew, but forcing out the unnecessary management through actual transferral to BACE, or the threat of doing so.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am Brymon,now soon to be BA CitiExpress.I and a number of my collegues in the last 6 months have speculated that BA was "going back to it's roots" ie BOAC(Longhaul)& BEA(Shorthaul).Our suspicions were all but confirmed when after 11/09 it was announced that BAR was to be dissolved and merged with BACE.Is it a coincidence that the GFMO Brymon and now BACE was the GFMO BAR and was transfered to the job some 4-5 months before the annoucement of BACE?My guess(and it is only my guess)is that in the short term EOG will become part of BACE.What effect will this have on flight crews?Not a great deal I would imagine but management well thats another story!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone recall when the original merger took place in the early 70's?
Those chaps that dream up new liveries must be chomping at the bit. Will this be the demise of the "Chatham Dockyard" and a sooooper 21st century "Speedbird" logo!!
(Sure Bob Ayling still has an ethnic artists Tel. No.)
Those chaps that dream up new liveries must be chomping at the bit. Will this be the demise of the "Chatham Dockyard" and a sooooper 21st century "Speedbird" logo!!
(Sure Bob Ayling still has an ethnic artists Tel. No.)
