Gb Airways Meeting

[HORKA]

Rumours of an important meeting, including the big cheese from BALPA at GB HQ. Not SCOPE rearing its ugly head again?

Any one know ?

[Mouser]

Who or what is SCOPE

[Piltdown Man]

SCOPE is where another bunch of your colleagues (maybe same union) but working for a different employer puts the brakes on your progression, carear prospects, company's financial status because you can appear to provide a similar service for less cost than they can. I know about this because my Ring Piece is still healing.

[Mouser]

Hang on, I know little about your industry, but let me get this straight, are you saying that a Nice little Airline like GB are about to get shafted buy some union bloke.

[yachtno1]

Tell us more Piltdown !

[Carnage Matey!]

Alternatively, SCOPE is where a group of pilots meet with their employer and agree that another airline will not be permitted to fly routes with identical aircraft painted in identical colours that the first airline can profitably operate. This helps to prevent the original airline farming out it all it's flying, and by default its pilots jobs, to A.N.Other operator.

The other airline is at liberty to do any flying it wants to, unhindered by a SCOPE agreement, so long as they do it as a seperate corporate entity and not masquerading as the original airline.

[Mouser]

So does that mean BA pilots are going to try work it right up GB pilots.

[Re-Heat]

Alternatively, SCOPE is where a group of pilots meet with their employer and agree that another airline will not be permitted to fly routes with identical aircraft painted in identical colours that the first airline can profitably operate.

Or alternatively employee group A shafting shareholders of A and employee group B, where although profitable a greater profitability can be achieved by other means. Especially where company B is prepared to take the risk and increase the size of employee group B, while company A cannot afford investment. Meanwhile employee group A have some warped belief that they own logo A, which is in fact owned by the company and shareholders.

Management A meanwhile take a reasonable decision to try to expand the exposure of logo A by taking codeshare partners under their wing - so to speak. Expanding the presence of the brand in the market beyond where A could reasonably afford to operate, and where B holds greater information about the route market.

Finally company B grows so large under the SCOPE agreement, that it decides to shed the logo A, and move to operating as a successful indepedent entity, ultimately competing agianst the bloated higher cost base of company A, which never had the chance to come down to a reasonable size being protected from the market by the wonderful union. aaah - the wonders of the socialist union concept - defended to the hilt by Tory voting pilots...

Ironically the largest shareholders are fund managers, whom are largely owned by pension funds. Funny that - unions shaft UK plc, and ultimately their own pensions...

[ShortfinalFred]

Re- Heat = load of simplistic twaddle.

[Re-Heat]

So you want me to break into some full-blown free market economics?

What are your credentials to call it twaddle then? Member of the union? What a surprise.

[Carnage Matey!]

Then in ten years time employee group B discover that employer B has realised employee group C will do the job for half the price. Company B starts farming out work to employee group C, whilst employee group B see their career prospects and commands go down the tubes because by using employee group C company B can make fractionally more profit.

Moral of the story: there's always somebody who'll do it cheaper.

Meanwhile the bloated high cost base company A remains one of the most profitable airlines in the world and continues to operate several times the number of shorthaul aircraft company B do to a more diverse range of destinations with a feed to longhaul, established frequent flyer program and a huge customer base. Company B become a poor mans bmi and probably flog their LHR slots.

[Tandemrotor]

Fantastic

Here we go yet again!!!!

The truth is, there is no right or wrong, just two differing perspectives on the subject of 'scope'!

From my point of view, if it weren't for scope, what would stop the largest employers from consistently recycling flying jobs to the lowest bidder?

Anybody REALLY think that would be a GOOD thing for ANY pilot's terms and conditions??

The added complication is that airlines (BA in particular!) have been keen to 'expand' their brand by using franchises. In other businesses, I believe this situation may be akin to 'flags of convenience'!

As it happens, although I have no personal experience, it is entirely likely that GB provide a perfectly adequate version of the BA brand to the paying public. So if they can indeed "appear to provide a similar service for less cost" One has to ask:

Firstly, why they cost less?

And secondly, why they wish to be branded as BA at all?

Can't they survive as simply GB???? Can't they COMPETE with BA????

Anyway, don't panic, I'm sure the meeting had nothing to do with scope at all! And certainly nothing to do with GB filling the void at MAN left by the virtual withdrawl of BACX!!!

Edited to add:

Wow, I misssed out on a number of posts as I composed my response!! Mine looks a little out of date already!!!

All I can say is this: How do you think the people at BACX (a wholly owned BA subsidiary) would feel if the routes they have recently relinquished from MAN, are restarted by an independent company (GB) and immediately show a profit???

That has liitle (now) to do with scope. Do you think the guys at BACX will be happy? They worked very hard, and were certainly NOT paid a fortune! I ask again; is this a good thing for ANY pilot's T&Cs?

[Re-Heat]

Either way, if company A had been exposed to the market and not strong-armed by the union, the cost base would be appropriate and no company B and C situation would arise.

So what if someone will always do it cheaper - everyone has their own price, and you obtain enough staff to reach a market equilibrium. Company A is way above that equilibrium at the moment.

The truth is, there is no right or wrong, just two differing perspectives on the subject of 'scope'!

No - BA may be the most profitable, but it is sitting on a protected position in the most important financial capital in the world at the moment. Even then - if a greater profit can be made through company B - the shareholders are still being fleeced by the union whom prevent this element of greater profit.

Are you saying that you defend a cap on entrepreneurial spirit?

From my point of view, if it weren't for scope, what would stop the largest employers from consistently recycling flying jobs to the lowest bidder?

I nominate you to go down to the flying schools around the country and tell that to all the hardworking individuals who have decided to pay for their own training and have low bid rates on their labour. Of course the employer will employ at the market rate anyway - not the lowest rate on offer. Actually I can see it now - yield management for pilot labour - matching wages to the supply on an individual basis. I like it.

Tell me why you should not be exposed to the market if someone else is prepared to do it for less to the same level of skill?

Nice discussion chaps - apologies for hijacking the thread.

[Carnage Matey!]

No, you feel free to show your naivety anytime Re-Heat. I'm particularly intrigued by your suggestion that company has not been exposed to the market, given that it is exposed to competition on almost every route it operates from it's main base and further competition from other competitors operating from nearby airfields. Many of those competitors enjoy the benefit of state subsidies.

I'm also intrigued by what you consider to be a 'staff equilibrium'. Any particular group of staff your thinking about? How does subcontracting to company B help to achieve this staff equilibrium? Could it be that your idea sounds good but is in fact utterly meaningless?

How much profit do company B provide? What proportion of the overall company A group profit is that? Is it more than company A stands to lose with the loss of goodwill from its staff.

Company B can be as entrepeneurial as they like. They just have to do it on their own.

As you are so keen on market economics then perhaps you'd appreciate that scope is an ideal model of market economics. BA need a large body of pilots to fly their fleet. The incumbent body offer to continue flying on their current rates subject to an exclusive contract. Anybody on the market can come along and underbid and BA will have no problem operating their fleet.

Now if you want wages matched to supply I'll be the first to support it. Given that BA can't get hold of any type rated 747 or 777 pilots andthey're struggling to find 320 rated pilots I'll be loooking forward to the pay rise. Obviously missed the bits about wages going up by 20% in Asia and Emirates needing 1000 more 777 pilots.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

I'm really getting a bit tired of all this....I happen to work for GB which is a great little company to work for. We all know that without the BA franchise, the company wouldn't be in the position that it is. However, I do think that we offer a product that meets the standards that BA set - in fact we take great pride in the service we provide. It's a 2-way street - we enjoy the benefits of being under the BA flag and BA enjoy the expanded route network and extra connecting pax that we provide (win/win?) There are places we go to that mainline would never touch and we're not looking to "take jobs away" from our colleagues at mainline.

There's enough competition out there without all this infighting.....I bet they're having a good old chuckle every time this one rears it's head!

[Tandemrotor]

Hi Re-Heat

I could probably agree with you on a number of issues.

And I wouldn't wish to see a "cap on entrepreneurial spirit"

So any time GB wants to sell tickets to passengers as 'GB', and not 'BA', I think you will find many people would be very happy to see customers make their choices accordingly!

Just a thought. When your representatives are involved in negotiations to 'improve' your T&Cs, however do they justify it???

If you are GB (or indeed any of the franchises) I believe you probably already do better than your competition!

Will you just wait for the 'flying school desperate' to catch up???

Edited (once again!) to add

Scarlet Pimpernel

Excellent post! Let's have a beer!

[Carnage Matey!]

A quick look at Re-Heats profile reveals he's an accountant. Perhaps we should have guessed! What was that about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing? No doubt if he ever gets his ATPL he'll be squealing about how unfair it is that he can't pay back his loans because all the jobs available then pay peanuts.

[LatviaCalling]

GB

Having flown GB at least umpteen time, I can say that their service and attention to passenges far surpasses BA. As far as booking on line, the GB site will automatically switch you over to BA.

[Tandemrotor]

LatviaCalling

If I were to entirely agree with you, that "their service and attention to passenges far surpasses BA"

Wouldn't you agree that it is time for them to capitalise on their superior service, and continue without the BA umbrella?? What would they have to lose? They are a WHOLLY separate company! Let the passengers have their free choice.

Re Heat

You appear to imply that BA's inflated cost base is entirely due to their pilots productivity, or salaries. What if someone were to say to you that pilots in BA (by and large) accept that BA's cost base is indeed too high, but don't see pilots T&Cs as being out of step with market rate???

Indeed pilots have recently subjected themselves to a 'benchmarking' process with other similar airlines, and compare favourably on pay, and are exceptional in terms of productivity!

Sadly, other areas of the business do not, and are not!!!

[Re-Heat]

You appear to imply that BA's inflated cost base is entirely due to their pilots productivity, or salaries. What if someone were to say to you that pilots in BA (by and large) accept that BA's cost base is indeed too high, but don't see pilots T&Cs as being out of step with market rate???

On the contrary, however a union prevents the flexibility required of a business. This was a discussion about scope - something forced on the company by the pilot's union, therefore some justification to direct such blame on BA pilots is therefore in order.

As you are so keen on market economics then perhaps you'd appreciate that scope is an ideal model of market economics. BA need a large body of pilots to fly their fleet. The incumbent body offer to continue flying on their current rates subject to an exclusive contract. Anybody on the market can come along and underbid and BA will have no problem operating their fleet.

Hardly ideal if it is ongoing and has no expiry being renewed each pay deal. Exclusive contracts normally last only a short set period. Scope is enduring with each and every pay deal. Not sure how you can justify it as being ideal liberalised market economics.

We are all well aware of the shortage of longhaul widebody experienced staff globally. I think the focus was somewhat on the scope restricting the franchises, so that is somewhat off point