Report on Go in the Mail on Sunday
Guest
Posts: n/a
Report on Go in the Mail on Sunday
Interesting report on Barbara Cassani and Go in the Financial Mail on Sunday.
The main points were:
Go’s 750 staff, based mainly at Stansted, are celebrating the sell-off by BA “by picking up share options and are in line for hundreds of pounds each under a profit sharing deal after Go announced a pre-tax profit of £4million.”
The airline “seems likely to be floated on the stock market in two years”. Mrs Cassani is “confident that Go could raise close to £1billion when it comes to the stock market.”
More staff are to be recruited, “taking the payroll to 1,000 next year.” More bases are planned and more routes in Europe.
“A decision on whether to buy additional 737s or switch to Airbus will have to be taken in a couple of years”, says Mrs Cassani.
She is also confident about undercutting BA even though her former bosses have slashed fares on 80 European routes.
[This message has been edited by Stan Sted (edited 25 June 2001).]
The main points were:
Go’s 750 staff, based mainly at Stansted, are celebrating the sell-off by BA “by picking up share options and are in line for hundreds of pounds each under a profit sharing deal after Go announced a pre-tax profit of £4million.”
The airline “seems likely to be floated on the stock market in two years”. Mrs Cassani is “confident that Go could raise close to £1billion when it comes to the stock market.”
More staff are to be recruited, “taking the payroll to 1,000 next year.” More bases are planned and more routes in Europe.
“A decision on whether to buy additional 737s or switch to Airbus will have to be taken in a couple of years”, says Mrs Cassani.
She is also confident about undercutting BA even though her former bosses have slashed fares on 80 European routes.
[This message has been edited by Stan Sted (edited 25 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
With £4 million profit this year in the fastest growing airline sector I regret to say M Jenkins - not for a long long time.
Cheers now,
WWW
ps if the Barbie comment is a pop at the Boss then take a hike mate - she's shrewd, talented and well respected by the crews which is a *lot* more than most airlines.
Cheers now,
WWW
ps if the Barbie comment is a pop at the Boss then take a hike mate - she's shrewd, talented and well respected by the crews which is a *lot* more than most airlines.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hassel, the management buyout at GO has been completed, and amongst "the 19" as they are known, (including one or two favoured but unimportant department heads) there is not one pilot amongst them - even the Chief Pilot was not considered important enough to be cut-in on the deal!
This speaks volumes about how the flight crews are regarded at GO, and imho is the real reason that JM resigned.
This speaks volumes about how the flight crews are regarded at GO, and imho is the real reason that JM resigned.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Max,
Who's regarded as "Senior Management" then?
Personally I put the CP in that catagory! And has been at every airline i've worked for.
Scottie,
Try www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk
Who's regarded as "Senior Management" then?
Personally I put the CP in that catagory! And has been at every airline i've worked for.
Scottie,
Try www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk
Guest
Posts: n/a
Indeed Unicom, and the facts are that I now take home more money, work less hard, have huge opportunities to fully develop both my flying and IT roles....... to stay nothing of getting driven out to the steps at the aircraft, provided with food, and based at LGW (30 miles from home, rather than 86) - so ultimately a real 'no brainer' of a decision to make as to which career opportunity was best for me (to say nothing of the writing being on the wall w.r.t to Go many many moons ago), i.e. look after number one !
But don’t get me wrong, I've a huge amount to thank all those who were (and many who still are) at Go for, e.g. the opportunities, guidance, truly excellent training, and camaraderie; Nb. when I say this I'm mostly referring to the 'front-line' troops.
Aside of this, and imho of course, I still reckon that the vast majority of folks (pilots / cabin crew / office workers / etc) at Go have been shafted for their efforts. Indeed, and for those who've worked themselves into an early grave to make Go into what it is today, I'm sure that you'll rest comfortably with the fact that your tireless efforts have nicely feathered the nests of "the 19".
Now could somebody please remind me of the originally stated 'Go values' ?
Ps. One of them used to be 'Open and Honest' !
But don’t get me wrong, I've a huge amount to thank all those who were (and many who still are) at Go for, e.g. the opportunities, guidance, truly excellent training, and camaraderie; Nb. when I say this I'm mostly referring to the 'front-line' troops.
Aside of this, and imho of course, I still reckon that the vast majority of folks (pilots / cabin crew / office workers / etc) at Go have been shafted for their efforts. Indeed, and for those who've worked themselves into an early grave to make Go into what it is today, I'm sure that you'll rest comfortably with the fact that your tireless efforts have nicely feathered the nests of "the 19".
Now could somebody please remind me of the originally stated 'Go values' ?
Ps. One of them used to be 'Open and Honest' !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well hassel, I'm fairly sure that I've a good handle on both the history and actualities of what's gone on, i.e. having worked closely with both the people mentioned above, during my time at Go (and I still do, in our new roles 
), I feel that I'm reasonably qualified contribute the benefit of my experience - now your background w.r.t any of this is ......... ?
Ps. hence the edit...... and I wasn't so much defending myself, as trying to promote the fact that 'rose tinted glasses' might have been a tadge too prevalent in the Go / employee relationship and that discarding of same said visual encumbrances might now be a wise idea.
[This message has been edited by Puritan (edited 29 June 2001).]
), I feel that I'm reasonably qualified contribute the benefit of my experience - now your background w.r.t any of this is ......... ?Ps. hence the edit...... and I wasn't so much defending myself, as trying to promote the fact that 'rose tinted glasses' might have been a tadge too prevalent in the Go / employee relationship and that discarding of same said visual encumbrances might now be a wise idea.
[This message has been edited by Puritan (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
WWW, once you have a bit more time in the real world maybe you will see that figures can be massaged and not all is what it seems.
I don't want to blunt your enthusiasm nor suggest that anything is wrong at go, but don't forget that pride comes before a fall.
(Edited due to cr@p spelling)
[This message has been edited by autobrakemedium (edited 29 June 2001).]
I don't want to blunt your enthusiasm nor suggest that anything is wrong at go, but don't forget that pride comes before a fall.
(Edited due to cr@p spelling)
[This message has been edited by autobrakemedium (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't work for Go but regargless of who owns what and how much money X makes over Y the real test is did they make a loss ?
If they , whoever that company might be, breaks even, no one loses their job. No pilots. cabin crew or engineers on the dole.
So lets get real, if you want to knock go ahead, but there are a whole bunch of us who are happy that GO, Ryan, Easy and even Big Airwyas are succesfull because it keeps us in jobs. Id rather work for GO than be on the dole. Wouldn't you ?
PZ xcus mi speling
[This message has been edited by PaulDeGearup (edited 01 July 2001).]
If they , whoever that company might be, breaks even, no one loses their job. No pilots. cabin crew or engineers on the dole.
So lets get real, if you want to knock go ahead, but there are a whole bunch of us who are happy that GO, Ryan, Easy and even Big Airwyas are succesfull because it keeps us in jobs. Id rather work for GO than be on the dole. Wouldn't you ?
PZ xcus mi speling
[This message has been edited by PaulDeGearup (edited 01 July 2001).]
