BA - 1800 jobs to go this year
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: germany
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopBunk said:
I work at Frankfurt. Lufthansa Sky Chefs, Lufthansa Leos (GSE and MT) and Lufthansa Technik are all operated as separate companies from the main airline. Now, whether those staff are included in the "per airframe" headcount, I don't know but I doubt it.
Fact: A team of 4 LH engineers will get two longhaul turnrounds to do in an 8 hour shift.
Fact: There are numerous Transit vans parked all over FRA with sleeping Lufty engineers, every day.
Fact: If they're not sleeping in the vans, they're kipping on the upper deck of Thai and SAA jumbos.
Fact: LH are in deep **** with JAR 66 licensing. They (and Condor) currently have loads of subbies penning their a/c off at 40 quid an hour.
Every day when I look at LH I wonder how they ever make *any* money.
I also have intimate experience (ooh er missus!) of United. Sheesh, what a bloody shower.....
have 250+ employees per aircraft in comparison to DLH et al of 220-ish, who by the way, still retain the aforementioned functions plus others in-house.
Fact: A team of 4 LH engineers will get two longhaul turnrounds to do in an 8 hour shift.
Fact: There are numerous Transit vans parked all over FRA with sleeping Lufty engineers, every day.
Fact: If they're not sleeping in the vans, they're kipping on the upper deck of Thai and SAA jumbos.
Fact: LH are in deep **** with JAR 66 licensing. They (and Condor) currently have loads of subbies penning their a/c off at 40 quid an hour.
Every day when I look at LH I wonder how they ever make *any* money.
I also have intimate experience (ooh er missus!) of United. Sheesh, what a bloody shower.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I know of several pilots who would take voluntary redundancy now if it were offered . I'm one and my co pilot today is another but the fact is we are needed and we are cheap . The airline is downsizing in terms of no of seats but not in no of a/c so it needs the same no of pilots and come to think of it engineers .
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all this talk of 250+ crew per aircraft at BA, have any of you borne in mind the huge numbers of people at BA that are on part-time contracts?
There is a huge amount of crew on 33,50,75% and jobshare contracts, also a number of crew involved in training,promotions, recruitment,And countless other off-flying duty tasks.
If you were a cabin crew member onboard, you certainly wouldn't feel that the operation is overcrewed.
There are many other worldwide airlines in a much worse position at the moment ,so this is not a unique situation to BA.
It was only mentioned today,that this time 7 years ago, in a time of high profits, there were 1000's less managers/suits , so where are they going wrong?
There is a huge amount of crew on 33,50,75% and jobshare contracts, also a number of crew involved in training,promotions, recruitment,And countless other off-flying duty tasks.
If you were a cabin crew member onboard, you certainly wouldn't feel that the operation is overcrewed.
There are many other worldwide airlines in a much worse position at the moment ,so this is not a unique situation to BA.
It was only mentioned today,that this time 7 years ago, in a time of high profits, there were 1000's less managers/suits , so where are they going wrong?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know BA senior managers read this stuff. Please, tell me, why oh why are these cuts being targeted at front line staff? Please, I know you're reading this. Tell me your reasoning, and maybe we'll all be enlightened and shut up!
I can't believe Rod can look at the airline and think it needs to cut frontliners instead of the endless "managers". Everyone I know, including city types, thinks it needs staff cuts from the backroom people who don't so directly affect the passengers experience, not the frontline staff. The vast majority of people I know who have flown with BA think the service is great - this is the thing that distinguishes it from other airlines - so why cut into that advantage.
I seriously wonder about the sanity of some people in charge. Madness.
I can't believe Rod can look at the airline and think it needs to cut frontliners instead of the endless "managers". Everyone I know, including city types, thinks it needs staff cuts from the backroom people who don't so directly affect the passengers experience, not the frontline staff. The vast majority of people I know who have flown with BA think the service is great - this is the thing that distinguishes it from other airlines - so why cut into that advantage.
I seriously wonder about the sanity of some people in charge. Madness.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple fact of the matter is that BA is not making a profit from all its bases or markets. Yes the North Atlantic Premium Class makes plenty of profit but lets face it a lot of you are flying aircraft which generate absolutely no money at all.
Now tell me which is most useful to the company a pilot who flies an aircraft which makes a loss or a suit who does nothing of any value to the organisation?
I'm sure you'll agree that in the long run neither have any future in a business as competitive as this is becoming.
That is why the cuts will affect everyone this time.
Desk pilot
[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Desk-pilot ]
Now tell me which is most useful to the company a pilot who flies an aircraft which makes a loss or a suit who does nothing of any value to the organisation?
I'm sure you'll agree that in the long run neither have any future in a business as competitive as this is becoming.
That is why the cuts will affect everyone this time.
Desk pilot
[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Desk-pilot ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has it occured to anyone that this just might be an attempt by BA to scare the pilots in the run up to the hefty wage talks?
It seems like the perfect way to turn the shareholders and consequently the public against 'greedy' and 'overpaid' pilots!!!
PS2000.
It seems like the perfect way to turn the shareholders and consequently the public against 'greedy' and 'overpaid' pilots!!!
PS2000.
I can't believe how introspective some of you are. Take a look around you boys and girls. Air Canada and NorthWest are downsizing. Continental are retiring their DC-10 fleet to the desert. FeDex and DHL are delaying new aircraft deliveries. Airbus and Boeing are reducing future aircraft delivery forecasts. etc, etc.....
The fact is that there is an economic downturn. When such a downturn occurs revenues fall, in whatever part of aviation your business is concentrated.
So when revenues fall, how do you protect the bottom line? Easy - reduce costs! And, as we all know, the quickest and easiest way to drive costs out of the business is to reduce headcount. It's a route Chief Executives have taken, are taking and will continue to take as long as we have economic cycles.
The nub is where to take out the heads, but then that's over to you Mr Eddington.
The fact is that there is an economic downturn. When such a downturn occurs revenues fall, in whatever part of aviation your business is concentrated.
So when revenues fall, how do you protect the bottom line? Easy - reduce costs! And, as we all know, the quickest and easiest way to drive costs out of the business is to reduce headcount. It's a route Chief Executives have taken, are taking and will continue to take as long as we have economic cycles.
The nub is where to take out the heads, but then that's over to you Mr Eddington.
This shouldn't really shock anyone at BA. Was it not their own newspaper reporting a cut in profits quite recently which is normally a signal that there is more to follow.
As BA have stated there intent to concentrate on the 'premier' end of the travel sector, the need for less cabin staff is certainly one area for staff reduction.
Don't get me wrong, I always try to fly BA where possible as they have a brilliant route network, if not their own then one of their partners. I have always found the staff helpful and cheerful and I hope that any reductions needed can be made without compulsory redundancies.
Good luck to the staff at BA
As BA have stated there intent to concentrate on the 'premier' end of the travel sector, the need for less cabin staff is certainly one area for staff reduction.
Don't get me wrong, I always try to fly BA where possible as they have a brilliant route network, if not their own then one of their partners. I have always found the staff helpful and cheerful and I hope that any reductions needed can be made without compulsory redundancies.
Good luck to the staff at BA
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desk Pilot,
I think you can probably tell from the comments of my fellow pilots that many of us are SO frustrated with the waste of time and money on 2nd or 3rd line staff. Why do we need a Community education Centre at waterWorld with its attendant 'tutors'? Why do we need 'Sustainable Resources Education Executives'? the answer is we don't. We have far, far too many people in BA who do not contribute directly to the job. In case you or your colleagues have forgotten, we are an airline and we aim to fly people from A to B and make money from it. Anything else is irrelevant. We are not a computer company; so let's bin IT/IM or whatever they're called this week and outsource that work (they do enough outsourcing themselves already and it means we can get rid of X thousand salaried staff who cost extra with their 1st class staff travel). We are not a school, nor publishing company; so can the Ed Centres and BA News. I think we can safely say that consultancy agants can go and likewise the hundreds of buyers and purveyors of pencils etc. I could go on and on and on and what wouldn't I give for a few hours of Rod's time and a tour around the company to show him where we can save millions.
It's not all Water World and we know that, but that's where most of the waste is. I further suggest that CSDs are binned from shorthaul aircraft and, since CSDs are, allegedly, being paid extra money to write cabin crew assessments and perform their 'Senior Manager On Board' duties, lets get rid of the MCSessessess. There is scope to reduce the number of cabin crew, but not too much, for very good reasons: (a) thye are required by law according to the number of people capable of being carried, so that puts a definite limit on the big scheme, but more importantly (b)they are front line staff and help make us money. They are as vital to us being an airline as the aircraft themselves, so we shouldn't be looking at too many going there. All that having been said, it's going to be the responsibility of Cabin services to take a long and hard look at all the sickies and no-show commuters etc and put them on the pile of 'not required'.
Engineers. Well I'm shocked at the numbers they reckon are going to have to go. As far as I can tell, that is one dept that is already cut back too much already. If the aircraft can't fly, we can't make money and I reckon we already have too much difficulty trying to get snags sorted when the birds are on the ground and these people are tearing around.
And so, you'll be pleased to know, to the pilots. Well, there isn't an airline without us, unlike 98% of Water World and no matter whether you like that or not, it's the truth. With a certain number of aircraft flying a certain number of routes and, given the limitations on how many hours they can fly, their is a finite number of pilots required. I genuinely don't know how many people we are under/over staffed but judging by the massive recruitment going on at the moment I would estimate being under staffed (especially if you look at my roster). We have got So many people leaving soon that the point is almost not worth writing about. Needless to say, I believe we can make savings and one of the first is to get all the pilot managers out from behind their desks and do the job they joined BA to do-fly aircraft (in case they'd forgotten). A little bird tells me that recruitment is going to come to a very sharp grinding halt in the next few days...well, for DEPs at least...so that should give the 'Executives' as all at Water World are called something to grin about during their next Feng Shui meeting over coffee by the river.
And so, to my solution:
* Huge cuts in non front line staff
* Outsource jobs that are not directly related to flying aicraft and bin the staff
* Bring the routes back into BA proper and stop mucking around with GB/BMed/CitiExpress etc. They do a good job and are great people, but it's not BA and that's what we should be looking at
* Do it NOW and not wait until people can re-invent their positions/titles and remain a waste of time and money
* Sell Waterside and rellocate the sliimed down workforce to the Compost Heap and if they don't fit, then it's off the Newcastle or somewhere similar where it doesn't cost God knows how many millions to sustain a London property.
Here endeth the lesson according to Pontius.
Pontius
Oh, PS: If 'they' think this is going to stop me going on strike to sort out our pay deal they've got another thing coming.
I think you can probably tell from the comments of my fellow pilots that many of us are SO frustrated with the waste of time and money on 2nd or 3rd line staff. Why do we need a Community education Centre at waterWorld with its attendant 'tutors'? Why do we need 'Sustainable Resources Education Executives'? the answer is we don't. We have far, far too many people in BA who do not contribute directly to the job. In case you or your colleagues have forgotten, we are an airline and we aim to fly people from A to B and make money from it. Anything else is irrelevant. We are not a computer company; so let's bin IT/IM or whatever they're called this week and outsource that work (they do enough outsourcing themselves already and it means we can get rid of X thousand salaried staff who cost extra with their 1st class staff travel). We are not a school, nor publishing company; so can the Ed Centres and BA News. I think we can safely say that consultancy agants can go and likewise the hundreds of buyers and purveyors of pencils etc. I could go on and on and on and what wouldn't I give for a few hours of Rod's time and a tour around the company to show him where we can save millions.
It's not all Water World and we know that, but that's where most of the waste is. I further suggest that CSDs are binned from shorthaul aircraft and, since CSDs are, allegedly, being paid extra money to write cabin crew assessments and perform their 'Senior Manager On Board' duties, lets get rid of the MCSessessess. There is scope to reduce the number of cabin crew, but not too much, for very good reasons: (a) thye are required by law according to the number of people capable of being carried, so that puts a definite limit on the big scheme, but more importantly (b)they are front line staff and help make us money. They are as vital to us being an airline as the aircraft themselves, so we shouldn't be looking at too many going there. All that having been said, it's going to be the responsibility of Cabin services to take a long and hard look at all the sickies and no-show commuters etc and put them on the pile of 'not required'.
Engineers. Well I'm shocked at the numbers they reckon are going to have to go. As far as I can tell, that is one dept that is already cut back too much already. If the aircraft can't fly, we can't make money and I reckon we already have too much difficulty trying to get snags sorted when the birds are on the ground and these people are tearing around.
And so, you'll be pleased to know, to the pilots. Well, there isn't an airline without us, unlike 98% of Water World and no matter whether you like that or not, it's the truth. With a certain number of aircraft flying a certain number of routes and, given the limitations on how many hours they can fly, their is a finite number of pilots required. I genuinely don't know how many people we are under/over staffed but judging by the massive recruitment going on at the moment I would estimate being under staffed (especially if you look at my roster). We have got So many people leaving soon that the point is almost not worth writing about. Needless to say, I believe we can make savings and one of the first is to get all the pilot managers out from behind their desks and do the job they joined BA to do-fly aircraft (in case they'd forgotten). A little bird tells me that recruitment is going to come to a very sharp grinding halt in the next few days...well, for DEPs at least...so that should give the 'Executives' as all at Water World are called something to grin about during their next Feng Shui meeting over coffee by the river.
And so, to my solution:
* Huge cuts in non front line staff
* Outsource jobs that are not directly related to flying aicraft and bin the staff
* Bring the routes back into BA proper and stop mucking around with GB/BMed/CitiExpress etc. They do a good job and are great people, but it's not BA and that's what we should be looking at
* Do it NOW and not wait until people can re-invent their positions/titles and remain a waste of time and money
* Sell Waterside and rellocate the sliimed down workforce to the Compost Heap and if they don't fit, then it's off the Newcastle or somewhere similar where it doesn't cost God knows how many millions to sustain a London property.
Here endeth the lesson according to Pontius.
Pontius
Oh, PS: If 'they' think this is going to stop me going on strike to sort out our pay deal they've got another thing coming.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to correct to some of the figures mentioned above let me point out a few facts that I think a few people have been getting confused about.
Operating Profit is just that, the profit made on your operations and does not include profit/loss on acuqisitions or disposals.
For a full description try the BA web site
http://www.bashares.com/fininfo/2001.../q12001fin.doc
Rather than a full post let me try to show some basic figures for the 3 months up to June in the years 2001 and 2000. (millions)
Total Turnover 2,297 2,310
Expenditure 2,247 2,213
-------------------------------
Operating Profit 50 97
See how the operating figure has been halved. This is an important figure as it shows how well BA's actual operation is performing. The sale of GO is NOT included.
Now to add a few more points including
Profit/(loss) on sale of fixed assets and investments, interest net payable, and charges on currency borrowings:
P&L on disposals 92 (58)
Interest (81) (70)
Currency (23) (19)
----------------------------------
Total P/L b4 tax 40 (50)
So in summary, the operating profit has been halved.
But profit b4 tax has risen from a 50 mill loss to a 40 mill profit due to the Profit/(loss) on sale of fixed assets and investments.
Hope this helps.
Operating Profit is just that, the profit made on your operations and does not include profit/loss on acuqisitions or disposals.
For a full description try the BA web site
http://www.bashares.com/fininfo/2001.../q12001fin.doc
Rather than a full post let me try to show some basic figures for the 3 months up to June in the years 2001 and 2000. (millions)
Total Turnover 2,297 2,310
Expenditure 2,247 2,213
-------------------------------
Operating Profit 50 97
See how the operating figure has been halved. This is an important figure as it shows how well BA's actual operation is performing. The sale of GO is NOT included.
Now to add a few more points including
Profit/(loss) on sale of fixed assets and investments, interest net payable, and charges on currency borrowings:
P&L on disposals 92 (58)
Interest (81) (70)
Currency (23) (19)
----------------------------------
Total P/L b4 tax 40 (50)
So in summary, the operating profit has been halved.
But profit b4 tax has risen from a 50 mill loss to a 40 mill profit due to the Profit/(loss) on sale of fixed assets and investments.
Hope this helps.
,
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Silly Cone Valley
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not for this first time, I find myself in complete agreement with Pontious.
When Mrs Roobarb told me yesterday that 18,000 jobs would be going at BA, I thought right, at long last Bonzer Rod has taken the bit between his teeth and we’re off. Finally we’ve taken the problem by the throat and decided on clear direct action to turn this company around.
Unfortunately, she’d got it wrong and so has Rod. The figure of 1800 is a sop to the company’s critics in the city and elsewhere, and the ‘across the board’ nature is a sop to the vulnerable staff groupings. Such action is woefully inadequate, and by attacking the front line customer service personnel and operational functions will directly impact on the quality of the service we provide to our customers.
Desk Pilot, you say that your colleagues are seeing passenger numbers fall whilst pilots and cabin crew numbers increase – there is a very good reason for that. Because of the company’s failure to plan for the future in the last 20 years, we are having to recruit heavily to replace retiring staff in a market where such people are at a premium. An entirely avoidable position. The reason that passenger numbers are falling is because the company told all the economy passengers that they were no longer wanted, and the company decided to buy small aeroplanes so that we cannot fly any more passengers. An entirely avoidable position. We are also having to address the crass policy of the Ailing one which contracted out all essential functions whilst developing Feng Shui Marketing and Aromatic IT departments in house in a brand new corporate palace built on a rubbish dump. This failure to focus on the mission has left us with twice the number of the wrong staff. An entirely avoidable position.
The assertion that somehow all departments must share the grief is simply wrongheaded. Why must we cut down on ESSENTIAL engineering, dispatch, customer service and crew numbers, when they are PRECISELY the people who we need to reinforce the quality of the product to the premium passengers that we seek to fill our toy aeroplanes? Why am I told that we mustn’t point the finger of blame at individual departments, when if those people had worked for the Lord Protector, they would be swinging from the Compass Centre by their own mouse?
How did we end up with hundreds of nefarious management staff in Waterworld, or more frequently working from home, for whom there is little structure to their employment and still less performance accountability? Having spoken to some of these individuals, it is clear that they are so disconnected from the customer that they cannot hope to deliver a product that our customers would want to buy. That’s how we ended up with ‘deli-bags’. In the vacuum of Waterworld, the management is simply incapable of maintaining an accurate view of the market and our position in it. Such decisions must be taken by those who know our customers, those who work with hundreds of them every day.
I’m sorry that people will necessarily lose their jobs, but we simply do not have the luxury of keeping some of the ridiculous job functions that you can read about in the middle pages of Pravda. Many of these people do not see BA as a lifetime career, and so will simply go on to ‘Director of Aromatherapy, Amalgamated Widgets plc’, it’s just another job to them. Motivated by nothing other than meeting their nominated targets for the year to achieve their personal bonus, these people run unhindered and unsupervised with little interest in the commercial impact of their efforts, and escape the consequences financially. Rest assured that they will not’ feel the pain’.
For the benefit of those who have committed themselves to this company and have invested all of their professional life in its future, it’s time for us to leave this disastrous management experiment behind and return to profitability. We need to provide the best possible product, safely, smoothly, on time, and with their bags. Anybody who is not directly involved in that task should form part of that 1800, and should make up the bulk of the thousands of others who are riding the gravy train at our expense.
When Mrs Roobarb told me yesterday that 18,000 jobs would be going at BA, I thought right, at long last Bonzer Rod has taken the bit between his teeth and we’re off. Finally we’ve taken the problem by the throat and decided on clear direct action to turn this company around.
Unfortunately, she’d got it wrong and so has Rod. The figure of 1800 is a sop to the company’s critics in the city and elsewhere, and the ‘across the board’ nature is a sop to the vulnerable staff groupings. Such action is woefully inadequate, and by attacking the front line customer service personnel and operational functions will directly impact on the quality of the service we provide to our customers.
Desk Pilot, you say that your colleagues are seeing passenger numbers fall whilst pilots and cabin crew numbers increase – there is a very good reason for that. Because of the company’s failure to plan for the future in the last 20 years, we are having to recruit heavily to replace retiring staff in a market where such people are at a premium. An entirely avoidable position. The reason that passenger numbers are falling is because the company told all the economy passengers that they were no longer wanted, and the company decided to buy small aeroplanes so that we cannot fly any more passengers. An entirely avoidable position. We are also having to address the crass policy of the Ailing one which contracted out all essential functions whilst developing Feng Shui Marketing and Aromatic IT departments in house in a brand new corporate palace built on a rubbish dump. This failure to focus on the mission has left us with twice the number of the wrong staff. An entirely avoidable position.
The assertion that somehow all departments must share the grief is simply wrongheaded. Why must we cut down on ESSENTIAL engineering, dispatch, customer service and crew numbers, when they are PRECISELY the people who we need to reinforce the quality of the product to the premium passengers that we seek to fill our toy aeroplanes? Why am I told that we mustn’t point the finger of blame at individual departments, when if those people had worked for the Lord Protector, they would be swinging from the Compass Centre by their own mouse?
How did we end up with hundreds of nefarious management staff in Waterworld, or more frequently working from home, for whom there is little structure to their employment and still less performance accountability? Having spoken to some of these individuals, it is clear that they are so disconnected from the customer that they cannot hope to deliver a product that our customers would want to buy. That’s how we ended up with ‘deli-bags’. In the vacuum of Waterworld, the management is simply incapable of maintaining an accurate view of the market and our position in it. Such decisions must be taken by those who know our customers, those who work with hundreds of them every day.
I’m sorry that people will necessarily lose their jobs, but we simply do not have the luxury of keeping some of the ridiculous job functions that you can read about in the middle pages of Pravda. Many of these people do not see BA as a lifetime career, and so will simply go on to ‘Director of Aromatherapy, Amalgamated Widgets plc’, it’s just another job to them. Motivated by nothing other than meeting their nominated targets for the year to achieve their personal bonus, these people run unhindered and unsupervised with little interest in the commercial impact of their efforts, and escape the consequences financially. Rest assured that they will not’ feel the pain’.
For the benefit of those who have committed themselves to this company and have invested all of their professional life in its future, it’s time for us to leave this disastrous management experiment behind and return to profitability. We need to provide the best possible product, safely, smoothly, on time, and with their bags. Anybody who is not directly involved in that task should form part of that 1800, and should make up the bulk of the thousands of others who are riding the gravy train at our expense.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the twilight zone
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well said Pontius - I would so love to send your reply to Rod himself (& not via any sort of chain of command to get sanitised) & see what his reply would be.
Do you fancy a job running BA?
Do you fancy a job running BA?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrey
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting that deskpilot and others see a reduction in the pilot numbers as part of the solution. Whenever this has been tried in the past it has always led to loads of drafting to cover the operation, and given us a better result than any pay deal.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roobarb,
Just thought I'd prolong the mutual appreciation society and congratulate you on a sound and intelligent message.
Wow,
Run the airline......Mmmmm. I once stayed awake for a long time one night thinking about the changes I'd make. I wouldn't be popular but I reckon I could get us out of a lot of the problems Bob invented for us.
I have to admit, I'm quite disappointed in Rod, so far. It's a good idea to get into a new position and take stock, rather than change everything immediately, but has anyone noticed him do anything yet? A bit of KLM & AA resurrection and that's it. What are we paying this one for I wonder. I just wish he'd stop faffing and get on with it (using Mrs Roobarb's head chopping count).
Toodle pip,
Pontius
Just thought I'd prolong the mutual appreciation society and congratulate you on a sound and intelligent message.
Wow,
Run the airline......Mmmmm. I once stayed awake for a long time one night thinking about the changes I'd make. I wouldn't be popular but I reckon I could get us out of a lot of the problems Bob invented for us.
I have to admit, I'm quite disappointed in Rod, so far. It's a good idea to get into a new position and take stock, rather than change everything immediately, but has anyone noticed him do anything yet? A bit of KLM & AA resurrection and that's it. What are we paying this one for I wonder. I just wish he'd stop faffing and get on with it (using Mrs Roobarb's head chopping count).
Toodle pip,
Pontius
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an aside, I flew in this morning with BA from the US and the poor mood of the cabin crew was very noticeable... even though they weren't exactly busy, with Club only 30% full... I couldn't figure out why, thought I'd just got a particularly stroppy bunch, until I read the papers on arrival.
BA has made huge strides forward in its customer service over the last three years and, as everyone here seems to agree, is the most consistent and reliable airline in the world today. It would be a great shame if BA were now to copy the flawed strategy of Delta, circa 1990-2000, in cost-cutting its way out of the customer satisfaction game.
BA has made huge strides forward in its customer service over the last three years and, as everyone here seems to agree, is the most consistent and reliable airline in the world today. It would be a great shame if BA were now to copy the flawed strategy of Delta, circa 1990-2000, in cost-cutting its way out of the customer satisfaction game.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius/Rhubarb,
I do not suggest at all that redundancies should be targeted at pilots any more than anywhere else. My point is that BA is making losses on many of the routes it flies to. To address this we have reduced capacity over the past 2 years and not cut the number of front line staff - only those in the back office which I think some would see as a little unfair.
It seems to me that there is an assumption here that anyone who doesn't fly a plane or check a passenger in is contributing nothing and is thus expendable and I can assure you this is absolutely not the case. There is undoubtedly some dead wood but speaking from experience most of the people I know are as passionate about BA as I am.
The marketing guys I saw this afternoon are hard at work organising a TV crew to promote the Concorde re-introduction of service, the press office are similarly busy, the IT guys are holding togather the world's third biggest computer network and all the systems you and the rest of ops depend on 24/7. If the LIBRA bag system (as an example) went down for even a month every bag in every airport BA flies to would have to be manually reconciled - not a pretty thought!! Others are redeveloping the BA website so that it's easier to use and delivers value added services for premium passengers such as WAP checkin and proactive notification of flight delays etc. Surely you can't be suggesting that these things don't matter - can you?
The suggestion that you could replace all these people with a bunch of third party companies cheaper and better is not true IMHO. I have friends who work in Management Consultancies such as Accentia and do you know they charge us around £2000 a day for a Project Manager? I would question whether the person you hire AT TEN TIMES THE COST OF A SIMILARLY QUALIFIED BA SUIT would have any of the airline knowledge and experience you need. Engineering outsourced their IT and that hasn't exactly proved a rip roaring success has it?
I don't particularly want a ruck with you guys but I think you're making a lot of invalid assumptions mainly that a huge global airline or any other multinational company can exist without significant back office functions is illogical. How many backroom staff do you think General Motors, Levi Strauss, Coca Cola, IBM etc have? Why do you think the airline industry is any different?
I would be the first to admit that BA Management have made some crass errors of judgement over the years. I'm actually no great fan of the back office but I just feel to lump everyone there into the pot as 'useless to BA' is unfair.
No hard feelings I hope for expressing what I expect isn't a popular viewpoint here.
Desk-pilot
[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Desk-pilot ]
[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Desk-pilot ]
I do not suggest at all that redundancies should be targeted at pilots any more than anywhere else. My point is that BA is making losses on many of the routes it flies to. To address this we have reduced capacity over the past 2 years and not cut the number of front line staff - only those in the back office which I think some would see as a little unfair.
It seems to me that there is an assumption here that anyone who doesn't fly a plane or check a passenger in is contributing nothing and is thus expendable and I can assure you this is absolutely not the case. There is undoubtedly some dead wood but speaking from experience most of the people I know are as passionate about BA as I am.
The marketing guys I saw this afternoon are hard at work organising a TV crew to promote the Concorde re-introduction of service, the press office are similarly busy, the IT guys are holding togather the world's third biggest computer network and all the systems you and the rest of ops depend on 24/7. If the LIBRA bag system (as an example) went down for even a month every bag in every airport BA flies to would have to be manually reconciled - not a pretty thought!! Others are redeveloping the BA website so that it's easier to use and delivers value added services for premium passengers such as WAP checkin and proactive notification of flight delays etc. Surely you can't be suggesting that these things don't matter - can you?
The suggestion that you could replace all these people with a bunch of third party companies cheaper and better is not true IMHO. I have friends who work in Management Consultancies such as Accentia and do you know they charge us around £2000 a day for a Project Manager? I would question whether the person you hire AT TEN TIMES THE COST OF A SIMILARLY QUALIFIED BA SUIT would have any of the airline knowledge and experience you need. Engineering outsourced their IT and that hasn't exactly proved a rip roaring success has it?
I don't particularly want a ruck with you guys but I think you're making a lot of invalid assumptions mainly that a huge global airline or any other multinational company can exist without significant back office functions is illogical. How many backroom staff do you think General Motors, Levi Strauss, Coca Cola, IBM etc have? Why do you think the airline industry is any different?
I would be the first to admit that BA Management have made some crass errors of judgement over the years. I'm actually no great fan of the back office but I just feel to lump everyone there into the pot as 'useless to BA' is unfair.
No hard feelings I hope for expressing what I expect isn't a popular viewpoint here.
Desk-pilot
[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Desk-pilot ]
[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Desk-pilot ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Desk Pilot ,
You run a good argument and no one doubts that suits are required to run an airline it really is just a question of how many ?
Did you know that BA has more employees per a/c than all of our competitors yes of course you did but did you know that we have far fewer pilots per a/c than those very same operators .
You point out that we have pilots operating a/c on rtes that don't make money but.....
Why don't we ??? others can .
It is very easy to say a rte does not make a profit it depends on many factors not all of them obvious for example MAN LAX never made a profit but then anyone who tried to buy a ticket fm Northern Uk would only be sold a tkt via LHR .
The one thing I do know is that any loss or indeed perceived loss is not down to pilot salaries BA pilots are some of the poorest remunerated and hardest working in the industry .
The fact is reducing pilot nos will just make things worse .
To prove my point ...
My first officer yesterday had been with BA 18 months flying a 767 fm LHR he is an engineering graduate a was accepted onto a sponsored course by BA so he must be pretty reasonable .
a friend of mine failed BA self sponsored now flies a Saab for a third level operator operating 35 hours per month less for £7000 pa more . Enough said
You run a good argument and no one doubts that suits are required to run an airline it really is just a question of how many ?
Did you know that BA has more employees per a/c than all of our competitors yes of course you did but did you know that we have far fewer pilots per a/c than those very same operators .
You point out that we have pilots operating a/c on rtes that don't make money but.....
Why don't we ??? others can .
It is very easy to say a rte does not make a profit it depends on many factors not all of them obvious for example MAN LAX never made a profit but then anyone who tried to buy a ticket fm Northern Uk would only be sold a tkt via LHR .
The one thing I do know is that any loss or indeed perceived loss is not down to pilot salaries BA pilots are some of the poorest remunerated and hardest working in the industry .
The fact is reducing pilot nos will just make things worse .
To prove my point ...
My first officer yesterday had been with BA 18 months flying a 767 fm LHR he is an engineering graduate a was accepted onto a sponsored course by BA so he must be pretty reasonable .
a friend of mine failed BA self sponsored now flies a Saab for a third level operator operating 35 hours per month less for £7000 pa more . Enough said
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked for BA for nearly ten years - Roobarb has hit the nail straight on the head. How many times did I see BA folk retire on a Friday only to walk back in on Monday as consultants on twice the pay?!!! BA have got to clear some of the dead wood out of their operation. There are too many managers in the company - half the time their sole interest in life is getting their backsides on a First Class seat on a duty trip somewhere for no good reason. I once heard a group of graduate trainees talking about a competition they were running. It was to see who could clock up the most miles on DUTY travel!! - there really is no hope for this company because there are too many people at the trough not contributing to the operation.