GB Pilots to join BA?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny I thought SCOPE was all about
British Airways Pilots wanting to fly any aircraft painted in British Airways Colours operating British Airways Services
be it Longhaul, Shorthaul, Passenger, or Cargo.
Mb.
British Airways Pilots wanting to fly any aircraft painted in British Airways Colours operating British Airways Services
be it Longhaul, Shorthaul, Passenger, or Cargo.
Mb.
SCOPE is an abberation to the modern-day world. Regardless of how you apportion overheads or anything else, I would challenge anyone to categorically state that BA's costbase is lower than that of GB or other franchises on a like-for-like basis.
There are some routes within BA which are absolute basket-cases and certainly were (not so long ago) losing so much money that they had no right to be in existence. Take Gatwick-Bilbao, for instance. Scope clauses dictate that there is no problem with BA dumping that poorly-performing route, but there is a problem with GB Airways taking it over if GB believes that it can make a profit on it. The provisions of scope mean that BA would prefer to dump a route and let a non-BA competitor take it over and make a profit on it rather than allowing a company close to home to do so, thereby still contributing franchise fees and connecting traffic revenues to BA coffers and maintaining a BA presence on the route.
BA and its unions are neither tackling the inherent problem of BA's costbase which means that it cannot make money on routes where others can; and its fall-back option is to yield routes to its competitors to make a profit out of it due to scope. How can this be in the interests of anyone other than BA's competitors?
And before anyone harps on at me about BA's costbase, just look at the industrial agreements over and above CAP371 within which BA crews (both flight and cabin) work. That, coupled to the bid system, has to cost money which is part of the problem.
There are some routes within BA which are absolute basket-cases and certainly were (not so long ago) losing so much money that they had no right to be in existence. Take Gatwick-Bilbao, for instance. Scope clauses dictate that there is no problem with BA dumping that poorly-performing route, but there is a problem with GB Airways taking it over if GB believes that it can make a profit on it. The provisions of scope mean that BA would prefer to dump a route and let a non-BA competitor take it over and make a profit on it rather than allowing a company close to home to do so, thereby still contributing franchise fees and connecting traffic revenues to BA coffers and maintaining a BA presence on the route.
BA and its unions are neither tackling the inherent problem of BA's costbase which means that it cannot make money on routes where others can; and its fall-back option is to yield routes to its competitors to make a profit out of it due to scope. How can this be in the interests of anyone other than BA's competitors?
And before anyone harps on at me about BA's costbase, just look at the industrial agreements over and above CAP371 within which BA crews (both flight and cabin) work. That, coupled to the bid system, has to cost money which is part of the problem.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, where to start?
Flightrider:-
And before anyone harps on at me about BA's costbase, just look at the industrial agreements over and above CAP371 within which BA crews (both flight and cabin) work. That, coupled to the bid system, has to cost money which is part of the problem
CAP371 says no more than 900 hours per year. Paul Douglas (Very Senior BA Flight Ops manager) quoted in The Times this week as saying that even with no industrial agreements they couldn't get more than about 720 hours per year out of short haul LHR pilots. Thats what working at a busy airport means. Have you ever worked out of LHR? I clocked 650+ hours last year in a quietish regional airport doing short sectors, I'd easily make 720 given a bigger proportion of long sectors. And what do you say to the long haul guys who reach 900 hours after 10 months?
Fiftyfour - BA is undoubtedly mismanaged, but how succesful do you think GB would be without access to the BA brand? I've heard a thousand times that you pay a franchise fee for it, but BA mainline are operating with one hand tied behind their back because of the cost of Waterside. You get a damn good deal out of that franchise fee and I suspect it doesn't even come near to a proportionate cost of keeping the BA bureacracy running
HolyMoley - the naff destinations haven't escaped our attention. I'd remind you that Tehran, Baku and Almaty were all once BA destinations, and Almaty was a very popular trip.
Lou Scannon - if BA long haul folds then so does BA and the brand, which puts GB in big trouble as well (not to mention BMed, Maersk UK and BACE)
Mialo - Its the BA BALPA CC thats turning the screw on BA on the scope issue. If you want to be rid of Skyservice then ask yourself what the Airtours CC are doing to stop it.
Miss Inform-
The franchisees do not cherry-pick....
They look at what is being offered to them by BA, these being the routes that BA no longer consider viable. They then make a decision to take the route on, or not, based on it's commercial potential to the franchisee.
Sounds like a good definition of cherry picking to me.
You don't seriously believe that the function of a franchise is to pep-up an ailing route for BA & then hand it back to them, do you
No. The function of a franchise is to develop routes which cannot be viably served by the major airline using smaller aircraft. When or if the route can sustain a larger aircraft operated by the major the route returns to them. A franchise should not operate identical or even larger equipment to the major.
I dont need a comparison of pay scales, Norman Stanley Fletcher made it quite clear what he earns as a GB FO on another thread, which is more than most of my peers, both DEP and CEP.
Tinytim - against my better judgement I'll rise to your pathetic goading. If the market doesn't want our product any more (high fare, high quality, reliable, frequent service on comfortable aircraft), then where does that leave you (high fare, low quality, grossly unreliable (leading to) infrequent service on tiny uncomfortable cigar tubes)?
Flightrider:-
And before anyone harps on at me about BA's costbase, just look at the industrial agreements over and above CAP371 within which BA crews (both flight and cabin) work. That, coupled to the bid system, has to cost money which is part of the problem
CAP371 says no more than 900 hours per year. Paul Douglas (Very Senior BA Flight Ops manager) quoted in The Times this week as saying that even with no industrial agreements they couldn't get more than about 720 hours per year out of short haul LHR pilots. Thats what working at a busy airport means. Have you ever worked out of LHR? I clocked 650+ hours last year in a quietish regional airport doing short sectors, I'd easily make 720 given a bigger proportion of long sectors. And what do you say to the long haul guys who reach 900 hours after 10 months?
Fiftyfour - BA is undoubtedly mismanaged, but how succesful do you think GB would be without access to the BA brand? I've heard a thousand times that you pay a franchise fee for it, but BA mainline are operating with one hand tied behind their back because of the cost of Waterside. You get a damn good deal out of that franchise fee and I suspect it doesn't even come near to a proportionate cost of keeping the BA bureacracy running
HolyMoley - the naff destinations haven't escaped our attention. I'd remind you that Tehran, Baku and Almaty were all once BA destinations, and Almaty was a very popular trip.
Lou Scannon - if BA long haul folds then so does BA and the brand, which puts GB in big trouble as well (not to mention BMed, Maersk UK and BACE)
Mialo - Its the BA BALPA CC thats turning the screw on BA on the scope issue. If you want to be rid of Skyservice then ask yourself what the Airtours CC are doing to stop it.
Miss Inform-
The franchisees do not cherry-pick....
They look at what is being offered to them by BA, these being the routes that BA no longer consider viable. They then make a decision to take the route on, or not, based on it's commercial potential to the franchisee.
Sounds like a good definition of cherry picking to me.
You don't seriously believe that the function of a franchise is to pep-up an ailing route for BA & then hand it back to them, do you
No. The function of a franchise is to develop routes which cannot be viably served by the major airline using smaller aircraft. When or if the route can sustain a larger aircraft operated by the major the route returns to them. A franchise should not operate identical or even larger equipment to the major.
I dont need a comparison of pay scales, Norman Stanley Fletcher made it quite clear what he earns as a GB FO on another thread, which is more than most of my peers, both DEP and CEP.
Tinytim - against my better judgement I'll rise to your pathetic goading. If the market doesn't want our product any more (high fare, high quality, reliable, frequent service on comfortable aircraft), then where does that leave you (high fare, low quality, grossly unreliable (leading to) infrequent service on tiny uncomfortable cigar tubes)?
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand:
Once again you have struck the nail fully home.
Tiny Tim: I've flown on those things against my will and I can't for the life of me understand how any business user faced with the choice of a BA (full-fare) franchise using them versus a full-fare proper airliner (eg MID) would ever plump for the cigar tube.
PS:
I've also in the recent past made arrangements NOT to position on the 'regional' jet - I'd rather take the train.
Once again you have struck the nail fully home.
Tiny Tim: I've flown on those things against my will and I can't for the life of me understand how any business user faced with the choice of a BA (full-fare) franchise using them versus a full-fare proper airliner (eg MID) would ever plump for the cigar tube.
PS:
I've also in the recent past made arrangements NOT to position on the 'regional' jet - I'd rather take the train.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done everyone!
Over the past few years BALPA as a whole has overseen the general decline of our T & C’s and standing within the industry. The industry is recovering fast after September 11th and the budget airlines are booming. There are plenty of passengers who want to fly with airlines like BA, for many very valid reasons. There is an upcoming shortage of experienced pilots. In short we should be in a very strong bargaining position.
So what do we as a collective workforce do? Do we get together to increase our effectiveness and present a united front? No…we bicker like children and call each other names. BRILLIANT.
The airline managers must be laughing all the way to the bank.
BALPA is the only hope for the pilot workforce. The fees demanded from pilots are high and BALPA must start giving us value for money.
Over the past few years BALPA as a whole has overseen the general decline of our T & C’s and standing within the industry. The industry is recovering fast after September 11th and the budget airlines are booming. There are plenty of passengers who want to fly with airlines like BA, for many very valid reasons. There is an upcoming shortage of experienced pilots. In short we should be in a very strong bargaining position.
So what do we as a collective workforce do? Do we get together to increase our effectiveness and present a united front? No…we bicker like children and call each other names. BRILLIANT.
The airline managers must be laughing all the way to the bank.
BALPA is the only hope for the pilot workforce. The fees demanded from pilots are high and BALPA must start giving us value for money.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember the title of the thread everyone? GB pilots to join BA?
It makes good commercial sense to pool a body of 737 pilots and Airbus pilots into the same group to save on rostering issues and training costs etc. All I hope for is that our BALPA representatives incorporate Bid Line into the joint agreement and avoid divisive aspects such as single base agreements. Let us work together.
It makes good commercial sense to pool a body of 737 pilots and Airbus pilots into the same group to save on rostering issues and training costs etc. All I hope for is that our BALPA representatives incorporate Bid Line into the joint agreement and avoid divisive aspects such as single base agreements. Let us work together.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo
I agree wholeheartedly with you re: Airtours C.C. However I am
very disapointed that BALPA the "union" do not make this more of an issue with airline management, the CAA and the UK Govt. Individual councils need the weight of the Union behind them and I am not sure they get it, except BA. I may be wrong but thats my opinion.
very disapointed that BALPA the "union" do not make this more of an issue with airline management, the CAA and the UK Govt. Individual councils need the weight of the Union behind them and I am not sure they get it, except BA. I may be wrong but thats my opinion.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that Scouse Rat, Jet A1 comes anywhere near my company the safety implications will be disastrous, I don't mind buying the big issue off of you boys every now with a bit of spare change to help you out but I see no reason why we should give you the company silver!!
Seriously though, I would look forward to a few Malaga, Moroccan lay over days.
Seriously though, I would look forward to a few Malaga, Moroccan lay over days.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: france
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My interest in this thread is because I rate GB as a company very much and thinking of applying to them when recruiting pilots again. From their accounts and performance I see a well run Company with good housekeeping. However, as a relative newcomer to this side of the aviation business I didn't realise that CC was short for Company Council
As a way to lighten up this thread its far more interesting if you follow my mistake and read "Cabin Crew" for CC.
PS BAs long financial mismanagement which I with other businesses watched with interest and sadness for many years, will take a lot of unravelling and time to get right. I wish Rod all the luck. He needs it.
As a way to lighten up this thread its far more interesting if you follow my mistake and read "Cabin Crew" for CC.
PS BAs long financial mismanagement which I with other businesses watched with interest and sadness for many years, will take a lot of unravelling and time to get right. I wish Rod all the luck. He needs it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo,
You wrote:-
"The function of a franchise is to develop routes which cannot be viably served by the major airline using smaller aircraft. When or if the route can sustain a larger aircraft operated by the major the route returns to them. A franchise should not operate identical or even larger equipment to the major."
Well, clearly GB are not playing by your rules - they have been operating B737-300/400 & A320/321 on the same routes as BA before them, who were using pretty much identical equipment!
Also, as far as I am aware, GB have not returned even 1 such route to BA in all the time that they have held a franchise, despite achieving considerable success on many of those routes.
How do those cheeky chappies get away with it???
You wrote:-
"The function of a franchise is to develop routes which cannot be viably served by the major airline using smaller aircraft. When or if the route can sustain a larger aircraft operated by the major the route returns to them. A franchise should not operate identical or even larger equipment to the major."
Well, clearly GB are not playing by your rules - they have been operating B737-300/400 & A320/321 on the same routes as BA before them, who were using pretty much identical equipment!
Also, as far as I am aware, GB have not returned even 1 such route to BA in all the time that they have held a franchise, despite achieving considerable success on many of those routes.
How do those cheeky chappies get away with it???
Last edited by Miss Inform; 27th Aug 2002 at 15:16.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a GB pilot who is delighted to work for them, I have to admit to feeling slightly unnerved by 'Big Brother' in the form of the BA Company Council breathing down our neck.
The apparent paranoia of the BA CC in identifying GB (among others) as 'the enemy within', without recognising that the real battle lies with the Low Cost Airlines at Gatwick has a familiar ring to it. This posturing is very reminiscing of Stalin purging all his key army staff immediately before facing the German onslaught, and discovering the very people he needed to fight for him had all been killed by his own hand. We could, and indeed wish to be, rock solid allies to BA in what is turning out to be a very hostile world. Why on earth do you want to attack us and not easyJet or Ryanair? That is where the real battle lies - not with us. You need every friend you can get right now, and friends come in many guises.
It is unrealistic to expect GB to shoulder some of BA's self-induced costs at Waterworld. GB is a very efficient airline who is sharing the burden of the fight in head-to-head conflict with easyJet which BA just cannot do at the moment. A number of these cheap deals that BA are offering right now are because we are operating a lean, mean operation that can support them.
Even the most ambitious GB management type wants the comany to grow to 19 Airbuses. They will directly support BA and make money on routes that you can never make work. If you carry on the way you are going, you will alienate your franchises and they will end up getting franchise deals with other companies who will see them for the value they offer.
As a last thought, the plans that are being agreed between the GB and BA CCs are just that - plans by some union mates in a smoke-filled room over beer and sandwiches. I note that buried deep within the newsletter we were sent by the GB CC on the subject was a sentence mentioning they had neglected to contact Mr Gaggero (GB's owner) to discuss the wholesale donation of all his pilots to BA. I imagine the man himself might not be best pleased at such an omission! Similarly the BA CC have not got the slightest agreement from their management on the subject. Perhaps all this talk is a bit previous.
Therefore, to all you blokes at BA - we really are on your side, and I suggest you need all the friends you can get right now
The apparent paranoia of the BA CC in identifying GB (among others) as 'the enemy within', without recognising that the real battle lies with the Low Cost Airlines at Gatwick has a familiar ring to it. This posturing is very reminiscing of Stalin purging all his key army staff immediately before facing the German onslaught, and discovering the very people he needed to fight for him had all been killed by his own hand. We could, and indeed wish to be, rock solid allies to BA in what is turning out to be a very hostile world. Why on earth do you want to attack us and not easyJet or Ryanair? That is where the real battle lies - not with us. You need every friend you can get right now, and friends come in many guises.
It is unrealistic to expect GB to shoulder some of BA's self-induced costs at Waterworld. GB is a very efficient airline who is sharing the burden of the fight in head-to-head conflict with easyJet which BA just cannot do at the moment. A number of these cheap deals that BA are offering right now are because we are operating a lean, mean operation that can support them.
Even the most ambitious GB management type wants the comany to grow to 19 Airbuses. They will directly support BA and make money on routes that you can never make work. If you carry on the way you are going, you will alienate your franchises and they will end up getting franchise deals with other companies who will see them for the value they offer.
As a last thought, the plans that are being agreed between the GB and BA CCs are just that - plans by some union mates in a smoke-filled room over beer and sandwiches. I note that buried deep within the newsletter we were sent by the GB CC on the subject was a sentence mentioning they had neglected to contact Mr Gaggero (GB's owner) to discuss the wholesale donation of all his pilots to BA. I imagine the man himself might not be best pleased at such an omission! Similarly the BA CC have not got the slightest agreement from their management on the subject. Perhaps all this talk is a bit previous.
Therefore, to all you blokes at BA - we really are on your side, and I suggest you need all the friends you can get right now
Last edited by Norman Stanley Fletcher; 29th Aug 2002 at 09:04.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard all of this before - from CFE pilots. Not surprisingly though, once they got on to the BA seniority list they couldn't stop themselves from bidding on to the 744 or 777!
So, Hot Wings, what would you rather them do.....sit down then roll over?
I am just flabbergasted at the misinformation and prejudice being displayed here. I don't think GB is biting the hand that feeds it, rather ensuring that the reputation of the national carrier is in some small way enhanced by offering as good a service as possible at a reasonable cost to the punter. So why are some (note the some) elements within mainline hell bent at wanting the penny and the bun (and the Bakery while we're at it)? If you want to fly GB routes, fly for GB......!
I am just flabbergasted at the misinformation and prejudice being displayed here. I don't think GB is biting the hand that feeds it, rather ensuring that the reputation of the national carrier is in some small way enhanced by offering as good a service as possible at a reasonable cost to the punter. So why are some (note the some) elements within mainline hell bent at wanting the penny and the bun (and the Bakery while we're at it)? If you want to fly GB routes, fly for GB......!
Hotwings
Yes, but one doesn't exactly have a lot of options if some smart alec at BA decides to move the fleet on which one operates out of your base airport. What exactly were the CFE pilots supposed to do - obediently follow the RJs to MAN & BHX?
Hand Solo
And you believe Paul Douglas?
Yes, but one doesn't exactly have a lot of options if some smart alec at BA decides to move the fleet on which one operates out of your base airport. What exactly were the CFE pilots supposed to do - obediently follow the RJs to MAN & BHX?
Hand Solo
And you believe Paul Douglas?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: world
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick question for those in the know???
How does BA vet the standard of pilot when they introduce them onto the BA seneority list ?
Surely BA must be worried about any real or perceived dilution of standards to their much admired pilot standards.
Does/should BA only employ certain pilots who can "make the grade"?
Would TinyTim make the grade for example?
I know my answer!!!
How does BA vet the standard of pilot when they introduce them onto the BA seneority list ?
Surely BA must be worried about any real or perceived dilution of standards to their much admired pilot standards.
Does/should BA only employ certain pilots who can "make the grade"?
Would TinyTim make the grade for example?
I know my answer!!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Arrogant, Ignorant little person
For heavens sake, what do you mean????I am a turboprop base trainer on the BACX turboprop fleet. I have had direct contact and involvement in training some of your so called people over the last six months or so. Shall we discuss the ones who had to be RTB'd for further training, the ones who needed to do extra training, the ones who failed the technical exams, the one's who STILL can't land an aircraft consistently????? Yes it's a bit different actually FLYING as opposed to the systems operation you practise back at BA mainline.
Pass the recruitment system, (Roars of hysterical, lego-based laughter!!!!) All you need is a contact, or relative in the system. I passed without, mind you, but decided to ignore the call when it came, having got to know the Airline Industry a little better by then.
Having been involved in training your cadets and DEPs, I have all the names, little man. Believe me, it is a well known fact that our standards have been diluted by the introduction of so-called mainline expertise.
The complex issues you mention??? Don't make me laugh! You are referring to the selfish egotistical attitude of mainline, who are unable to see anything except the preservation of their own Ts and Cs as they were relevant to a previous, profitable age. You are completely insensitive to any discussion of a subject which may force you to admit that BA mainline is no longer the Worlds Fave (if indeed it ever was outside the Saatchi offices) and no longer profitable, and hence logically that something will have to change - but it won't be you, my cuddly litle dinosaur, will it. Remember Tunguska, it is approaching again!
I grant you that your management are difficult to define as such, given that they have managed to ruin the profitability of three Regionals who used to make a lot of money, and now, they/you are starting in on the Franchisees.
You and your management deserve each other, the tragedy is that you are both dragging so many of us, - (who never wanted anything to do with you anyway!) - down with you with your spiteful, ignorant, short-sighted approach.
Go to hell, you and the horse you rode in on!
Tinytim can at least fly an aeroplane, which is more than you can say for most of the BA people we have had to adopt.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well THAT raised the temperature a little bit didn't it? Might I suggest we cool down un peu? And if we HAVE to discuss it on an open forum rather than private, stick to the point and be nice bunnies to each other, not like the instigator of this thread and the supporter (I am still suspicious they are not two separate people) set the scene. I really don't think there is any further point discussing in public, certainly not resorting to open abuse.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crusin Level - there is the odd example of someone who fails BA's training and goes to work for another airline only to end up back at BA a few years later. Thats just the nature of the beast. Anyway, its easy to fail someone on a check - we all have our breaking point!
As far as failing the selection is concerned, I have met a couple of interviewers/ selectors with very big anti-DEP, anti-RAF, anti-anything but Hamble chips on their shoulders. As with any company there are some people that should have been hired and a few odd-balls that slip through the net.
With regards to the bidding, etc... of the ex-CFE pilots is concerned, I just wish that people would put their money where their mouth is. Why not just bid for 737s at LGW or follow the RJ? Many of us remember Andy Walker's anti-BA tirade in the BALPA news letter. He even went as far as to slag off our staff canteens, yet right now he's probably enjoying the fine cuisine rather than eating at Harry's keebab van around the corner. And he probably bid for Concorde!
As far as failing the selection is concerned, I have met a couple of interviewers/ selectors with very big anti-DEP, anti-RAF, anti-anything but Hamble chips on their shoulders. As with any company there are some people that should have been hired and a few odd-balls that slip through the net.
With regards to the bidding, etc... of the ex-CFE pilots is concerned, I just wish that people would put their money where their mouth is. Why not just bid for 737s at LGW or follow the RJ? Many of us remember Andy Walker's anti-BA tirade in the BALPA news letter. He even went as far as to slag off our staff canteens, yet right now he's probably enjoying the fine cuisine rather than eating at Harry's keebab van around the corner. And he probably bid for Concorde!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i also agree it was a little harsh!! but the reality is, there are quite a few that had failed BA interviews and/or sims while at CFE and then presto, were BA pilots due to company merges. the same is with GB, there are a LARGE number that have failed BA selection but could also be joining through back door antics. remember, it is white collar management that are opening the door not tech operations!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Hang on, I'll check my roster...
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If BigBrutha shaved off the handlebar moustache then looking down his nose at the rest of the world would be easier. 
Taking off the white gloves might give him more of a feel for the real world too...
Remember not everyone BA offers a job to takes it, and not all BA pilots are skygods. Other carriers have high standards too, maybe even higher than BA's - imagine that
Anyway, since its market value is higher why doesnt GB buy BA and make it as efficient as it is?
Taking off the white gloves might give him more of a feel for the real world too...
Remember not everyone BA offers a job to takes it, and not all BA pilots are skygods. Other carriers have high standards too, maybe even higher than BA's - imagine that
Anyway, since its market value is higher why doesnt GB buy BA and make it as efficient as it is?