GB Pilots to join BA?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If everything in the garden is so rosey at BACE, why do they have to cancel eight flights a day out of MAN due sick crew.
Another little gem I picked up recently is that the seat pitch over the emergency exits seems to be just a little tight on the Barbie Jet. The professional solution..... stitch up the seat pocket! Seems to me that is not all that is being stitched up at BASE.
Another little gem I picked up recently is that the seat pitch over the emergency exits seems to be just a little tight on the Barbie Jet. The professional solution..... stitch up the seat pocket! Seems to me that is not all that is being stitched up at BASE.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo/ Kippa
What is it with you guys this size thing do you both drive cars with long bonnets and large engines, the Embraer was designed for a specific job and one that it does very well with over 600 sold in some five and a half years, so its safe to assume there are a lot of airlines who regard it as a money earner.
The seat pitch on the Embraer is more generous than most and worse than some, I recently travelled on one of Mr Boeings larger aircraft and the seat pitch was frankly bordering on the dangerous, big aircraft does not automatically mean more comfort.
BACE is profitable how many other airlines in the present climate can say that, we have been told over a million pounds this year not much given total turnover but a million more than BA mainline have managed, .
The lack of cabin crew has been mainly caused by BA mainline's ban on recruitment until recently, this has no doubt caused many flights to be cancelled but with over 140 new cabin crew hired this should be resolved fairly quickly.
Instead of bickering about who flys big aircraft and whether I should earn more than you etc etc, all the pilots now working for the BA group and thats a large number of people now ie ex Cityflyer, Brymon, Bral should be pulling together to obtain the best terms and conditions possible.
United we stand divided we fall or at the very least fail to achieve the full potential of the BA group
What is it with you guys this size thing do you both drive cars with long bonnets and large engines, the Embraer was designed for a specific job and one that it does very well with over 600 sold in some five and a half years, so its safe to assume there are a lot of airlines who regard it as a money earner.
The seat pitch on the Embraer is more generous than most and worse than some, I recently travelled on one of Mr Boeings larger aircraft and the seat pitch was frankly bordering on the dangerous, big aircraft does not automatically mean more comfort.
BACE is profitable how many other airlines in the present climate can say that, we have been told over a million pounds this year not much given total turnover but a million more than BA mainline have managed, .
The lack of cabin crew has been mainly caused by BA mainline's ban on recruitment until recently, this has no doubt caused many flights to be cancelled but with over 140 new cabin crew hired this should be resolved fairly quickly.
Instead of bickering about who flys big aircraft and whether I should earn more than you etc etc, all the pilots now working for the BA group and thats a large number of people now ie ex Cityflyer, Brymon, Bral should be pulling together to obtain the best terms and conditions possible.
United we stand divided we fall or at the very least fail to achieve the full potential of the BA group
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Jellystone Park
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said that Amazon Man!
Dead right.
In fact once again, our current problems can be laid squarely at the door of BA. Recruitment freeze + dwindling number of cabin crew. Unlike BA, we don't pay our cabin crew more than the F.O.s, so we tend to lose more.
I suppose BACC in the form of Han Solo, airage or kippa will now say that Cabin Crew aren't overpaid either in mainline? or that they don't contribute too much to BA's costs?
Well, ours don't, thats for sure, in fact we don't have enough and they are badly underpaid - thats why the BA management decision has resulted in our canx flights.
However - as my colleague said - we do at least make a profit, rather than relying on long haul subsidies!
I hear our next rebranding exercise is to be BEA to run alongside mainline longhaul's BOAC.
I'm listening chaps?????
In fact once again, our current problems can be laid squarely at the door of BA. Recruitment freeze + dwindling number of cabin crew. Unlike BA, we don't pay our cabin crew more than the F.O.s, so we tend to lose more.
I suppose BACC in the form of Han Solo, airage or kippa will now say that Cabin Crew aren't overpaid either in mainline? or that they don't contribute too much to BA's costs?
Well, ours don't, thats for sure, in fact we don't have enough and they are badly underpaid - thats why the BA management decision has resulted in our canx flights.
However - as my colleague said - we do at least make a profit, rather than relying on long haul subsidies!
I hear our next rebranding exercise is to be BEA to run alongside mainline longhaul's BOAC.
I'm listening chaps?????
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Little Prince has a good arguement. BA (and its pilots) have got to sort out their own problems by making their own operations profitable.
GB has brought on its own account about 10 routes, aircraft ,capital, personnel and experience to the BA family. It has paid (and continues to pay) hard cash to operate (until 2008) about another 10 routes that used to be operated by BAEOG. Some of these routes are not nearly as profitable as they were expected to be (or used to be) because BA has reduced its long haul, and short haul connections at LGW since GB took on the financial risk of the 10 ex-BA routes. The Brazil long haul was moved to LHR a few years ago. Also, for example, Tunis to LGW (not an ex-BAEOG route) used to carry 30 plus connecting passengers to long haul Houston. Houston now flies from LHR. No consultations from BA, they acted with their own best interests at heart, and GB had to manage the shortfall. Fair enough, its a tough world.
Following the arguements of some earlier posts, that would give GB pilots the 'right' to claim that GB pilots should be allowed to fly some BA aircraft at LHR because some of the passengers used to be 'GB passengers' interlining from GB routes. (These oil industry passengers now fly Tunisair to LHR for connections to Houston). It's a tenuous thread - the arguement doesnt really wash does it?
Sorry BA guys, but you will have to stick to what you've got and fly your own aircraft.
One final point about a franchise. GB cannot operate (in BA or GB or any other colours) on routes without BA permission. That is a neat way of BA stopping GB using its own few valuable slots to cherrypick BA's most profitable route out of LHR, MAN or LGW and flying it in GB colours. I doubt GB would want to do this anyway, because they have a long association of friendly cooperatiion with BA that goes back over 60 years. GB used to charter BEA aircraft and crews to fly some of its flights for them for many years. For future routes at the moment, GB is limited in effect to having scraps from the BA table. It would be better for BA and their pilots to learn how to make a profit out of scraps, thus securing their own future health, rather than trying to muscle in on GB turf. As for SCOPE, I doubt GB pilots would have anything to do with being on the bottom of a seniority list of a shrinking airline (BA).
Once BA becomes more profitable, and is then in a position to easily pay(as opposed to struggling to pay) the interest on its staggering £5.9billion debts, it will be able to expand its routes and aircraft (and pilots). When the franchise comes up for renewal, it will be able to reclaim some of those routes that GB has nurtured in the meantime.
Relax.
GB has brought on its own account about 10 routes, aircraft ,capital, personnel and experience to the BA family. It has paid (and continues to pay) hard cash to operate (until 2008) about another 10 routes that used to be operated by BAEOG. Some of these routes are not nearly as profitable as they were expected to be (or used to be) because BA has reduced its long haul, and short haul connections at LGW since GB took on the financial risk of the 10 ex-BA routes. The Brazil long haul was moved to LHR a few years ago. Also, for example, Tunis to LGW (not an ex-BAEOG route) used to carry 30 plus connecting passengers to long haul Houston. Houston now flies from LHR. No consultations from BA, they acted with their own best interests at heart, and GB had to manage the shortfall. Fair enough, its a tough world.
Following the arguements of some earlier posts, that would give GB pilots the 'right' to claim that GB pilots should be allowed to fly some BA aircraft at LHR because some of the passengers used to be 'GB passengers' interlining from GB routes. (These oil industry passengers now fly Tunisair to LHR for connections to Houston). It's a tenuous thread - the arguement doesnt really wash does it?
Sorry BA guys, but you will have to stick to what you've got and fly your own aircraft.
One final point about a franchise. GB cannot operate (in BA or GB or any other colours) on routes without BA permission. That is a neat way of BA stopping GB using its own few valuable slots to cherrypick BA's most profitable route out of LHR, MAN or LGW and flying it in GB colours. I doubt GB would want to do this anyway, because they have a long association of friendly cooperatiion with BA that goes back over 60 years. GB used to charter BEA aircraft and crews to fly some of its flights for them for many years. For future routes at the moment, GB is limited in effect to having scraps from the BA table. It would be better for BA and their pilots to learn how to make a profit out of scraps, thus securing their own future health, rather than trying to muscle in on GB turf. As for SCOPE, I doubt GB pilots would have anything to do with being on the bottom of a seniority list of a shrinking airline (BA).
Once BA becomes more profitable, and is then in a position to easily pay(as opposed to struggling to pay) the interest on its staggering £5.9billion debts, it will be able to expand its routes and aircraft (and pilots). When the franchise comes up for renewal, it will be able to reclaim some of those routes that GB has nurtured in the meantime.
Relax.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little Prince;
"however, the point you have demonstrated so well on this and other threads is that you clearly place yourselves above the market"
Where is this reflected in my post ? By saying we are the first ones to feel the effects of outsourcing but you could be next ? My whole post was about how we should(as UK Pilots) be standing together on issues such as SCOPE. If BALPA fail at BA to secure Scope you could find your own job being done by a 3rd-world Pilot sooner than you think. You might be a lower cost solution now but don't you think mgmt will look for even lower cost solutions in a couple years ? How about when Hungary, Turkey or Greece join the EEC in the next year or so ?
"Eventually, BA will have to sort out its act, and become viable."
That was my point exactly in my post to thedude. Outsourcing flights to GB, will not "sort out BA's act." or solve the real issues.
fiftyfour;
"Some of these routes are not nearly as profitable as they were expected to be (or used to be) because BA has reduced its long haul,"
" for example, Tunis to LGW (not an ex-BAEOG route) used to carry 30 plus connecting passengers to long haul Houston."
So you finally admit there are some advantages to being part of BA's route structure then do you ? You can't pick only out the disadvantages and ignore some of the advantges of being part of a BA franchise. How many people in N.America have heard of GB Airways, how many have heard of BA ? Overall I think your bosses would admit they benefit from being part of the Brand.
Talking A/C size, seat pitch or level of service is a waste of time. We fly the planes we're given and we all do the best level of service we can.
The real Issue is SCOPE affects or will affect all Pilots world-wide over the next few years, especially with future "Free Skies" and Mergers. I wouldn't wish ill on any Pilot anywhere in the world fighting this problem Now because I want a clear precedent set everywhere that it is unacceptabel.
"however, the point you have demonstrated so well on this and other threads is that you clearly place yourselves above the market"
Where is this reflected in my post ? By saying we are the first ones to feel the effects of outsourcing but you could be next ? My whole post was about how we should(as UK Pilots) be standing together on issues such as SCOPE. If BALPA fail at BA to secure Scope you could find your own job being done by a 3rd-world Pilot sooner than you think. You might be a lower cost solution now but don't you think mgmt will look for even lower cost solutions in a couple years ? How about when Hungary, Turkey or Greece join the EEC in the next year or so ?
"Eventually, BA will have to sort out its act, and become viable."
That was my point exactly in my post to thedude. Outsourcing flights to GB, will not "sort out BA's act." or solve the real issues.
fiftyfour;
"Some of these routes are not nearly as profitable as they were expected to be (or used to be) because BA has reduced its long haul,"
" for example, Tunis to LGW (not an ex-BAEOG route) used to carry 30 plus connecting passengers to long haul Houston."
So you finally admit there are some advantages to being part of BA's route structure then do you ? You can't pick only out the disadvantages and ignore some of the advantges of being part of a BA franchise. How many people in N.America have heard of GB Airways, how many have heard of BA ? Overall I think your bosses would admit they benefit from being part of the Brand.
Talking A/C size, seat pitch or level of service is a waste of time. We fly the planes we're given and we all do the best level of service we can.
The real Issue is SCOPE affects or will affect all Pilots world-wide over the next few years, especially with future "Free Skies" and Mergers. I wouldn't wish ill on any Pilot anywhere in the world fighting this problem Now because I want a clear precedent set everywhere that it is unacceptabel.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand-surprised to see you stooping so low as to get involved in nasty little jibes-I've always found your posts well informed and sensible.
Getting back to the original thread-GB pilots to fly for BA. We will, no doubt, hear the jaundiced out look from many an idiiot over the next few months as this thing progresses. The reality is,as has been said before, we must protect ourelves from being screwed by airline management, be it BA's or GB's. BALPA can be our only hope at the moment. We at GB exist only because of BA and it appears that we are rather victims of our own success-we offer a great product at a competetive price, our cost base is low which enables us to cope when times are a little more lean and we seem to have chosen the right aircarft with which to expand. If our owners are to be convinced that SCOPE is the way forward for our company, perhaps you will find GB running most, if not all, of the BA short haul operation at LGW over the next few years. That is if we can maintain our cost base at a similar level to the current one. Paying our pilots at BA rates would not make us unprofitable-far from it. In this way we can continue to operate as a franchise and contribute to BA as we now do. Any thoughts??
Getting back to the original thread-GB pilots to fly for BA. We will, no doubt, hear the jaundiced out look from many an idiiot over the next few months as this thing progresses. The reality is,as has been said before, we must protect ourelves from being screwed by airline management, be it BA's or GB's. BALPA can be our only hope at the moment. We at GB exist only because of BA and it appears that we are rather victims of our own success-we offer a great product at a competetive price, our cost base is low which enables us to cope when times are a little more lean and we seem to have chosen the right aircarft with which to expand. If our owners are to be convinced that SCOPE is the way forward for our company, perhaps you will find GB running most, if not all, of the BA short haul operation at LGW over the next few years. That is if we can maintain our cost base at a similar level to the current one. Paying our pilots at BA rates would not make us unprofitable-far from it. In this way we can continue to operate as a franchise and contribute to BA as we now do. Any thoughts??
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm jumping into this a bit late but from stateside I have never understood how the euro majors allow outside carriers to fly their routes. SCOPE in the US has always meant that any flying done on mainline routes was performed by mainline pilots.
Then the RJs reared their ugly heads. All of a sudden (especially since 9/11) RJs were being put on mainline routes to substitute the 737s and A320s that were running half empty. At my carrier we have seen all the projected growth go to the Express (regional) people. We had pilots (and F/As) on furlough while the RJS were taking over entire city pairs that we had run full with 737s. And its not because we are too expensive, our seat mile costs and our crew costs are far below industry average. Perhaps it is because we are in contract negotiations?
We have a very weak SCOPE clause. We will be changing that in the next contract. 50 seats will be the max. Anything larger will be flown by mainline crews. Our CEOhas said we will never get the A318s we have on order. He wants Canadair 900s. We think he is crazy since no one really wants to be stuck in a little tube for more than an hour. The Jungle Jet is worse. That is such a piece of Sh## that has only sold because the Brazillians give them away to keep their aircraft industry. (kind of like EADS if you think about it). Pax want mainline aircraft to mainline cities. The smaller city pairs get the props and the RJs because you cannot always fill 120 seats. But the bottom line is that an express carrier or a franchisee as you call them should exist only to feed the mainline. Jobs and pax should flow to the major.. You should not expect to have the same pay as the mainline unless you are flying the same jet. ALPA set the wage rate years ago by aircraft size and performance. The Beech 1900 pilot works a lot harder flying 9 or 10 legs a day solid IFR than I do going from YVR to PHX to FLL. But you know what, I get paid a little more because I am hauling more revenue. The BALPA pilots are right in insisting that BA flying be done by BA pilots. I am also sure there is a lot of fat that could be cut at Waterside. But a 737 or A320s direct operating costs are probably the same no matter who flys them. The problem is that BA management for years wanted to operate a virtual airline. You can't do that and keep any kind of corporate culture, enthusiasm or loyalty among your staff. And in a service industry, if the staff is not happy then the passenger is not happy. Southwest's Herb Kelleher had it correct when he said that the passenger comes second - his people come first.
Then the RJs reared their ugly heads. All of a sudden (especially since 9/11) RJs were being put on mainline routes to substitute the 737s and A320s that were running half empty. At my carrier we have seen all the projected growth go to the Express (regional) people. We had pilots (and F/As) on furlough while the RJS were taking over entire city pairs that we had run full with 737s. And its not because we are too expensive, our seat mile costs and our crew costs are far below industry average. Perhaps it is because we are in contract negotiations?
We have a very weak SCOPE clause. We will be changing that in the next contract. 50 seats will be the max. Anything larger will be flown by mainline crews. Our CEOhas said we will never get the A318s we have on order. He wants Canadair 900s. We think he is crazy since no one really wants to be stuck in a little tube for more than an hour. The Jungle Jet is worse. That is such a piece of Sh## that has only sold because the Brazillians give them away to keep their aircraft industry. (kind of like EADS if you think about it). Pax want mainline aircraft to mainline cities. The smaller city pairs get the props and the RJs because you cannot always fill 120 seats. But the bottom line is that an express carrier or a franchisee as you call them should exist only to feed the mainline. Jobs and pax should flow to the major.. You should not expect to have the same pay as the mainline unless you are flying the same jet. ALPA set the wage rate years ago by aircraft size and performance. The Beech 1900 pilot works a lot harder flying 9 or 10 legs a day solid IFR than I do going from YVR to PHX to FLL. But you know what, I get paid a little more because I am hauling more revenue. The BALPA pilots are right in insisting that BA flying be done by BA pilots. I am also sure there is a lot of fat that could be cut at Waterside. But a 737 or A320s direct operating costs are probably the same no matter who flys them. The problem is that BA management for years wanted to operate a virtual airline. You can't do that and keep any kind of corporate culture, enthusiasm or loyalty among your staff. And in a service industry, if the staff is not happy then the passenger is not happy. Southwest's Herb Kelleher had it correct when he said that the passenger comes second - his people come first.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems little doubt that this one is going to run and run. I have had a couple of very interesting conversations with people 'in the know' in the last couple of days, and there is no doubt that this is becoming a big deal. I am told that GB will shortly be holding roadshows to discuss the issue with their pilots, and it has also been suggested that the GB cabin crew could form part of any agreement reached as well. The basic view of the GB management team seems to be that they are totally opposed to this move as it would add significantly to the direct operating costs of the company. (Various figures are being bandied around from £1.2m to £4.0m per annum). For some reason it appears that the first of the 3 franchises (GB, Maersk and British Med) to be targetted for integration is GB. It is almost certainly because we are so successful.
There is however a recognition that if BA pilots choose to strike over Scope then GB would be heavily leant on to come into line, and that GB would be in an extremely difficult position to resist. I have to confess to feeling somewhat down about the whole situation because it is quite apparent that as long as this uncertainty hangs over GB then our proposed expansion is likely to grind to a halt.
The doomsday scenario is actually not the take-over by BA, however unattractive it appears to GB right now. The real glitch would arise if the pilots are not taken on by BA but the Gaggeros (GB's owners) decide that because of the uncertainty they will not press ahead with the expansion. Then the FOs will find themselves in a small company which will never expand and many years to wait before promotion is possible Many pilots who joined GB in the last few years are finding that the goalposts are moving faster than they can run to catch up. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the issue, and we have heard many eloquent arguments on both sides, there can be no doubt that a speedy resolution one way or the other is in everybody's interests.
The tragedy is that GB is a top class, successful company that enjoys huge loyalty from its staff, particularly its pilots. In my time in the company I have hardly met a single pilot who does not think it is a great company to work for. What is really interesting is that even recently-promoted Captains who possibly have the most to gain by a move to BA are not very keen. The honest truth is that this is all a game of Snakes and Ladders. Where you are on the board at the time of any merger will determine how good a deal it is for you. A young FO will effectively jump up a ladder several squares in that overnight he is in a huge airline with fantastic career opportunities. Older FOs who joined GB late on will drop down a large snake as their chances of promotion in BA are significantly poorer than they would be at GB. You cannot blame anyone for wanting the deal that best suits their own circumstances.
I personally hope that BA are politely told to clear off, but I fear that the writing is on the wall.
There is however a recognition that if BA pilots choose to strike over Scope then GB would be heavily leant on to come into line, and that GB would be in an extremely difficult position to resist. I have to confess to feeling somewhat down about the whole situation because it is quite apparent that as long as this uncertainty hangs over GB then our proposed expansion is likely to grind to a halt.
The doomsday scenario is actually not the take-over by BA, however unattractive it appears to GB right now. The real glitch would arise if the pilots are not taken on by BA but the Gaggeros (GB's owners) decide that because of the uncertainty they will not press ahead with the expansion. Then the FOs will find themselves in a small company which will never expand and many years to wait before promotion is possible Many pilots who joined GB in the last few years are finding that the goalposts are moving faster than they can run to catch up. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the issue, and we have heard many eloquent arguments on both sides, there can be no doubt that a speedy resolution one way or the other is in everybody's interests.
The tragedy is that GB is a top class, successful company that enjoys huge loyalty from its staff, particularly its pilots. In my time in the company I have hardly met a single pilot who does not think it is a great company to work for. What is really interesting is that even recently-promoted Captains who possibly have the most to gain by a move to BA are not very keen. The honest truth is that this is all a game of Snakes and Ladders. Where you are on the board at the time of any merger will determine how good a deal it is for you. A young FO will effectively jump up a ladder several squares in that overnight he is in a huge airline with fantastic career opportunities. Older FOs who joined GB late on will drop down a large snake as their chances of promotion in BA are significantly poorer than they would be at GB. You cannot blame anyone for wanting the deal that best suits their own circumstances.
I personally hope that BA are politely told to clear off, but I fear that the writing is on the wall.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cactusbusdriver: well said! A very fair summation.
This thread is the most depressing I have ever read on pprune. Divisive, insulting, petty, and, by some, deliberately inflammatory.
We would ALL do well to keep in mind that this is OUR profession, all of us. We all sweated, planned and fought our way to the career we wanted. I think it is literally tragic to see us bicker in this way.
Most managements no longer see us as professionals, and rates of pay across the industry in the UK reflect that. Anything that divides us as a group is meat and drink to them, and I think all of us, as professional pilots should keep that in mind.
For what it is worth, I have been in BA for over ten years. Morale has been getting worse and worse and my pay is no better, in fact worse, than several colleagues in Monarch and Ryanair. I admit that there is the pension, but since the closure to new entrants, you can bet your life that the existing scheme, NAPS, will close too. "Sir" C*lin said as much at the AGM.
Cost levels in BA have nothing to do with pilot pay: I wish people could be given a guided tour of the airline and see why they are as high. A quick look at the "jobs section" of the BA news will provide a clue. Just check out some of the job titles and then see if your organisation supports them?
I do not regard myself as a better pilot than my mate in Monarch, or any other UK ATPL for that matter. I do fear for UK pilot jobs, professionalism in the face of relentless cost cuts, and for my financial future. I am sure I am not alone.
Lets all examine everything we say and do in that context and fight for the future of the profession that we all care deeply about together.
This thread is the most depressing I have ever read on pprune. Divisive, insulting, petty, and, by some, deliberately inflammatory.
We would ALL do well to keep in mind that this is OUR profession, all of us. We all sweated, planned and fought our way to the career we wanted. I think it is literally tragic to see us bicker in this way.
Most managements no longer see us as professionals, and rates of pay across the industry in the UK reflect that. Anything that divides us as a group is meat and drink to them, and I think all of us, as professional pilots should keep that in mind.
For what it is worth, I have been in BA for over ten years. Morale has been getting worse and worse and my pay is no better, in fact worse, than several colleagues in Monarch and Ryanair. I admit that there is the pension, but since the closure to new entrants, you can bet your life that the existing scheme, NAPS, will close too. "Sir" C*lin said as much at the AGM.
Cost levels in BA have nothing to do with pilot pay: I wish people could be given a guided tour of the airline and see why they are as high. A quick look at the "jobs section" of the BA news will provide a clue. Just check out some of the job titles and then see if your organisation supports them?
I do not regard myself as a better pilot than my mate in Monarch, or any other UK ATPL for that matter. I do fear for UK pilot jobs, professionalism in the face of relentless cost cuts, and for my financial future. I am sure I am not alone.
Lets all examine everything we say and do in that context and fight for the future of the profession that we all care deeply about together.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The 51st State
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read all the way through this thread I am now well and trully confused.
To conclude, BA pilots are overpaid and underpaid prima donna's who are at the same time much better but worse than the other pilot's within the industry.
Everybody does/doesn't want to work for BA because they do/don't want the payrise/paycut.
I think there is so much disinformation that the thread now makes no sense whatsoever.
Personally I think that the problem with having such a complex organisational structure, BA, BACE, GB, One World is that it is unmanageable. If it ever gets simplified then maybe BA will be in a healthier financial position and the people who work for it will be happier.
Having worked for BA mainline, then a franchisee, then BA Gatwick I marvel at management ineptitude on many levels. However, they have successfully managed to divide and conquer the entire workforce who are now reduced to arguing amongst themselves for the crumbs.
Harry (dazed, confused, and still sending out the old CV)
To conclude, BA pilots are overpaid and underpaid prima donna's who are at the same time much better but worse than the other pilot's within the industry.
Everybody does/doesn't want to work for BA because they do/don't want the payrise/paycut.
I think there is so much disinformation that the thread now makes no sense whatsoever.
Personally I think that the problem with having such a complex organisational structure, BA, BACE, GB, One World is that it is unmanageable. If it ever gets simplified then maybe BA will be in a healthier financial position and the people who work for it will be happier.
Having worked for BA mainline, then a franchisee, then BA Gatwick I marvel at management ineptitude on many levels. However, they have successfully managed to divide and conquer the entire workforce who are now reduced to arguing amongst themselves for the crumbs.
Harry (dazed, confused, and still sending out the old CV)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airage,
I agree that there are lots of advantages to GB in being part of the BA brand - lots more advantages than disadvantages. Load factors on every GB route jumped by about 25% after they were designated by BA flight numbers. Serious money for the company. But GB does pay BA the fees - when the going is good (like now) or bad (e.g. mainline cabin crew strikes a few years ago which affected GB bookings by 50%). BA needs cash cows at the moment.
There is plenty of future for the BA brand in europe with its decent seat pitch, reliability, customer service etc. providing the ticket price is not perceived as a rip-off.
I agree that there are lots of advantages to GB in being part of the BA brand - lots more advantages than disadvantages. Load factors on every GB route jumped by about 25% after they were designated by BA flight numbers. Serious money for the company. But GB does pay BA the fees - when the going is good (like now) or bad (e.g. mainline cabin crew strikes a few years ago which affected GB bookings by 50%). BA needs cash cows at the moment.
There is plenty of future for the BA brand in europe with its decent seat pitch, reliability, customer service etc. providing the ticket price is not perceived as a rip-off.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it folks, this thread has run its course!
It started off by asking for information and comments about the possibility of GB Pilots being absorbed into the BA system.
Looking at the subsequent heated postings it has veered completely off the track now with the Nigels showing their true colours once more. A bunch of self-conceited pompous prats!
BA is a shambles and the Nigels know it. GB gets the scraps from the BA table when loss making routes are dumped and we make a success of them. Shouldn't that set alarm bells ringing?
I thought being a member of BALPA was to have a secure feeling in the job that our airlines employ us to do, not be a bunch of (I'm alright, Im a BA Jack, Prats). BALPA should be well warned that the UK airline membership will be leaving in their droves as the true colours of BALPA are shown once again.
GB Airways is an excellent successful airline and we want to keep it that way. We are not interested in joining a bunch of failures.
In a nutshell BALPA BA, we are quite happy with our lot in life so keep your mitts off and continue cocking things up so that we can make even more money!
It started off by asking for information and comments about the possibility of GB Pilots being absorbed into the BA system.
Looking at the subsequent heated postings it has veered completely off the track now with the Nigels showing their true colours once more. A bunch of self-conceited pompous prats!
BA is a shambles and the Nigels know it. GB gets the scraps from the BA table when loss making routes are dumped and we make a success of them. Shouldn't that set alarm bells ringing?
I thought being a member of BALPA was to have a secure feeling in the job that our airlines employ us to do, not be a bunch of (I'm alright, Im a BA Jack, Prats). BALPA should be well warned that the UK airline membership will be leaving in their droves as the true colours of BALPA are shown once again.
GB Airways is an excellent successful airline and we want to keep it that way. We are not interested in joining a bunch of failures.
In a nutshell BALPA BA, we are quite happy with our lot in life so keep your mitts off and continue cocking things up so that we can make even more money!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see that times like these bring out the more maladjusted among us. Perhaps you are right, this thread has run it's course. I hope that those of you in BA will not qualify the deranged ravings of this idiot by posting a reply.
Good luck to all involved in this.
Good luck to all involved in this.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Building Site
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Airlines flying for GB now??
As I taxiied out to the holding point on 26L yesterday morning (Sat 7/9) the GB flight in front of me was definitely operated by a BA 737-436 (G-DOCL)...
Has something happened via the back door here? Are our pilots flying GB routes now??
Has something happened via the back door here? Are our pilots flying GB routes now??
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memphisbelle, your comments have qualified the previously posted theory that the pomposity has eminated from both sides. Congratulations to you on making comments that fail to address many serious points made.
All the best with your 'scraps' and if we do get to share these so called loss making routes (such as Faro and Malaga etc) then I do hope we can hear the RT over the sound of you grinding your teeth.
Love Nigel.
All the best with your 'scraps' and if we do get to share these so called loss making routes (such as Faro and Malaga etc) then I do hope we can hear the RT over the sound of you grinding your teeth.
Love Nigel.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what its worth, my thoughts are that BA pilots dislike franchises, because they are perceived as the easy way of getting rid of cost problems, rather than forcing BA management to get its house in order. You could argue that it is not the franchise pilots fault. Very true, however, as a mainline pilot, I do worry about the reducing number of routes/bases available as a career. {Through no fault of mine} The average BA pilot earns less than the market rate. Hence the need for so many people to commute from abroad or outside of the South East.
BALPA knows that it cannot get these routes back under mainline, so the other alternative is to make sure all the pilots are under mainline terms and conditions. Seems like a good strategy to me.....
BALPA knows that it cannot get these routes back under mainline, so the other alternative is to make sure all the pilots are under mainline terms and conditions. Seems like a good strategy to me.....
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB often 'borrow' EOG machines when GB aircraft go tech !! <Usually the airbus mind you !!!> GB flight deck operate the flight and use their own cabin crew...Likewise BA have sometimes asked GB to operate flights for them on their own routes eg LGW-EDI when EOG find themselves in a corner !!!! Handy agreement really !!!