Citi Express Base Closures
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bath
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRS to CDG
In response to AOG007, I said I sat on board for 75 minutes, not 105! And I didn't criticise the staff, just the management - which quite a lot of other people on this site seem to do as well.
The delay, was due to air traffic control problems, but these do seem to affect BA flights from and to BRS more than anyone else, as reference to the arrivals and departures info. will show.
Yes, I am now a business man, but used to sit at the sharp end.
Curiously business travellers tend to keep "full service" carriers in the air, which is perhaps not as widely appreciated as it should be.
I take the point that AF have been on and off the route, but assuming the equipment they are now using can handle the BRS weather, and considering the ease of connections at CDG T2 and their convenient flight timings they do have some chance of success. They certainly seem to get good loads in & out of SOU.
JB
The delay, was due to air traffic control problems, but these do seem to affect BA flights from and to BRS more than anyone else, as reference to the arrivals and departures info. will show.
Yes, I am now a business man, but used to sit at the sharp end.
Curiously business travellers tend to keep "full service" carriers in the air, which is perhaps not as widely appreciated as it should be.
I take the point that AF have been on and off the route, but assuming the equipment they are now using can handle the BRS weather, and considering the ease of connections at CDG T2 and their convenient flight timings they do have some chance of success. They certainly seem to get good loads in & out of SOU.
JB
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DXB
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interestedparty
As one of those "teenagers with failed O levels in Domestic Science!" (which is of course not a criticism) I can now at least appreciate that you are well aware of certain things that go on within aviation, as you mention you used to sit at the sharp end.
As you correctly mentioned, flights to and from CDG from BRS, are notorious for there ATC delays. The annoying point from when I used to be one of those teenagers, was that only 1 hour later, a BritAir (Air France Franchisee) used to operate to CDG, using the same routing, flight levels, and similar speed. So why did they always have an unrestricted departure to CDG. I would'nt want to think that there was some form of preference in and out of CDG for French carriers, but it does make you think this when what ever was done, nothing avoided being hit with minimum delays of 40mins. The majority of these delays are arrival restrictions into CDG, and therefore routing changes are irrelevant.
Anyone who works for a "Full Service" carrier, certainly appreciates which client is classed as the "bread and butter" of the airline, and in BACX's (Brymon) case, they certainly know who is important. This may be difficult to see at the moment, due to the immense changes taking place throughout the organisation, which does'nt exactly encourage the staff to go out of the way for the company, but they do value each and every passenger that passes through BRS.
You mention AF having the right equipment to handle the weather at BRS. In my opinion they always have. Remember BRS has only been CATII for a short period, so prior to that, everyone was in the same boat. Brymon's only advantage back in the days of Britair, was crew's famililarity with the surrounding area. I truely believe that AF will dissappear as they have in the past.
As for the management? Well that is another story. I have no respect for them, and treat them all with contempt they deserve. BA's biggest mistake was allowing control of a very large regional operator, to be passed to people whom had no previous BA management experience. Brymon was run by primarily BA personnel, with only a few original Brymon members from the Pre BA days. Although BRAL/MANX was clearly a well run company prior to the merge, the management were not equipped to deal with the issue's that have been presented by the bringing together of a wholly owned subsidery, and a franchise operator. It will change in time, but when, only Big Rod can answer.
AOG007
As one of those "teenagers with failed O levels in Domestic Science!" (which is of course not a criticism) I can now at least appreciate that you are well aware of certain things that go on within aviation, as you mention you used to sit at the sharp end.
As you correctly mentioned, flights to and from CDG from BRS, are notorious for there ATC delays. The annoying point from when I used to be one of those teenagers, was that only 1 hour later, a BritAir (Air France Franchisee) used to operate to CDG, using the same routing, flight levels, and similar speed. So why did they always have an unrestricted departure to CDG. I would'nt want to think that there was some form of preference in and out of CDG for French carriers, but it does make you think this when what ever was done, nothing avoided being hit with minimum delays of 40mins. The majority of these delays are arrival restrictions into CDG, and therefore routing changes are irrelevant.
Anyone who works for a "Full Service" carrier, certainly appreciates which client is classed as the "bread and butter" of the airline, and in BACX's (Brymon) case, they certainly know who is important. This may be difficult to see at the moment, due to the immense changes taking place throughout the organisation, which does'nt exactly encourage the staff to go out of the way for the company, but they do value each and every passenger that passes through BRS.
You mention AF having the right equipment to handle the weather at BRS. In my opinion they always have. Remember BRS has only been CATII for a short period, so prior to that, everyone was in the same boat. Brymon's only advantage back in the days of Britair, was crew's famililarity with the surrounding area. I truely believe that AF will dissappear as they have in the past.
As for the management? Well that is another story. I have no respect for them, and treat them all with contempt they deserve. BA's biggest mistake was allowing control of a very large regional operator, to be passed to people whom had no previous BA management experience. Brymon was run by primarily BA personnel, with only a few original Brymon members from the Pre BA days. Although BRAL/MANX was clearly a well run company prior to the merge, the management were not equipped to deal with the issue's that have been presented by the bringing together of a wholly owned subsidery, and a franchise operator. It will change in time, but when, only Big Rod can answer.
AOG007
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<EuroManx and Eastern to be given a franchise when they get the J41's >>
utter b*%l*x i'm afraid. Rod Eddington has staed that he is actively reducing the number of franchises 'cos they dilute the BA product.
<<the `less than `100 seats` scope clause,has not been agreed and is not in effect.It has no chance of being accepted unless BA offer something worthwhile in return>>
the BACX CC blew this when they tried to hold the BACC to ransom (allegedly). I have heard that the BACC were going to offer ALL BACX jet crews a place on the BA list, with access to 744,777, concorde etc etc if they wanted to bid for such things. prop crews were a negotiating tool. Allegedly, someone in the BACX CC is very very anti BA (must have got turned down by them - so what didn't we all at one time or another) and told the BACC to p&&s off. So BACX pilots are now out of the loop thanks to the alleged actions of a few. Thanks guys.
of, course like most rumours, this may all be a load of tosh!! we will all find out soon enough.
utter b*%l*x i'm afraid. Rod Eddington has staed that he is actively reducing the number of franchises 'cos they dilute the BA product.
<<the `less than `100 seats` scope clause,has not been agreed and is not in effect.It has no chance of being accepted unless BA offer something worthwhile in return>>
the BACX CC blew this when they tried to hold the BACC to ransom (allegedly). I have heard that the BACC were going to offer ALL BACX jet crews a place on the BA list, with access to 744,777, concorde etc etc if they wanted to bid for such things. prop crews were a negotiating tool. Allegedly, someone in the BACX CC is very very anti BA (must have got turned down by them - so what didn't we all at one time or another) and told the BACC to p&&s off. So BACX pilots are now out of the loop thanks to the alleged actions of a few. Thanks guys.
of, course like most rumours, this may all be a load of tosh!! we will all find out soon enough.
BRS is CatIII on 27. A fact which has got me home no less than 7 times this month!
WWW
WWW
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DXB
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wee Weasley Welshman
Must have been half a sleep when I was creating my reply. I meant CATIII, as opposed to CATII.
All this sun must be going to head. Such a difference to spending most of my time judging visibility by means of "Can I see the trident on the south side", very high tech in my days at BRS!
Hows the Go/Easy camp at BRS? You just seem to be getting busier and busier?
AOG007
Must have been half a sleep when I was creating my reply. I meant CATIII, as opposed to CATII.
All this sun must be going to head. Such a difference to spending most of my time judging visibility by means of "Can I see the trident on the south side", very high tech in my days at BRS!
Hows the Go/Easy camp at BRS? You just seem to be getting busier and busier?
AOG007
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psycobfh,
I have just read a post from one of our reps that said that because of the unhelpful attitude of the BACX CC BACX were unlikely to feature in the scope negotiations. Looks like you were correct!
I have just read a post from one of our reps that said that because of the unhelpful attitude of the BACX CC BACX were unlikely to feature in the scope negotiations. Looks like you were correct!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JPJoystick
"the `less than `100 seats` scope clause,has not been agreed and is not in effect.It has no chance of being accepted unless BA offer something worthwhile in return."
With respect mate, the BACC offered a place on mainline BA seniority for BACX FO's with Mainline Capts flying in the LHS. Your lot turned it down. Egg on face if you have seen the new proposed payscales.
Frankly, the BACC don't have to offer you diddly, 'cause its a mainline fleet, from a mainline base, flown by mainline pilots.
Before this argument rears it's head again, just think on... BA propose to give the BACX Dash fleet to XYZ airlines for them to crew and operate. Operate that is, from an existing BACX base, on existing BACX routes, but tough luck, you can't fly it anymore.
Your would love that wouldn't you??!!!
Reality check please
BlueupGood
"the `less than `100 seats` scope clause,has not been agreed and is not in effect.It has no chance of being accepted unless BA offer something worthwhile in return."
With respect mate, the BACC offered a place on mainline BA seniority for BACX FO's with Mainline Capts flying in the LHS. Your lot turned it down. Egg on face if you have seen the new proposed payscales.
Frankly, the BACC don't have to offer you diddly, 'cause its a mainline fleet, from a mainline base, flown by mainline pilots.
Before this argument rears it's head again, just think on... BA propose to give the BACX Dash fleet to XYZ airlines for them to crew and operate. Operate that is, from an existing BACX base, on existing BACX routes, but tough luck, you can't fly it anymore.
Your would love that wouldn't you??!!!
Reality check please
BlueupGood
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Psyco and Atropos and those of you who would have us believe that BACX CC were not representing their members interests when rejecting BACC proposals ref Scope and the RJs can I mention a couple matters:-
1. In BACX CC elections recently the two reps who conducted these discussions received overwhelming endorsement of their candidature by a greater percentage of all votes cast than any other members. Clearly CX pilots do not share your views therefor and like what has been said and done in their name.
2. The BACX CC newsletter to its members explaining in depth the rationale of its rejection is in wide circulation and anyone who genuinely seeks the truth (as opposed to casting ignorant aspersions on the integrity of clearly indentifiable members of CX CC on this forum) should read it.
Have a nice day
1. In BACX CC elections recently the two reps who conducted these discussions received overwhelming endorsement of their candidature by a greater percentage of all votes cast than any other members. Clearly CX pilots do not share your views therefor and like what has been said and done in their name.
2. The BACX CC newsletter to its members explaining in depth the rationale of its rejection is in wide circulation and anyone who genuinely seeks the truth (as opposed to casting ignorant aspersions on the integrity of clearly indentifiable members of CX CC on this forum) should read it.
Have a nice day
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOG007,
BACX CC=Company Council.
Tiny Tim,
I have spoken to reps who were at the meeting where the bust up happened. I have read the letter from your company council to your members. The longer this situation goes on the more likely it is that you will start losing people. I hope that the support holds out and that nobody loses their jobs!
BACX CC=Company Council.
Tiny Tim,
I have spoken to reps who were at the meeting where the bust up happened. I have read the letter from your company council to your members. The longer this situation goes on the more likely it is that you will start losing people. I hope that the support holds out and that nobody loses their jobs!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we certainly seem to have drifted away from the original thread here regarding possible base closures/rationalisation and disposal of the J41s although this is typically what happens on these boards!
Nobody appears to have come up with anything to support the original claim so we'll treat it merely as someone's speculation.
Nobody appears to have come up with anything to support the original claim so we'll treat it merely as someone's speculation.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Sarl a bad case of thread creep...However.....In reply to Atropos, Can I say that your concern for the welfare of your CX brothers and sisters is indeed touching. Not a virtue may I say otherwise much in evidence....
Any contraction will be greatly assisted if not obliterated by the repatriation of your young cadet colleagues who we are presently nurturing. Their ample and privileged terms including final salary pension schemes do not rest comfortably with many of us in CX who will have to work until 60 and then find further employment to keep off state benefits.....
Hows about ...you in BA get on with your own lives and we in CX do the same...and we don't tell each other what to do?
By the way, most of us dont want your RJs anyway-certainly not with all the strings attached by BACC. So to those of you at LGW ....enjoy your touring rosters! You may be doing them for some time.
Any contraction will be greatly assisted if not obliterated by the repatriation of your young cadet colleagues who we are presently nurturing. Their ample and privileged terms including final salary pension schemes do not rest comfortably with many of us in CX who will have to work until 60 and then find further employment to keep off state benefits.....
Hows about ...you in BA get on with your own lives and we in CX do the same...and we don't tell each other what to do?
By the way, most of us dont want your RJs anyway-certainly not with all the strings attached by BACC. So to those of you at LGW ....enjoy your touring rosters! You may be doing them for some time.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinytim,
I'm not trying to tell you to do anything! I'm just telling it how it seems from here. I agree, we should just get on with living our own lives, it would have been nice in an ideal world to have come up with an acceptable deal that brought us all closer together. The deal you were offered was not a great one but I'm sure could have been improved on with sensible non-throw the baby out with the bath water type negotiations. I think that is the opportunity that you have missed, nothing else.
It must be difficult having the BA cadets forced onto you, it's not their fault though, at least give them that. Its this bizarre management team that we have in place at the moment that are causing the trouble.
Your sentiment about the RJ touring is a cheap shot. The crews involved are not deserving of your scorn, they are , after all , ex-cfe! I understand that once our pay deal is sorted out attention will be turned to scope so you will hopefully not have long to gloat as with the pay deal, which may surprise a few in the industry, and scope sorted everyone's lives will be sorted and become more stable.
Here's hoping for a calmer, more friendly world!
I'm not trying to tell you to do anything! I'm just telling it how it seems from here. I agree, we should just get on with living our own lives, it would have been nice in an ideal world to have come up with an acceptable deal that brought us all closer together. The deal you were offered was not a great one but I'm sure could have been improved on with sensible non-throw the baby out with the bath water type negotiations. I think that is the opportunity that you have missed, nothing else.
It must be difficult having the BA cadets forced onto you, it's not their fault though, at least give them that. Its this bizarre management team that we have in place at the moment that are causing the trouble.
Your sentiment about the RJ touring is a cheap shot. The crews involved are not deserving of your scorn, they are , after all , ex-cfe! I understand that once our pay deal is sorted out attention will be turned to scope so you will hopefully not have long to gloat as with the pay deal, which may surprise a few in the industry, and scope sorted everyone's lives will be sorted and become more stable.
Here's hoping for a calmer, more friendly world!
Guest
Posts: n/a
There might be something in Citi Ex doing a back door deal with Euromanx. I hear on the news today Euromax are starting an IOM/Liverpool service 5 times a day, on the basis Citi will drop the route because it doesn't feed any onward flights.
Looks to me like an orderly hand over of all Manx routes to Euromanx !
Looks to me like an orderly hand over of all Manx routes to Euromanx !
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shuttleworth,
At the risk of slewing the post in the wrong direction the point being made is that BA cadets who were not offered a BA contract after Sept 11 but employed by CitiExpress have now subsequently been offered full BA contracts including as we understand it a Final Salary Pension whilst still flying for BACX, when our own newly joined pilots are now denied a FS pension.
Its not a question of sour grapes or envy its a much bigger question of where we sit within BA, does mainline want us in the fold or not, what are mainlines management view of our operation etc etc.
Whatever your views on the BACX CC most of us in BACX do not want to end up on the bottom of a BA seniority list and we will not put up with a scope clause being imposed on us. A look at the mess the American airlines have got into regarding scope clauses should be enough to warn anyone away from that path.
If BACX continues to be a success and grow why shouldn't it be allowed to operate the size of aircraft it thinks best suits its operation. If our mainline colleagues want us all on the same list then something more than the carrot of an RJ aircraft will have to be offered, at the very least a seniority number based on the date of joining Manx/BRAL/CitiExpress for the purposes of redundancy as per CityFlyer I believe.
At the risk of slewing the post in the wrong direction the point being made is that BA cadets who were not offered a BA contract after Sept 11 but employed by CitiExpress have now subsequently been offered full BA contracts including as we understand it a Final Salary Pension whilst still flying for BACX, when our own newly joined pilots are now denied a FS pension.
Its not a question of sour grapes or envy its a much bigger question of where we sit within BA, does mainline want us in the fold or not, what are mainlines management view of our operation etc etc.
Whatever your views on the BACX CC most of us in BACX do not want to end up on the bottom of a BA seniority list and we will not put up with a scope clause being imposed on us. A look at the mess the American airlines have got into regarding scope clauses should be enough to warn anyone away from that path.
If BACX continues to be a success and grow why shouldn't it be allowed to operate the size of aircraft it thinks best suits its operation. If our mainline colleagues want us all on the same list then something more than the carrot of an RJ aircraft will have to be offered, at the very least a seniority number based on the date of joining Manx/BRAL/CitiExpress for the purposes of redundancy as per CityFlyer I believe.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazon Man,
The ex-CFE crew did not get a seniority number based on their date of joining at CFE. They went to the bottom of the BA seniority list BUT have date of joining at CFE seniority for employment protection and staff travel as was their right under TUPE legislation.
If the BACC negotiate a scope clause with the company you will not have any right to reject or accept it, it will not be offered to BACX in any way. This is the opportunity that you are turning down, to be involved and have some influence on the process. If the scope deal is sorted out BACX will have to operate outside the process but will be limited by the agreement to the size of a/c that you can fly. You may not like this, I wouldn't, your only option is to get the BACX CC involved again, it is not too late, and get your voices heard at the highest level.
I wouldn't like to be excluded from a process that could conceivably tie the two companies much closer together. I hope that whatever result occurs you are all happy with it. Good luck with the negotiations and please don't cut off your noses to spite your face.
The ex-CFE crew did not get a seniority number based on their date of joining at CFE. They went to the bottom of the BA seniority list BUT have date of joining at CFE seniority for employment protection and staff travel as was their right under TUPE legislation.
If the BACC negotiate a scope clause with the company you will not have any right to reject or accept it, it will not be offered to BACX in any way. This is the opportunity that you are turning down, to be involved and have some influence on the process. If the scope deal is sorted out BACX will have to operate outside the process but will be limited by the agreement to the size of a/c that you can fly. You may not like this, I wouldn't, your only option is to get the BACX CC involved again, it is not too late, and get your voices heard at the highest level.
I wouldn't like to be excluded from a process that could conceivably tie the two companies much closer together. I hope that whatever result occurs you are all happy with it. Good luck with the negotiations and please don't cut off your noses to spite your face.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you can enter whatever agreement you like with BA.
Our CC (armed with an overwhelming mandate from their members) have made it properly clear that they will not repond to threats or pressure to do so neither one which disenfranchises over fifty percent of our workforce - being turboprop pilots.
Since you correctly assert that CX's input is not relevant then please stop going on about Scope. How many different ways do we have to explain NO?
We are not interested OK?
At the end of the day the market will prevail and your little bit of paper called "Scope" wont be worth the paper its written on. So, please guys....stop going on about it. If it makes you feel secure that is entirely your business and we would not presume to tell you what is good for you.....
Our CC (armed with an overwhelming mandate from their members) have made it properly clear that they will not repond to threats or pressure to do so neither one which disenfranchises over fifty percent of our workforce - being turboprop pilots.
Since you correctly assert that CX's input is not relevant then please stop going on about Scope. How many different ways do we have to explain NO?
We are not interested OK?
At the end of the day the market will prevail and your little bit of paper called "Scope" wont be worth the paper its written on. So, please guys....stop going on about it. If it makes you feel secure that is entirely your business and we would not presume to tell you what is good for you.....
It's time we got back to what we were doing before this amalgamation fiasco. ie flying pax around Europe profitably, but without having to obey rules from an outside organisation (in this case BACC).
The differing versions of scope have only served to drive mainline BA and ourselves further apart. As I stated on a previous thread, it's time to decide 'are we part of British Airways or not?'. BACC argue that we are not and to all intents and purposes we really never will be. If so, fine, but then stop telling us what we can or cannot fly, as well as who we can or cannot employ! During BA's job cuts, the cadets were given jobs within our part of the overall airline thus saving them from the dole, or worse losing them to easyjet etc.
Now we are being told that we must accept mainline pilots on the RJ fleet on their existing terms and conditions above our own crews. Scope version 1 allowed our existing 146 crews access to BA mainline but prevented barbie-jet pilots or worse yet, the lowest of the low, TURBOPROP pilots from the same possibilities. We on the 146 could have been selfish, "I'm alright Jack" and pushed for acceptance, but why? We don't view the rest of our crews in an elitist way (even though we are the senior fleet
!!!!). Scope as pushed for by BACC is a divisive and insulting proposal.
Worse yet!! Scope version 2 which now says some of our F/O's can be able to bid for mainline, but no-one else! Please find me the plonker who thought up that rationale and elevate them to the highest eschelons (too bored to try a spell-check!) of management. Their total lack of reality makes them very suitable!!!
Now we are supposed to feel sorry for the displace BAR pilots who are to be afforded instant access to the RJ fleet if they so-wish. Not only that, but a tidy little handout each month so that they are no worse off financially. WHY??? What is so special about them? Let's not forget that in fact they are employed by British Airways, not BAR. Their contracts are for BA but SECONDED to the regions, therefore they should not have any RIGHT above BACX pilots. At present, the only crews we should feel any sympathy for are the ex-cfe pilots. They had no choice in being shoved up here into the dank Northwest!
The argument that the RJ fleet are mainline aircraft doesn't really wash. They are due to be transferred to the BACX AOC very shortly, and at that point, we should be allowed to operate them as WE see fit and with the crews that WE employ. If BACC fight to have them kept as mainline, then so be it, but let none of their expenses be attributed to our accounts!
We should be free to grow to serve the markets which we see fit to provide profit to our parent company British Airways without the interference of BACC. At present the situation could be compared to little 5 year old Johnny. Suddenly mummy comes back from the hospital with little newborn Bobby. Johnny throws tantrums and doesn't want any food given to the new arrival. Hinder his growth!!! Pathetic!
Sorry to be so long-winded, but enough is enough, we are either part of the whole picture as equals, or we should be allowed to determine our own destiny.
Rant over! INCOMING! INCOMING!
The differing versions of scope have only served to drive mainline BA and ourselves further apart. As I stated on a previous thread, it's time to decide 'are we part of British Airways or not?'. BACC argue that we are not and to all intents and purposes we really never will be. If so, fine, but then stop telling us what we can or cannot fly, as well as who we can or cannot employ! During BA's job cuts, the cadets were given jobs within our part of the overall airline thus saving them from the dole, or worse losing them to easyjet etc.
Now we are being told that we must accept mainline pilots on the RJ fleet on their existing terms and conditions above our own crews. Scope version 1 allowed our existing 146 crews access to BA mainline but prevented barbie-jet pilots or worse yet, the lowest of the low, TURBOPROP pilots from the same possibilities. We on the 146 could have been selfish, "I'm alright Jack" and pushed for acceptance, but why? We don't view the rest of our crews in an elitist way (even though we are the senior fleet
!!!!). Scope as pushed for by BACC is a divisive and insulting proposal.Worse yet!! Scope version 2 which now says some of our F/O's can be able to bid for mainline, but no-one else! Please find me the plonker who thought up that rationale and elevate them to the highest eschelons (too bored to try a spell-check!) of management. Their total lack of reality makes them very suitable!!!
Now we are supposed to feel sorry for the displace BAR pilots who are to be afforded instant access to the RJ fleet if they so-wish. Not only that, but a tidy little handout each month so that they are no worse off financially. WHY??? What is so special about them? Let's not forget that in fact they are employed by British Airways, not BAR. Their contracts are for BA but SECONDED to the regions, therefore they should not have any RIGHT above BACX pilots. At present, the only crews we should feel any sympathy for are the ex-cfe pilots. They had no choice in being shoved up here into the dank Northwest!
The argument that the RJ fleet are mainline aircraft doesn't really wash. They are due to be transferred to the BACX AOC very shortly, and at that point, we should be allowed to operate them as WE see fit and with the crews that WE employ. If BACC fight to have them kept as mainline, then so be it, but let none of their expenses be attributed to our accounts!
We should be free to grow to serve the markets which we see fit to provide profit to our parent company British Airways without the interference of BACC. At present the situation could be compared to little 5 year old Johnny. Suddenly mummy comes back from the hospital with little newborn Bobby. Johnny throws tantrums and doesn't want any food given to the new arrival. Hinder his growth!!! Pathetic!
Sorry to be so long-winded, but enough is enough, we are either part of the whole picture as equals, or we should be allowed to determine our own destiny.
Rant over! INCOMING! INCOMING!
Last edited by rhythm method; 19th Nov 2002 at 16:17.
