BA City Express BHX & MAN - Latest "Rumour"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA City Express BHX & MAN - Latest "Rumour"
Firstly dont shoot the messanger, but the latest word at the coal face is that if the above businesses do not start to perform in a manner comensurate with the Managements expectations they will be closed from June 03!
Ok this is a rumour, but does any body have any facts on the comitment of Mr E and his band of merry men to these bases?
Regards
Ok this is a rumour, but does any body have any facts on the comitment of Mr E and his band of merry men to these bases?
Regards
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Merthyr Tydfil
Age: 55
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as that?
June 2003? I'll be surprised if we last as long as that!
The business is running at a loss. The present mis-management can't manage and have lost the plot. BA only want a fast buck from us. We can't supply. BA will continue to asset strip us and close us down. If we had decent management, the one small ray of hope might have been a management buy-out. Would you buy a used car from this lot?
The business is running at a loss. The present mis-management can't manage and have lost the plot. BA only want a fast buck from us. We can't supply. BA will continue to asset strip us and close us down. If we had decent management, the one small ray of hope might have been a management buy-out. Would you buy a used car from this lot?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would they start 3 services from MAN and double frequency on 3 others at the start of the summer timetable and announce another new service (to Stuttgart starting May 6th) if they are about to close the MAN base down?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably there's a parent / subsidiary relationship here which means that day to day management (e.g. route launches, axeing services etc) is delgated to BACX whilst strategic decisions (e.g is it in the long term interests of the shareholders to maintain a MAN operation) would be made by the parent.
Doesn't mean I know anything more about this particular rumour, just that its perfectly understandable why a subsidiary company might be merrily going along running its business whilst the parant has got very different ideas about its long term future. Happens all the time in all sorts of businesses.
In the context of BA & MAN, the route launches Ringwayman speaks of have all the signs of local BACX management trying to find something do with excess capacity in their Embraer fleet rather than being driven by any strategic influence from up on high.
682
Doesn't mean I know anything more about this particular rumour, just that its perfectly understandable why a subsidiary company might be merrily going along running its business whilst the parant has got very different ideas about its long term future. Happens all the time in all sorts of businesses.
In the context of BA & MAN, the route launches Ringwayman speaks of have all the signs of local BACX management trying to find something do with excess capacity in their Embraer fleet rather than being driven by any strategic influence from up on high.
682
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to set things right here chaps.
The whole of the BACX operation is under review at the moment to find out how the costs could be brought down. The loss we made last year is not that much and if you look around us airlines have been losing astronomical amounts of money without going out of business.
If we look back a year ago, the airline was cancelling 30 sectors a day on average because of lack of cabin crew alone. When you add the costs of that and having to charter out a/c to do those flights, taxis of disrupted crews going around to work at other bases etc etc etc ....... the amount of money we lost i think is not bad at all.
This year even with a war and this new disease ,the loads have been good with the exception obviously of a couple of routes during certain times of the day.
Personally most of the flights i've done lately go around 80-90% full.
So i think these rumours are nothing but rumours and stand no ground.
Also i would challenge anyone out there working for any airline to come forward and say how safe he/she feels right now at these hard times for the industry.
The whole of the BACX operation is under review at the moment to find out how the costs could be brought down. The loss we made last year is not that much and if you look around us airlines have been losing astronomical amounts of money without going out of business.
If we look back a year ago, the airline was cancelling 30 sectors a day on average because of lack of cabin crew alone. When you add the costs of that and having to charter out a/c to do those flights, taxis of disrupted crews going around to work at other bases etc etc etc ....... the amount of money we lost i think is not bad at all.
This year even with a war and this new disease ,the loads have been good with the exception obviously of a couple of routes during certain times of the day.
Personally most of the flights i've done lately go around 80-90% full.
So i think these rumours are nothing but rumours and stand no ground.
Also i would challenge anyone out there working for any airline to come forward and say how safe he/she feels right now at these hard times for the industry.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
682
A major problem to date has been the parent/subsid relationship namely an overbearing parent giving the subsid no room for 'self-expression'. BA has said 'jump' and we have jumped. This relationship should have been sorted out at the very early stages long before the take-over took place; it would seem that at long last this area of conflict has been seen as a debilitating factor in the business and is receiving some attention albeit 2 years too late.
You are probably right about the MAN routes; why Stuttgart for goodness sake! BACX has a lack lustre, completely unimaginative senior mangement nurtured in a mainline 'corporate' environment with no idea about regional airline operations.
A major problem to date has been the parent/subsid relationship namely an overbearing parent giving the subsid no room for 'self-expression'. BA has said 'jump' and we have jumped. This relationship should have been sorted out at the very early stages long before the take-over took place; it would seem that at long last this area of conflict has been seen as a debilitating factor in the business and is receiving some attention albeit 2 years too late.
You are probably right about the MAN routes; why Stuttgart for goodness sake! BACX has a lack lustre, completely unimaginative senior mangement nurtured in a mainline 'corporate' environment with no idea about regional airline operations.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BACX More routes
Manchester to Stuttgart is odd enough, but what of the recent BA News article saying,
, “As for BA’s future at London City Airport, plans for developing more services and routes”. ?
Any ideas chaps ?
TG
, “As for BA’s future at London City Airport, plans for developing more services and routes”. ?
Any ideas chaps ?
TG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the rather vexing choice of Stuttgart, it was suggested in the local press that BACX were stepping in to fill the void left by LH who withdrew from the route recently 
There may be a reason why LH withdrew of course... hope everything works out anyway.
There may be a reason why LH withdrew of course... hope everything works out anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all you Ppruners interested in the facts, as we the employees of BACX know them so far.
New Measures To Boost Financial Performance
Key Points Phase 1
1. Deliver £20 million of savings, of which at least £7million must be achieved in this financial year.
2. Increase productivity by 5%
3. Remove unnecesssary duplicated activities and management layers.
4. Achieve an 8% operating margin-8p of profit for every £1 of revenue generated.
5. Reduce headcount by 120 manpower equivalent.
Phase 2
To complete a commercial review and a management & organisational review by June, together with a fleet & network review by mid May. The fleet and network review will focus on ensuring the optimum deployment of each type of aircraft on the most appropriate routes. It will also examine growth opportunities on the key markets which BA serves.
Basically BACX has got between 12 & 18 months to start making a positive addition to BAs profits or its sold or closed.
Now you know as much as us the employees know. To all my colleagues working for BACX please stop knocking the airline and its management lets all start pulling in the same direction if you have things to say to them then pick up the phone and tell them directly, in my experience they will listen.
This new airline BACX has a real opportunity to grow into an airline to be proud of, we will all have our part to play no matter how big or small but in can be achieved in the time frame given. As flight deck and cabin crew we have all seen where cost savings can be made but in future don't ignore them tell the management, report it and follow up all reports to make sure action is being taken.
I fully expect BA to come out of the present world wide airline crisis as one of the strongest and best placed in the near future lets make sure BACX is there alongside them, then maybe we can look forward to operating some shiny new Embraer 170/190s
New Measures To Boost Financial Performance
Key Points Phase 1
1. Deliver £20 million of savings, of which at least £7million must be achieved in this financial year.
2. Increase productivity by 5%
3. Remove unnecesssary duplicated activities and management layers.
4. Achieve an 8% operating margin-8p of profit for every £1 of revenue generated.
5. Reduce headcount by 120 manpower equivalent.
Phase 2
To complete a commercial review and a management & organisational review by June, together with a fleet & network review by mid May. The fleet and network review will focus on ensuring the optimum deployment of each type of aircraft on the most appropriate routes. It will also examine growth opportunities on the key markets which BA serves.
Basically BACX has got between 12 & 18 months to start making a positive addition to BAs profits or its sold or closed.
Now you know as much as us the employees know. To all my colleagues working for BACX please stop knocking the airline and its management lets all start pulling in the same direction if you have things to say to them then pick up the phone and tell them directly, in my experience they will listen.
This new airline BACX has a real opportunity to grow into an airline to be proud of, we will all have our part to play no matter how big or small but in can be achieved in the time frame given. As flight deck and cabin crew we have all seen where cost savings can be made but in future don't ignore them tell the management, report it and follow up all reports to make sure action is being taken.
I fully expect BA to come out of the present world wide airline crisis as one of the strongest and best placed in the near future lets make sure BACX is there alongside them, then maybe we can look forward to operating some shiny new Embraer 170/190s
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Reigate
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
y
No truth in Man and BHX closures at all mate.
The accountants say BACX runs at a loss.
1. To try and generate insecurity / fear (and rumours like this) to support their "you should think yourself lucky you have got a job approach".This is supposed to lay the foundations for steam rolling in the efficiency (read work harder for less) measures mentioned above.
2. They attach massive Waterside overheads to achieve this distortion (took lessons from Anderson Consulting).They used this to try and sell us the idea that the Man /Stn route (used to persuade Eastern to take the J41s) made a loss.The early and late STNs were typically 70% full (and not because tickets were cheap)...the answer was just to stop the middle rotation.
3. Because they have attached massive BAR losses to the ex BRAL / Brymon operations.Both the latter made a good profit.
4.Because they don't want expensive BA pilots taking commands on the RJs at Manchester (and if you look at the figures the 42 who initially bid are rapidly changing their minds).
Out of Manchester loads are the highest I have seen them (I have had to offload more people in the last month than I did throuhout 2002).Lots of club pax as well.
BA management might be stupid but even they are not that stupid
No truth in Man and BHX closures at all mate.
The accountants say BACX runs at a loss.
1. To try and generate insecurity / fear (and rumours like this) to support their "you should think yourself lucky you have got a job approach".This is supposed to lay the foundations for steam rolling in the efficiency (read work harder for less) measures mentioned above.
2. They attach massive Waterside overheads to achieve this distortion (took lessons from Anderson Consulting).They used this to try and sell us the idea that the Man /Stn route (used to persuade Eastern to take the J41s) made a loss.The early and late STNs were typically 70% full (and not because tickets were cheap)...the answer was just to stop the middle rotation.
3. Because they have attached massive BAR losses to the ex BRAL / Brymon operations.Both the latter made a good profit.
4.Because they don't want expensive BA pilots taking commands on the RJs at Manchester (and if you look at the figures the 42 who initially bid are rapidly changing their minds).
Out of Manchester loads are the highest I have seen them (I have had to offload more people in the last month than I did throuhout 2002).Lots of club pax as well.
BA management might be stupid but even they are not that stupid
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A grim, soulless place.
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. Because they have attached massive BAR losses to the ex BRAL / Brymon operations.Both the latter made a good profit.
If we look back a year ago, the airline was cancelling 30 sectors a day on average because of lack of cabin crew alone. When you add the costs of that and having to charter out a/c to do those flights, taxis of disrupted crews going around to work at other bases etc etc etc
4.Because they don't want expensive BA pilots taking commands on the RJs at Manchester (and if you look at the figures the 42 who initially bid are rapidly changing their minds).
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good to see one of us stating chapter and verse on the BACX 'key result' goals. BAR and CFE historically operated niche market and performed with financial control and consistent profits, providing good and sometimes better service than BA could muster.
Surely the problem for BACX / BA UK operations is the phenominal growth of the LC's, which have totally pulled the rug from under our feet. Both BACX / BA will have outstanding difficulties in achieving fiscal sucess and making swinging financial savings to maintain / sustain its UK operation.
So far in this thread no one has mentioned the Low Cost competition and this has impacted to such a level that BA management has showed very little iniatative / competance in responce.
In the last 20 years plus I have seen these situations a number of times and the outcome will always be biased towards ensuring survival of the LHR / LGW operation. Sadly all of the issues have been covered before with BCAL / DANAIR / CityFlyer express and I am sure if ex members of those companies read this they can confirm it as fact. Whatever ther a lot of BA staff at Waterside who rely on BACXs' sucess too.
Surely the problem for BACX / BA UK operations is the phenominal growth of the LC's, which have totally pulled the rug from under our feet. Both BACX / BA will have outstanding difficulties in achieving fiscal sucess and making swinging financial savings to maintain / sustain its UK operation.
So far in this thread no one has mentioned the Low Cost competition and this has impacted to such a level that BA management has showed very little iniatative / competance in responce.
In the last 20 years plus I have seen these situations a number of times and the outcome will always be biased towards ensuring survival of the LHR / LGW operation. Sadly all of the issues have been covered before with BCAL / DANAIR / CityFlyer express and I am sure if ex members of those companies read this they can confirm it as fact. Whatever ther a lot of BA staff at Waterside who rely on BACXs' sucess too.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: north
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose most of you work for BACX.
I do not work for them but no may good people who do.
I fly for one of the operators who are expanding,
BA do not have a clue.
The trouble with this business is that decisions made by previous management have log term impact.
For example The A319 order and especially the short haul configuration have to be managed by individuals who did not make the original decision.
The curious decision by the pesent management to by themselves a problem like BRAL, is one that I will never understand, and demonstrates ineptitude.
Historically BA inherited potentialy the most profitable network in the world.
All they have done since then is tinker and chop bases and routes they have failed to manage properly.
The ultimate demonstration of this was when they stopped flying to BELFAST, I am sure they thought they had good reasons for this but it was an admision that they were incapable of managing the business.
RyanAir EasyJet and co are not that great either but they make the aircraft work and FLY from where People LIVE to where they want to GO.
Not VIA LONDON
They also use aircraft which satisfy the expectations of the traveling public.
They do also not use aircraft like the ATP and the ATR which as far as Joe Blogs (not pilots) is concerend are no better than the Viscount which had 72 seats and was more comfortable with big windows.
The majority of People in the UK do Not live arround London.
They dont have a Clue.
I do not work for them but no may good people who do.
I fly for one of the operators who are expanding,
BA do not have a clue.
The trouble with this business is that decisions made by previous management have log term impact.
For example The A319 order and especially the short haul configuration have to be managed by individuals who did not make the original decision.
The curious decision by the pesent management to by themselves a problem like BRAL, is one that I will never understand, and demonstrates ineptitude.
Historically BA inherited potentialy the most profitable network in the world.
All they have done since then is tinker and chop bases and routes they have failed to manage properly.
The ultimate demonstration of this was when they stopped flying to BELFAST, I am sure they thought they had good reasons for this but it was an admision that they were incapable of managing the business.
RyanAir EasyJet and co are not that great either but they make the aircraft work and FLY from where People LIVE to where they want to GO.
Not VIA LONDON
They also use aircraft which satisfy the expectations of the traveling public.
They do also not use aircraft like the ATP and the ATR which as far as Joe Blogs (not pilots) is concerend are no better than the Viscount which had 72 seats and was more comfortable with big windows.
The majority of People in the UK do Not live arround London.
They dont have a Clue.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: England
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BACX crews should be a little less militant too...
The tools of our trade are the "forever on mobile" and our cars. The tools of your trade are the terms of your contracts.
We get on with it, you state you can't do it because your contract says "...
We have a laugh in the face of adversity, you moan and the pax notice.
We get paid less, but are thankful for a job, you get paid loads and complain at lack of security.
We have managers that look for low costs and efficiency, you have managers that have lots of meetings and come up with jargon riddled strategies.
We struggle with BACX staff, who have simply forgotten about the service they should be offering the pax, since they are so used to looking after themselves.
We have happy pax, we make a profit, do you?
Stu
PS - There are some BACX staff that are top lads/gals who are utterly sick of BACX and are a delight to have on board - experienced, keen and with a very positive attitude. They have spotted a winner and want to be part of it. But the key is "some".
Edited for tpyo
The tools of our trade are the "forever on mobile" and our cars. The tools of your trade are the terms of your contracts.
We get on with it, you state you can't do it because your contract says "...
We have a laugh in the face of adversity, you moan and the pax notice.
We get paid less, but are thankful for a job, you get paid loads and complain at lack of security.
We have managers that look for low costs and efficiency, you have managers that have lots of meetings and come up with jargon riddled strategies.
We struggle with BACX staff, who have simply forgotten about the service they should be offering the pax, since they are so used to looking after themselves.
We have happy pax, we make a profit, do you?
Stu
PS - There are some BACX staff that are top lads/gals who are utterly sick of BACX and are a delight to have on board - experienced, keen and with a very positive attitude. They have spotted a winner and want to be part of it. But the key is "some".
Edited for tpyo
Last edited by Stu Bigzorst; 28th Apr 2003 at 15:25.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must agree with the contributor who stated that 'BA will come out of this a lot stronger'. However, logic must dictate that to do this it must come out a lot leaner.
Much of the higher than wanted costs for BACX is surely the ground service provided by BA mainline at MAN / GLA. One of the outcomes of the review must surely see ground services outsourced before routes / flights suffer.
I recall many months ago when the issue of BACX was stated with some force by an LGW F/O. When the RJs' moved to the BA terminal the handling charge changed from £400 to £1300 which reflected an immediate loss in their operations costs. Under the BA system at MAN / GLA turmaround costs are still too high.
Much of the higher than wanted costs for BACX is surely the ground service provided by BA mainline at MAN / GLA. One of the outcomes of the review must surely see ground services outsourced before routes / flights suffer.
I recall many months ago when the issue of BACX was stated with some force by an LGW F/O. When the RJs' moved to the BA terminal the handling charge changed from £400 to £1300 which reflected an immediate loss in their operations costs. Under the BA system at MAN / GLA turmaround costs are still too high.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well STU you have certainly hit a raw nerve with your post.
On what basis / experience do you make your comments?
Many BA & BACX crew are known to me and "all" are more than happy to role their sleeves up and try their hardest to exceed the customers pre-conceived expectations of BA. All this in the face of considerable adversity, given the susceptibility to technical issues that continually impact on their ability to do the job. Lets face it the RJ100 with its overflowing toilets and other technical problems is not exactly condusive to the running of a tight schedule.
No I am convinced that those at the sharp end give their best, however most of their actions are reactive. What is needed is a more appreciative, proacative, "hands on" management that is able, with the tools at hand, to effectively plan for the survival of a good business.
NO MORE IVORY TOWERS PLEASE!!!
On what basis / experience do you make your comments?
Many BA & BACX crew are known to me and "all" are more than happy to role their sleeves up and try their hardest to exceed the customers pre-conceived expectations of BA. All this in the face of considerable adversity, given the susceptibility to technical issues that continually impact on their ability to do the job. Lets face it the RJ100 with its overflowing toilets and other technical problems is not exactly condusive to the running of a tight schedule.
No I am convinced that those at the sharp end give their best, however most of their actions are reactive. What is needed is a more appreciative, proacative, "hands on" management that is able, with the tools at hand, to effectively plan for the survival of a good business.
NO MORE IVORY TOWERS PLEASE!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SECs is right. The main reason BACX can't make a profit is that the incidental costs have got totally out of control. The odd taxi and hotel here and there won't make much difference but we are not talking about the odd taxi and hotel ! We are talking about entire taxi companies being created and run solely for us ! and hotels full of displaced pilots and cabin crew.
The main problem was that although the FSAS changes may have been designed to cut costs in the short term they have created so much havoc that the short term costs of implementing them have driven us so far into the red you have to wonder whether it was worth it !
Manhatten Transfers have started up a BRS base purely to cater for us. At one point early this year they were running 10 to 15 round trips between BRS and CWL everyday ! Each with just one person in ! I have and I know others who have been displaced, who have been rostered away and then left in hotels, at goodness only knows how much a night, on STANDBY then to be brought home in a taxi having not operated a single sector ! I have friends working for TITAN who are laughing at us as they take ten thousand pounds a sector because we didn't have enough a/c and Cabin Crew - although all the a/c we "sent back" (to save a couple of quid) were standing idle usually at our own bases !
The whole scale changes brought about must have sent the training costs through the stratosphere and we have not even got to all the relocation !
The whole thing is a typical accountant's solution. Find a way to save £1 but forget that saving that £1 is going to cost you £10. You only need to look at almost every area of management in the UK, not just airlines, to see how useless accountants and management consultants are ! The people who know how to cut costs and where they can be cut effectively are the people who spend the money - The Pilots, Cabin Crew, The Ground Staff and the Engineers ! But no one asks us and despite what is said everytime I've suggested something the only reply you can get is that "You can't see the big picture". Well I can see the "Small Picture" and anyone who forgets the "look after the pennies....." quotation is obviously an accountant. Smart tricks on a balance sheet don't put bums on seats or save a few quid on fuel, catering and crewing. This is the fundamental thing that has been forgotten.
There was a need for change. The industry is changing beyond all recognition and no one in BA knows what to do about it because only good BA people get the important jobs and they know no other way. I personally don't blame any of the BACX line management they have been given an impossible task and the wrong equipment to do it with. i.e. The RJ, mike is right they are a tech nightmare and won't help us keep our pax's bums off FLY BEs, MYlites, BMi's, et als, seats ! But as a company, be it management or those of us at the sharp end, we are lumbered with them by people higher up BA who don't care if we succeed or fail and will keep their jobs and careers either way.
The point, after my long ramble, I am trying to make is that - Yes change is necessary BUT the company must think about the costs involved in making the changes BEFORE implementing them. That's where the FSAS reviews failed. They made logical, if not always nice, changes BUT carried them out with absolutley no co-ordination, planning or cost control. To quote Nike they just did it and the companies operation fell apart as a result and I'm worried it may now never recover.
For the company to survive the overheads have to be slashed you can not turn profit into loss by cutting more and more of an operation. That just leaves you with less earning potential to cover the same massive massive masssive overheads we have. This won't change as the turkeys will never vote for Christmas ! and most of the turkeys still think it's 1968 and this is how an airline must be run !
The main problem was that although the FSAS changes may have been designed to cut costs in the short term they have created so much havoc that the short term costs of implementing them have driven us so far into the red you have to wonder whether it was worth it !
Manhatten Transfers have started up a BRS base purely to cater for us. At one point early this year they were running 10 to 15 round trips between BRS and CWL everyday ! Each with just one person in ! I have and I know others who have been displaced, who have been rostered away and then left in hotels, at goodness only knows how much a night, on STANDBY then to be brought home in a taxi having not operated a single sector ! I have friends working for TITAN who are laughing at us as they take ten thousand pounds a sector because we didn't have enough a/c and Cabin Crew - although all the a/c we "sent back" (to save a couple of quid) were standing idle usually at our own bases !
The whole scale changes brought about must have sent the training costs through the stratosphere and we have not even got to all the relocation !
The whole thing is a typical accountant's solution. Find a way to save £1 but forget that saving that £1 is going to cost you £10. You only need to look at almost every area of management in the UK, not just airlines, to see how useless accountants and management consultants are ! The people who know how to cut costs and where they can be cut effectively are the people who spend the money - The Pilots, Cabin Crew, The Ground Staff and the Engineers ! But no one asks us and despite what is said everytime I've suggested something the only reply you can get is that "You can't see the big picture". Well I can see the "Small Picture" and anyone who forgets the "look after the pennies....." quotation is obviously an accountant. Smart tricks on a balance sheet don't put bums on seats or save a few quid on fuel, catering and crewing. This is the fundamental thing that has been forgotten.
There was a need for change. The industry is changing beyond all recognition and no one in BA knows what to do about it because only good BA people get the important jobs and they know no other way. I personally don't blame any of the BACX line management they have been given an impossible task and the wrong equipment to do it with. i.e. The RJ, mike is right they are a tech nightmare and won't help us keep our pax's bums off FLY BEs, MYlites, BMi's, et als, seats ! But as a company, be it management or those of us at the sharp end, we are lumbered with them by people higher up BA who don't care if we succeed or fail and will keep their jobs and careers either way.
The point, after my long ramble, I am trying to make is that - Yes change is necessary BUT the company must think about the costs involved in making the changes BEFORE implementing them. That's where the FSAS reviews failed. They made logical, if not always nice, changes BUT carried them out with absolutley no co-ordination, planning or cost control. To quote Nike they just did it and the companies operation fell apart as a result and I'm worried it may now never recover.
For the company to survive the overheads have to be slashed you can not turn profit into loss by cutting more and more of an operation. That just leaves you with less earning potential to cover the same massive massive masssive overheads we have. This won't change as the turkeys will never vote for Christmas ! and most of the turkeys still think it's 1968 and this is how an airline must be run !
Last edited by CheekyVisual; 28th Apr 2003 at 16:55.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STU
Don't intend to get into the debate, but feel obliged to correct you on one point. You say in your post:
"We get paid less, but are thankful for a job, you get paid loads and complain at lack of security."
£20,000 a year does not constitute loads in my book, indeed its less than the national average, and less than a bus driver gets in my home town!
Sorry, had to set the record straight.
Mr Angry
Don't intend to get into the debate, but feel obliged to correct you on one point. You say in your post:
"We get paid less, but are thankful for a job, you get paid loads and complain at lack of security."
£20,000 a year does not constitute loads in my book, indeed its less than the national average, and less than a bus driver gets in my home town!
Sorry, had to set the record straight.
Mr Angry