BA LGW ops vs BACX and Willie Walsh?
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
From: UK
Regional subsidiary flying mostly Embraers and props with a history of losing money to take over large fleet of 737s?Not really a sound business plan. File it alongside the 'BACX to take over all Shuttle routes' rumour.
Rebel PPRuNer
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 4
From: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
If his EI record is any judge it's more likely to be BACX and all its equipment for the chopping block. EI used to fly Saabs, Fokkers and 146s once upon a time, now just Airbuses from 320 up once the last three 735s leave.
Among other things that would end the odd little anomaly of the MAN 767. However, BA is not EI and let's hope the Board tell WW so on a regular basis!
Among other things that would end the odd little anomaly of the MAN 767. However, BA is not EI and let's hope the Board tell WW so on a regular basis!
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
From: UK
I think you'll find in order of size BACX operate Emb 145s, DH 8s then RJ100s. Having failed to make a profit in recent years I really can't see the BACX management dream team taking over LGW ops in order to lose even more money.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: Planet Earth
That'll be GB, then...
There's one company at LGW operating really nice and shiny A320s and even A321s...!
They'd have the expertise to run a large 737 (turning slowly to 'Bus) operation at LGW! And I reckon they could make it pay....one thing's for sure, doing nothing at LGW is not an option for BA. This week saw LGW become the orange crowd's biggest base....a pretty noteworthy happening!
FO
They'd have the expertise to run a large 737 (turning slowly to 'Bus) operation at LGW! And I reckon they could make it pay....one thing's for sure, doing nothing at LGW is not an option for BA. This week saw LGW become the orange crowd's biggest base....a pretty noteworthy happening!
FO
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
Today BACX have 28 ERJ 145s, 16 RJ100s, 8 Dash 8s and 4 Bae 146 - soon to be zero 146.
With 2200 flights per week that will create a big gap if WW decides to dispose of it.
BACX plan seems to be to get rid of all the aircraft to make the business run smoother.
With 2200 flights per week that will create a big gap if WW decides to dispose of it.
BACX plan seems to be to get rid of all the aircraft to make the business run smoother.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 6
From: York
And if BACX were to 'assume command' at LGW, who would the pilots be employed by?
BACX pilots flying B737s out of London?
I don't think so!
If WW ever did withdraw from LGW, it is far more lkely to be handed over to a more professional outfit, like GB or Bmed!
BACX pilots flying B737s out of London?
I don't think so!
If WW ever did withdraw from LGW, it is far more lkely to be handed over to a more professional outfit, like GB or Bmed!
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
From: where ever i wake up!!!!
Read a cabin crew 89 news letter a coupla months ago that was for BACX employees it mentioned that big changes would take place at LGW in the near future, at the time did not think to much of it but who knows?
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
From: UK
The idea that BACX could take over the running of BA LGW really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We've already seen that BACX management couldn't organise a p up in a brewery and they certainly don't have a track record of running a sucessful low cost operation, so it can't be the management they're after. Perhaps they want to lower the cabin crew costs? Well the LGW crew are actually fairly poorly paid (no massive LHR allowances) and are comparable to the rates at Easy. So no big savings there. Maybe they want to make the pilots cheaper? Well they won't be able to replace them all with CX pilots and the BA pilots won't sign up to a pay cut to work for CX so no savings there either. That just leaves the ground staff, and I've no reason to believe BACX will be any more succesful with the militant unions than BA were. So. ultimately,what would be the point of such a move?
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 260
Likes: 2
From: UK
LGW is economical compared to LHR, but nowhere near as economical is BACX. BACX however are under the pressure of much more competition, most routes head to head with low cost. LGW is likely to lose much more money than BACX, especially with Easy hot on their tail!
Guest
Posts: n/a
To all ..... and especially MARK D.
You forget one thing..... BACX are cheap and not tied in knots by unions so Willie would be wise to keep hold of them!
4468/carnage matey .... BACX are not unprofessional at all dear people so be careful what you say. At least the regional/european operation has gone from being unmanageable to manageable unlike some others we can mention....!!
You forget one thing..... BACX are cheap and not tied in knots by unions so Willie would be wise to keep hold of them!
4468/carnage matey .... BACX are not unprofessional at all dear people so be careful what you say. At least the regional/european operation has gone from being unmanageable to manageable unlike some others we can mention....!!
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
From: UK
Dash 7 - Did I say unprofessional in any of my posts? I think many of your colleagues would challenge your assertion that your European operation is manageable. Unless your definition of manageable is base closure, involuntary postings, demotions and general chaos. I'd say the shorthaul operation at LHR and LGW is very slickly managed in comparison.
AirLCY - Clearly you haven't been to LGW recently and seen the proliferation of Orange tailfins. Plenty of lo co flights into and out of LGW, along with direct competition from the state funded monoliths of Europe. If BACX are so economical how come they've never made any profit? Wasn't so long ago some were trumpeting how BACX would turn around the regions and make money where BA failed. Well we're all still waiting.
AirLCY - Clearly you haven't been to LGW recently and seen the proliferation of Orange tailfins. Plenty of lo co flights into and out of LGW, along with direct competition from the state funded monoliths of Europe. If BACX are so economical how come they've never made any profit? Wasn't so long ago some were trumpeting how BACX would turn around the regions and make money where BA failed. Well we're all still waiting.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Carnage Matey!
When you merge 4 airlines together in the space of 3 years you will get base closures, unvoluntary postings and general chao and demotions. The company could have just mothballed the J41's but handed them over to Eastern to keep routes and employment in place, also take a look at Air Southwest.
Any business analyst would be impressed if you could make a profit within that time with rising fuel costs, redundancy payments, disposing of aircraft before the leases are up (financial penalties), relocation costs etc etc..... and in the meantime shorthaul is still losing money hand over fist,
and yes we are STILL WAITING???
When you merge 4 airlines together in the space of 3 years you will get base closures, unvoluntary postings and general chao and demotions. The company could have just mothballed the J41's but handed them over to Eastern to keep routes and employment in place, also take a look at Air Southwest.
Any business analyst would be impressed if you could make a profit within that time with rising fuel costs, redundancy payments, disposing of aircraft before the leases are up (financial penalties), relocation costs etc etc..... and in the meantime shorthaul is still losing money hand over fist,
and yes we are STILL WAITING???
Last edited by Dash-7 lover; 6th June 2005 at 17:40.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Middlesesx
I was not aware that any BA unit was managed slickly. CityFlyer and BRAL were both well run and profitable units with a clear target of where their business came from and both had a reasonable reputation. That was 10 years ago and since there assimilation into BA much of there target areas have become unclear. If as much monies had been put into them that was put into'GO' it would have had a very diferent outcome. Logic would dictate that the BACX should be disposed of a it clearly does not fit into the current BA model. However, what would its value be and would anything be ained from such disposal. Another gripe; LGW has never been a profitable BA operation, it costs a fortune and has had millions ploughed into it, surely that might be the better disposal of the operations and ramp, the station reverting to offline supported by a GSA.
