Do BA pilots really deserve our support re Openskys?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontiuspilot
The point I am making is this. I believe I may be correct in saying that you need to spend two years with an employer before you receive any protection from redundancy. BA making even a couple of dozen pilots 'legally' redundant (some of whom are pensioners anyway!) is unlikely to make any headlines at all! In any case, as has been mentioned, there are other ways of sifting the wheat from the chaff.
As far as "BALPA would be on their case". That is precisely why the recruitment ban was published. You were warned, and have chosen to operate outside of union protections, and are therefore on your own. Though I very much doubt you are a member anyway!
Of course the most interesting implication is in your assertion that "BA makes pilots redundant," breaks rules, law, contracts etc....
But we are told that 'apparently' this is NOT BA it is an entirely new company named Openskies! Though I do have a vague recollection of others wishing to be BA pilots when it suited, but separate when it did not!
There are many threats to this fledgling airline, only one of which is BALPA's action. There will be NO headlines anywhere, when it folds. Where did you read about Maxjet, and it's redundant pilots?
Hear hear - can you see the headlines - BA makes pilots redundant, BA breaks employment rules, BA breaks contracts, BA breaks European law, BA appear in the European court of Human Rights, more Sunday Broadsheet front pages......it's enough to make you realise that BALPA would be on their case, wouldn't that make for an interesting thread on here!
Obviously Hand Solo would support ANY vocal pilot group trying to protect their jobs!
Yup, I think our careers with OS are safe.
Obviously Hand Solo would support ANY vocal pilot group trying to protect their jobs!
Yup, I think our careers with OS are safe.
As far as "BALPA would be on their case". That is precisely why the recruitment ban was published. You were warned, and have chosen to operate outside of union protections, and are therefore on your own. Though I very much doubt you are a member anyway!
Of course the most interesting implication is in your assertion that "BA makes pilots redundant," breaks rules, law, contracts etc....
But we are told that 'apparently' this is NOT BA it is an entirely new company named Openskies! Though I do have a vague recollection of others wishing to be BA pilots when it suited, but separate when it did not!
There are many threats to this fledgling airline, only one of which is BALPA's action. There will be NO headlines anywhere, when it folds. Where did you read about Maxjet, and it's redundant pilots?
Last edited by 4468; 12th May 2008 at 09:33.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting though that potentially an OS pilot would be trained, licensed and deemed legally safe to operate the aircraft for pax revenue services one day, and potentially chopped the next by BA.
To whom?
Exclusively to you I suspect.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Standards? BA Standards? I recall BA cadets being chopped by BRAL when on attachment, and then being given a substantial number of extra sim sessions by mainline to get them through!
4468 - I didn't mention Maxjet, or mean to anyway. My point really is that regardless of the legal realities, I doubt even BA management would like to see even more broadsheet front pages, regardless of the provenance. The pax figures speak for themselves in April.
Regarding BALPA, again, a front page giving the other side of the story would make interesting reading, more on "The British Airways Line Pilots Association etc etc. I'm sure that will generate more public sympathy. After all, the only purpose of front pages is to sell newspapers, they are often, (like Union and Management statements), a little light on the 'actualite'.
Actually though, I think - getting back to the main thread - that it's irrelevant whether BA pilots deserve or get support from other pilot groups. Human nature being what it is, no-one will ever feel sorry for the City Financial sector redundancies, and nor will they for BA (or any) airline pilots who are perceived to be overpaid.
BTW Hand Solo, just for the record, when you say:
Let's remember that only applied to Cityflier Mk One. You changed the rules for BACX and BAConnect, and the experience level of CityFlier Mk 2 shows how much people are expecting this time around, as so many people have left. Of course, you still have the nerve to demand LHS jobs for your mainline pals in Cityflier Mk 2, but you withhold reciprocity - as usual!
4468 - I didn't mention Maxjet, or mean to anyway. My point really is that regardless of the legal realities, I doubt even BA management would like to see even more broadsheet front pages, regardless of the provenance. The pax figures speak for themselves in April.
Regarding BALPA, again, a front page giving the other side of the story would make interesting reading, more on "The British Airways Line Pilots Association etc etc. I'm sure that will generate more public sympathy. After all, the only purpose of front pages is to sell newspapers, they are often, (like Union and Management statements), a little light on the 'actualite'.
Actually though, I think - getting back to the main thread - that it's irrelevant whether BA pilots deserve or get support from other pilot groups. Human nature being what it is, no-one will ever feel sorry for the City Financial sector redundancies, and nor will they for BA (or any) airline pilots who are perceived to be overpaid.
BTW Hand Solo, just for the record, when you say:
BA could of course tag you all on to the bottom of the mainline seniority list, just like they did with Cityflyer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's remember that only applied to Cityflier Mk One. You changed the rules for BACX and BAConnect, and the experience level of CityFlier Mk 2 shows how much people are expecting this time around, as so many people have left. Of course, you still have the nerve to demand LHS jobs for your mainline pals in Cityflier Mk 2, but you withhold reciprocity - as usual!
it's irrelevant whether BA pilots deserve or get support from other pilot groups. Human nature being what it is, no-one will ever feel sorry for the City Financial sector redundancies, and nor will they for BA (or any) airline pilots who are perceived to be overpaid.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius
I think all I'm trying to say is, you could all potentially find yourselves on a very stickey wicket. Inspite of your obvious low regard for the futures of myself, and my colleagues, I genuinely hope you are not caught out!
I suspect there would be very little interest from the press.
I believe you may have had some previous experience with BA management, and will be very well aware of exactly how you are likely to be treated. I can't believe you've fallen for it again! Different names, same b@!!sh!t.
I think all I'm trying to say is, you could all potentially find yourselves on a very stickey wicket. Inspite of your obvious low regard for the futures of myself, and my colleagues, I genuinely hope you are not caught out!
I suspect there would be very little interest from the press.
I believe you may have had some previous experience with BA management, and will be very well aware of exactly how you are likely to be treated. I can't believe you've fallen for it again! Different names, same b@!!sh!t.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468 - Thanks for that. It may sound odd, but I have no personal low regard for any of the professional standards of BA - other than the ethical standards in their management - however there is such a perceived disingenuous arrogance and hubris displayed by so many BA personalities on here that I feel it necessary to redress the balance from time to time with a reminder of the more glaring logical inconsistencies that they propound.
Anyway, thank you for your concerns - I hope they are not needed, and all the best to yourself.
From a more global viewpoint, I believe the days of the Legacy carrier are well and truly over. In some respects this is why I believe the abstract concept of OS is the only one likely to succeed. Oil prices coupled with the apparent inability of most large National Carriers to implement and enjoy economies of scale as found in other multi-national industries mean that they will be encountering growing major business problems. If you ally that with an apparent ability to shoot yourself in both feet and the bum at the same time in publicity terms, then I doubt even the most adventurous of market forecasters could really see anything but trouble ahead. BA needed to have merged along the lines of the model of AF - not that I believe this will necessarily work for all the same reasons, however the size and scope mean that it has the resilience and strength, not to mention the multi national governmental support - to last a lot longer. (Neither does it have the dreadful debt and leverage ratios possessed by BA)
The UK Government possesses neither the imagination nor the chutzpah of the Italians - it more resembles the Belgians or the Swiss. That, I believe is the medium term future for BA, not identical, but a much slimmed down long haul product, solely ex LHR, with perhaps two or three wholely owned subsidiaries like Cityflyer and OS doing the less glamorous donkey work. However, a job is a job; neither Red Robbo, Arthur Scargill or the scaly toothy Dinosaurs from the Jurassic ever believed what was going to happen to them until it was too late. Too many vested interests in BA, from BALPA through BACC through all the 'support' services to change now.
-
Anyway, thank you for your concerns - I hope they are not needed, and all the best to yourself.
From a more global viewpoint, I believe the days of the Legacy carrier are well and truly over. In some respects this is why I believe the abstract concept of OS is the only one likely to succeed. Oil prices coupled with the apparent inability of most large National Carriers to implement and enjoy economies of scale as found in other multi-national industries mean that they will be encountering growing major business problems. If you ally that with an apparent ability to shoot yourself in both feet and the bum at the same time in publicity terms, then I doubt even the most adventurous of market forecasters could really see anything but trouble ahead. BA needed to have merged along the lines of the model of AF - not that I believe this will necessarily work for all the same reasons, however the size and scope mean that it has the resilience and strength, not to mention the multi national governmental support - to last a lot longer. (Neither does it have the dreadful debt and leverage ratios possessed by BA)
The UK Government possesses neither the imagination nor the chutzpah of the Italians - it more resembles the Belgians or the Swiss. That, I believe is the medium term future for BA, not identical, but a much slimmed down long haul product, solely ex LHR, with perhaps two or three wholely owned subsidiaries like Cityflyer and OS doing the less glamorous donkey work. However, a job is a job; neither Red Robbo, Arthur Scargill or the scaly toothy Dinosaurs from the Jurassic ever believed what was going to happen to them until it was too late. Too many vested interests in BA, from BALPA through BACC through all the 'support' services to change now.
-
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is another issue that could threaten openskies. BA at the moment is looking at alliances with American carriers and in the future possible mergers, although the latter is a bit more doubtful. However if we just look at the possible
'alliances' with American and more importantly Continental. If some deal was struck, presumably BA would retain its big wig status on the London-New York route (especially LHR). This would leave Continental with possibly a large presence in Gatwick, but definitely a opportunity to concentrate on the mainland Europe traffic.
Then to Continental's surprise they find they are competing with a BA product named Openskies...could this be an issue?
randomair
'alliances' with American and more importantly Continental. If some deal was struck, presumably BA would retain its big wig status on the London-New York route (especially LHR). This would leave Continental with possibly a large presence in Gatwick, but definitely a opportunity to concentrate on the mainland Europe traffic.
Then to Continental's surprise they find they are competing with a BA product named Openskies...could this be an issue?
randomair
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I haven't looked into this enough but as BA don't fly Paris to New York, in what way are OS pilots harming BA pilots.
How is this different to setting up GO back in the 90's?
How is this different to setting up GO back in the 90's?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article in todays FT quoting prices of all major carriers for a business class seat to dubai
BA £3500 return
Silverjet £1050 return
BA £3500 return
Silverjet £1050 return
Originally Posted by Gypsy
Maybe I haven't looked into this enough but as BA don't fly Paris to New York, in what way are OS pilots harming BA pilots.
How is this different to setting up GO back in the 90's?
How is this different to setting up GO back in the 90's?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet another unhelpful reply - sorry I don't have hours and hours of spare time to wade through the whole thread.
PPRUNE is supposed to be a forum where professional people can discuss issues affecting or interesting them. I think the questions were quite valid and in any open debate should be able to attract a reasonable answer. If you are unable to justify your case with reasonable responses then perhaps your case is not so strong.
If BA were starting a subsidary and that subsidary was taking over existing BA routes and operating them with non BA mainline pilots then I can see a big issue with that.
Q1, Why is it an issue for an airline to start a subsidary and start new routes serving a different market with that subsidary?
Q2, Why is this any different to BA starting GO at STN some 10 years ago?
It is quite normal business practice for big companies to start subsidaries to serve different markets.
Assuming OS goes ahead, I predict that eventually BALPA or a European equivalent will seek recognition and gladly take the subscriptions from the very pilots they want to prevent getting the jobs now
PPRUNE is supposed to be a forum where professional people can discuss issues affecting or interesting them. I think the questions were quite valid and in any open debate should be able to attract a reasonable answer. If you are unable to justify your case with reasonable responses then perhaps your case is not so strong.
If BA were starting a subsidary and that subsidary was taking over existing BA routes and operating them with non BA mainline pilots then I can see a big issue with that.
Q1, Why is it an issue for an airline to start a subsidary and start new routes serving a different market with that subsidary?
Q2, Why is this any different to BA starting GO at STN some 10 years ago?
It is quite normal business practice for big companies to start subsidaries to serve different markets.
Assuming OS goes ahead, I predict that eventually BALPA or a European equivalent will seek recognition and gladly take the subscriptions from the very pilots they want to prevent getting the jobs now
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gypsy
I had promised myself I would not write any more on this thread. However....
In response to your claim that Paris/ Brussels are somehow different markets, I would say this. BA runs an extensive European network, frequently bordering on losses. It does this for one major reason. To bring customers into Heathrow to connect with it's longhaul services.
Believe it or not, ticket prices from the continent into LHR, and out to LH destinations are frequently cheaper than to fly LHR direct to those same destinations. It's the way the business works.
BA has so far refused to disclose to ANYONE how many pax currently fly CDG/BRU-LHR-JFK. I wonder why??
Add to that the nightmare that is LHR, and it is easy to see that anyone who likes to fly BA's PREMIUM PRODUCT, would probably be quite pleased to fly direct CDG/BRU (anywhere you care to mention) to JFK etc. etc...avoiding LHR completely.
Since a significant proportion of OS pax would likely have otherwise transferred (albeit uneasily) through LHR, (and soon will not) it is very difficult to sustain the argument that this is somehow a 'different' market.
But of course everyone knows that OS has it's sights set on destinations much further afield than just North America. OS will grow exponentially once created! It will be able to operate any aircraft type to any destination.
Secondly however, in my personal opinion, 'Go' was indeed a different market. It operated, I believe, from Stanstead (no transfer pax) and offered a totally different product to mainline. In other words, it was aimed at different (new) customers. However much it grew it could complement mainline. Though in hindsight, and in all honesty, BALPA may take more interest if it were created today!
Thirdly, BALPA actually isn't trying to prevent ANY pilots from getting jobs. I don't believe there is a single pilot, certainly in BA, who would wish OS to be anything other than a great success for our company. It's expansion for heaven's sake, which is great! We are just concerned with developments we have seen elsewhere in the World where PRECISELY this kind of low key 'separate' start up, has lead to very significant downward pressure on the T&Cs of it's parent's employees.
BALPA have offered a no cost solution to BA, which would satisfy everyone.
Simply put OS pilots on the mainline seniority list.
Nothing else! No outrageous demands. Zilch. Rien. Zip.
BA are risking extremely damaging strike action to prevent this simple, and inexpensive solution.
Why???
It is crystal clear.
BA seeks to artificially create an internal market for it's employees, in which pilots have to 'compete' with each other for work! They will do this on the basis of only one criteria. Cost.
And so we all see our T&Cs deteriorate, until this job pays the absolute minimum. If it happens to us, it will be coming to a workplace near you very soon!
Ensuring we are all on the same seniority list, with the same opportunities, and aspirations, hopefully means, we all stick up for each other. We don't allow a false internal market to develop as we all have a vested interest in each others T&Cs. Simple.
Non of my colleagues have any particular axe to grind with those taking positions with OS. In fact I wish them all the best, and look forward to welcoming them onto the mainline seniority list. However, hopefully I have explained why we are prepared to bring down this whole circus of clowns that BA has become, before we let this one pass!
We have little to lose.
I'm going to return to a 'watching brief' here again I think!
I had promised myself I would not write any more on this thread. However....
In response to your claim that Paris/ Brussels are somehow different markets, I would say this. BA runs an extensive European network, frequently bordering on losses. It does this for one major reason. To bring customers into Heathrow to connect with it's longhaul services.
Believe it or not, ticket prices from the continent into LHR, and out to LH destinations are frequently cheaper than to fly LHR direct to those same destinations. It's the way the business works.
BA has so far refused to disclose to ANYONE how many pax currently fly CDG/BRU-LHR-JFK. I wonder why??
Add to that the nightmare that is LHR, and it is easy to see that anyone who likes to fly BA's PREMIUM PRODUCT, would probably be quite pleased to fly direct CDG/BRU (anywhere you care to mention) to JFK etc. etc...avoiding LHR completely.
Since a significant proportion of OS pax would likely have otherwise transferred (albeit uneasily) through LHR, (and soon will not) it is very difficult to sustain the argument that this is somehow a 'different' market.
But of course everyone knows that OS has it's sights set on destinations much further afield than just North America. OS will grow exponentially once created! It will be able to operate any aircraft type to any destination.
Secondly however, in my personal opinion, 'Go' was indeed a different market. It operated, I believe, from Stanstead (no transfer pax) and offered a totally different product to mainline. In other words, it was aimed at different (new) customers. However much it grew it could complement mainline. Though in hindsight, and in all honesty, BALPA may take more interest if it were created today!
Thirdly, BALPA actually isn't trying to prevent ANY pilots from getting jobs. I don't believe there is a single pilot, certainly in BA, who would wish OS to be anything other than a great success for our company. It's expansion for heaven's sake, which is great! We are just concerned with developments we have seen elsewhere in the World where PRECISELY this kind of low key 'separate' start up, has lead to very significant downward pressure on the T&Cs of it's parent's employees.
BALPA have offered a no cost solution to BA, which would satisfy everyone.
Simply put OS pilots on the mainline seniority list.
Nothing else! No outrageous demands. Zilch. Rien. Zip.
BA are risking extremely damaging strike action to prevent this simple, and inexpensive solution.
Why???
It is crystal clear.
BA seeks to artificially create an internal market for it's employees, in which pilots have to 'compete' with each other for work! They will do this on the basis of only one criteria. Cost.
And so we all see our T&Cs deteriorate, until this job pays the absolute minimum. If it happens to us, it will be coming to a workplace near you very soon!
Ensuring we are all on the same seniority list, with the same opportunities, and aspirations, hopefully means, we all stick up for each other. We don't allow a false internal market to develop as we all have a vested interest in each others T&Cs. Simple.
Non of my colleagues have any particular axe to grind with those taking positions with OS. In fact I wish them all the best, and look forward to welcoming them onto the mainline seniority list. However, hopefully I have explained why we are prepared to bring down this whole circus of clowns that BA has become, before we let this one pass!
We have little to lose.
I'm going to return to a 'watching brief' here again I think!
Last edited by 4468; 13th May 2008 at 11:41.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468.
May i say it is refreshing to read such a good post from a BA mainline pilot stating very good reasons for their case against BA re Openskies. May I again wish all at BA success with your action against BA.
I hope the likes of Hand Solo and Tandemrotor can learn from your excellent post. 4468 has managed to sell a very good case without threats of "scabs" or mud slinging at other pilot groups. I would say this post should get most pilots on side.
May i say it is refreshing to read such a good post from a BA mainline pilot stating very good reasons for their case against BA re Openskies. May I again wish all at BA success with your action against BA.
I hope the likes of Hand Solo and Tandemrotor can learn from your excellent post. 4468 has managed to sell a very good case without threats of "scabs" or mud slinging at other pilot groups. I would say this post should get most pilots on side.
Last edited by bluepilot; 13th May 2008 at 18:02.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But he is being somewhat disengenuous when he says
because he knows that if this is the case, then the cost saving to BA for each individual pilot only exists for as long as he decides to remain on OS T&C's...
And because they're perceived as such a pittance, one must assume that, therefore, the saving will only persist for as long as their initial freeze on "type"...
So, arguably a "no cost" solution as 4468 quite rightly says, but thats not quite BA's point...
BALPA have offered a no cost solution to BA, which would satisfy everyone.
Simply put OS pilots on the mainline seniority list.
Nothing else! No outrageous demands. Zilch. Rien. Zip.
BA are risking extremely damaging strike action to prevent this simple, and inexpensive solution.
Simply put OS pilots on the mainline seniority list.
Nothing else! No outrageous demands. Zilch. Rien. Zip.
BA are risking extremely damaging strike action to prevent this simple, and inexpensive solution.
And because they're perceived as such a pittance, one must assume that, therefore, the saving will only persist for as long as their initial freeze on "type"...
So, arguably a "no cost" solution as 4468 quite rightly says, but thats not quite BA's point...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because he knows that if this is the case, then the cost saving to BA for each individual pilot only exists for as long as he decides to remain on OS T&C's...
And because they're perceived as such a pittance, one must assume that, therefore, the saving will only persist for as long as their initial freeze on "type"...
And because they're perceived as such a pittance, one must assume that, therefore, the saving will only persist for as long as their initial freeze on "type"...
The big point is BALPA have conceeded the OS t&c completely, ie BA can offer any contact they wish. Any costs increases will be small and BALPA have said they will talk to BA to address any concerns they may have.
In short 4468 is correct as to the real reason why BA don't want a common list. Unfortunatly for BA this has been tried before and the pilots know about it as shown by a thumping ballot result.
Since I am here a note on the court case, BA say we are impeding thier right to set up a buissness in Europe. Nonsense we want it to be a success and are on record saying so. I remember when project lauren was unvieled the intrest and excitement generated amonst pilots, as 4468 says welcoming expansion. All this could be resolved easily but BA don't want to because their long term objective can not be met if there is common list.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gypsy
Congratulations on eliciting a sensible reply from a BA pilot on here - don't ever expect much in the way of a helpful response from Hand Solo - other than patronising and bullying diatribes.
4468 provided a good answer, however the fact remains that all too clearly, the answer does NOT satisfy all parts of the equation. The so-called facts all depend on your viewpoint and how strategically you are looking; not to mention the personal implications of your current perspective.
I remember once, as a Fleet Manager receiving letters of job application from people desperate to break into aviation offering to type rate themselves and then work for NOTHING for a year to show their mettle. At the time that was not general policy - (If MOL is reading this, I'm on 10%) - however as long as you have people like that out there, it justifies (in management terms) the use of such employment instruments. And why not. If you own shares, you expect the Board of the relevant company to perform and pay you a dividend (erm....not BA shares then). If they fail, you sell and don't invest again. How many of you check the employment policies of the Blue Chips you invest in?
Hmmm, thought so, it's all a sort of NIMBYism isn't it.
4468 provided a good answer, however the fact remains that all too clearly, the answer does NOT satisfy all parts of the equation. The so-called facts all depend on your viewpoint and how strategically you are looking; not to mention the personal implications of your current perspective.
I remember once, as a Fleet Manager receiving letters of job application from people desperate to break into aviation offering to type rate themselves and then work for NOTHING for a year to show their mettle. At the time that was not general policy - (If MOL is reading this, I'm on 10%) - however as long as you have people like that out there, it justifies (in management terms) the use of such employment instruments. And why not. If you own shares, you expect the Board of the relevant company to perform and pay you a dividend (erm....not BA shares then). If they fail, you sell and don't invest again. How many of you check the employment policies of the Blue Chips you invest in?
Hmmm, thought so, it's all a sort of NIMBYism isn't it.
Last edited by Pontiuspilot; 13th May 2008 at 19:40. Reason: Sp
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I add my thanks to the post made by 4468, so eloquently written I'd have to work for hours to compile such a post.
We are not being disengenous when it comes to talking with BA and trying to negotiate a workable solution and addressing concerns of both parties.
I'd also welcome any pilot getting recruited for OS however I have severe doubts about the sustainability of this operation with the rocketing oil prices.
Be careful out there guys, there will be some fallout over this one, don't get caught giving up a contract with another carrier before you know what the fallout of this dispute is going to be.
regards from another ba pilot
We are not being disengenous when it comes to talking with BA and trying to negotiate a workable solution and addressing concerns of both parties.
I'd also welcome any pilot getting recruited for OS however I have severe doubts about the sustainability of this operation with the rocketing oil prices.
Be careful out there guys, there will be some fallout over this one, don't get caught giving up a contract with another carrier before you know what the fallout of this dispute is going to be.
regards from another ba pilot
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Not where Iwant to be anymore!!!!
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468 said:
I completely agree with the logic. However, if the market now permits BA (or anyone else) to operate, say CDG or BRU to JFK, then why not do that? I would have thought, given the percentage of an operation's overhead that is represented by pilot wages, that the potential profitability would not be that much different, and the pax would not then be flying a second rate BA service.
More, the competition would presumably have to work harder if up against the premium product.
What am I missing?
It can't be that LHR is bypassed, since that's going to happen anyway. Surely it can't be just the profit margin? I reckon it's the strategic thing and that BA Board, given their indebtedness (HAND SOLO TAKE NOTE - I SUSPECT THAT SILVERJET OWE A LOT LESS THAN BA AND THAT THEY ARE BETTER LEVERAGED AS WELL!) have realised that their business model needs to change. Not unnaturally, the staff don't agree. Glad I'm not on board, the ship is listing, the pax are disembarking to the lifeboats and the crew are mutinying - got to be good for the rest of us!
Add to that the nightmare that is LHR, and it is easy to see that anyone who likes to fly BA's PREMIUM PRODUCT, would probably be quite pleased to fly direct CDG/BRU (anywhere you care to mention) to JFK etc. etc...avoiding LHR completely.
More, the competition would presumably have to work harder if up against the premium product.
What am I missing?
It can't be that LHR is bypassed, since that's going to happen anyway. Surely it can't be just the profit margin? I reckon it's the strategic thing and that BA Board, given their indebtedness (HAND SOLO TAKE NOTE - I SUSPECT THAT SILVERJET OWE A LOT LESS THAN BA AND THAT THEY ARE BETTER LEVERAGED AS WELL!) have realised that their business model needs to change. Not unnaturally, the staff don't agree. Glad I'm not on board, the ship is listing, the pax are disembarking to the lifeboats and the crew are mutinying - got to be good for the rest of us!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Silas. Many thanks for your truly insightful statement that Silverjet owe a lot less than BA. Of course it doesn't take a financial genius to realise that a sub-prime, two 757 airline is likely to have a lot less debt than an airline with 250+ aircraft. As for excessive leveraging, well thats the second time in as many days I've read the accusation levelled without any facts to support it. BA remains in the fairly reasonable financial position it was left in by Dr Andrew Sentence, who did such a good job he's now part of the Bank of Englands Monetary Policy Committee. I don't see any headlines relating to the impending bankruptcy of BA and for that there is a reason. I'm sure Silverjet would be glad to be in a similar position.
Pontiouspilot/ROTPS: You do like to bandy the word 'bully' around. I took the liberty of looking up the word bully in the OED:
bully: a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people
Now as I've never actually met you it's rather difficult to claim that you are somehow weaker than I am. That leads to the logical conclusion that if you feel you are being bullied then you must believe you are somehow weaker, and I can only conclude that it must be your arguments that are weaker. These claims of 'bullying' are rather like some of the spurious the claims of 'racism' that pervade society these days. If you are losing the argument on facts then level a claim of bullying or racism and you trump the argument. Fortunately that doesn't apply here.
So, back to addressing the issue. I've no doubt that as a fleet manager you did encounter the desperate types who'd be wiling to work for nothing. I've no doubt BA encounter similar types of people, and I've no doubt that some of the people who have been selected to fly for Open Skies are not too far removed from them. I can even see the managers temptation to employ them; cheap, compliant, malleable individuals who will never answer back, you'd be a fool not to try to hire a workforce such as that. However that is a pathetically simplistic approach, and it speaks volumes of the pathetically simplistic BA management that they believed they could get away with that and nobody would notice. Any decent management team would see beyond simple attempts to save a few £££ and recognise the wider industrial situation. They would recognise that the engine of their profitability is, and will remain, the core business. They would recognise that the core business can provide significant advantages in manpower, flexibility and resources that a faux-stand-alone unit could never achieve. They would recognise that you achieve far more working with your crucial staff than working against them. Instead, they are gambling on a sh1t-or-bust , ego-driven operation launched despite a perfect storm of dire financial circumstances in the hope that a pretend premium product will seize market share from well established local operators who have the time, effort and resources to throw against them. Meanwhile the clowns at Waterworld cross their fingers and hope that they win a court case whilst they try to work out how their 'Biz' seat will actually get through the door of their aircraft and how they are going to fasten it to a floor that Boeing says isn't strong enough to take it's weight. If you think you have a career with this joke of an outfit then good luck to you.
Pontiouspilot/ROTPS: You do like to bandy the word 'bully' around. I took the liberty of looking up the word bully in the OED:
bully: a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people
Now as I've never actually met you it's rather difficult to claim that you are somehow weaker than I am. That leads to the logical conclusion that if you feel you are being bullied then you must believe you are somehow weaker, and I can only conclude that it must be your arguments that are weaker. These claims of 'bullying' are rather like some of the spurious the claims of 'racism' that pervade society these days. If you are losing the argument on facts then level a claim of bullying or racism and you trump the argument. Fortunately that doesn't apply here.
So, back to addressing the issue. I've no doubt that as a fleet manager you did encounter the desperate types who'd be wiling to work for nothing. I've no doubt BA encounter similar types of people, and I've no doubt that some of the people who have been selected to fly for Open Skies are not too far removed from them. I can even see the managers temptation to employ them; cheap, compliant, malleable individuals who will never answer back, you'd be a fool not to try to hire a workforce such as that. However that is a pathetically simplistic approach, and it speaks volumes of the pathetically simplistic BA management that they believed they could get away with that and nobody would notice. Any decent management team would see beyond simple attempts to save a few £££ and recognise the wider industrial situation. They would recognise that the engine of their profitability is, and will remain, the core business. They would recognise that the core business can provide significant advantages in manpower, flexibility and resources that a faux-stand-alone unit could never achieve. They would recognise that you achieve far more working with your crucial staff than working against them. Instead, they are gambling on a sh1t-or-bust , ego-driven operation launched despite a perfect storm of dire financial circumstances in the hope that a pretend premium product will seize market share from well established local operators who have the time, effort and resources to throw against them. Meanwhile the clowns at Waterworld cross their fingers and hope that they win a court case whilst they try to work out how their 'Biz' seat will actually get through the door of their aircraft and how they are going to fasten it to a floor that Boeing says isn't strong enough to take it's weight. If you think you have a career with this joke of an outfit then good luck to you.