Totally agree with you Sky High. A 12 day strike has certainly come out of the blue and caught BA management off guard.
As I said before, from what I hear, CC were willing to compromise but management wanted to impose new T&C’S and lets face it, none of us would want to lose our T&C’s which had been negotiated previously with the current and previous management without some compromise.
Of course, if BA had offered CC the same deal that the pilots got….thats another story 😉
The pilots voluntarily took a 2% pay cut. And I THINK (come on you BA crews tell us all!) that the new T&C’s would not affect existing contracts with respect to salary and promotional changes until such times as someone is promoted, and therefore you can’t miss what you don’t have. Don’t forget the union is also fighting to stop new cabin crew from being recruited on new terms and conditions. The biggest T&C change appears to be the reduction in long haul cabin crew numbers, which actually only affects the pursers at this time per-se, but will affect others as they get promoted to this level
Do you also mean the “cumbersome cost burden” figure of £750m+ (and rising) of fines reportedly accrued by fraudulent behaviour by management who were allowed to be shopped by one of their colluding rivals? and the alledged figure of £200m of lost revenue from the T5 opening fiasco? and the botched fuel hedging program, the 3.7bn pension deficit….all management decisions.
You have to ask yourself how a company goes from record profits of £800m+ to a loss the next year and they blame the credit crunch?
I had already made mension of such fines earlier, so acknowledge their existence.
However, I think you miss the point as to how much of an effect the last 18 months has had on airlines. You’re not just talking about a credit crunch, but also record fuel prices for a large stretch of that period. With respect to the market, whilst the drop in passenger figures alone looks dramatic, you have to also account for the drastic reduction in yield to the airlines as they have cut fares in order to stop the reduction in traffic appearing greater than it could have been. BA is very susceptible to these changes because of it’s great dependence on business travel, especially in its premium cabins. Business travel drops away faster than leisure travel (as it’s booked at shorter notice) and has an increased effect on the bottomline as it tends to be more profitable for the airlines. It also means however that BA should pick up faster than others, providing passengers are willing to take a risk that their flights will go ahead!
I have to agree with “old shape”.
The troubles at BA have been simmering for some years now, in fact since WW took over. Other departments have been railroaded into accepting new T&C’s, (apart from the pilots) but it’s only the CC which have the cojones to take on WW.
Only one resolution that I can see to nip this in the bud and stop it becoming a lose-lose situation is for WW to resign or be sacked.
That’s a load of nonsense, WW took over at a time when BA was having some real difficulties. In the time he’s been there he’s cut operating costs and increased margins to a level which the airline used to achieve in the late 80’s/early 90s. What you seem to miss here is the cumbersome cost burdens which are preventing BA from competing on a glbal stage with other airlines.
BA cabin crew earn A LOT more than their counterparts at other airlines. They’ve typically worked less hours and they have a purser onboard their long haul aircraft who doesn’t carry out normal cabin crew duties, but instead manages those that do (again unliek other airlines!). I think what you’ve missed is the archaic working practices which need to be modernised. It’s not that the other departments have backed down to WW, they’ve just had the commonsense and foresight to accept that change was necessary!
In an election year?
Gordon will be out there handing out tea and biscuits he’s that desperate to cling onto power
Moggy
Nah, the BA cabin crew must be in the bag for Brown because under Cameron there will be no third runway and no prospects of growth for BA, which will mean increased profits will need to be made on future cost savings! :diablo:
Anyway, BA cabin crew may actually help out the environmental lobby here, without BA there will be less need of a third runway.
Still, they are much better off in their call centre jobs than ever they would have been down those nasty, dangerous mines.
Moggy
I’m fairly certain there are many who have never worked since.
Well you have to look at both sides of every story don’t you…? I dare say those who voted ‘yes’ in the ballot had very good reasons for doing so. Perhaps no job is indeed better than what BA have proposed to their staff. I assume it’s a question of ‘how low you are prepared to stoop” ?
Perhaps other, better informed forumites would care to pass comment ?
It’s not the no job option though is it, they will have to seek employment elsewhere, and as rightly pointed out by cockerhoop, that’ll come with a substantial salary cut, even at VS. And if they choose to work for most other airlines, the Purser has to serve passengers!
I’m happy for those closer to the matter (rather than necessarily better informed, an informed decision would be reviewing the precarious business situation too) to let us know their view.
I know BA have made some major fluff ups and through these wasted a lot of money (for example fines over price/fuel charge fixing etc), but they are where they are now and have to deal with that and fight to survive. BA cabin crews have enjoyed the good times, now, like many others, they need to accept the hard times too.
So is it fair to assume from this news that the “real” flyaway price on the A380 for Emirates is $183 million? (1.13B/6=183M)
Well not necessarily. Take the first three aircraft of this order, they are being financed by Citibank, but guaranteed by the European Export Credit Agencies. The latter will normally only guarantee loans of upto 75% of the value, so that then would value each a/c at $244m, although I suspect it’s somewhere between the two, although it depends what risk citibank are taking, if any.
I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading as it insinuates that Emirates has done something out of the ordinary by ‘borrowing’ money to fund fleet development, which is not the case, and very few airlines purchase aircraft outright, most of them are financed by somebody else, it’s a bit like Hire Purchase on a car.
Incidentally, 2010 is the Year of the tiger in Asia, but it looks like the tiger came early in the US.
I’m not sure any of his ‘ lady friends’ accused him of doing that did they?
Neither do DL but they would have no need to come into LAX anyhow!
Except for their long haul services with 200LR’s from LAX.
I think you will find that there are IATA (and ICAO) technical specifications which have to be followed when operating specific types of aircraft into terminal facilities and that it is absolutely not left to chance and a tape measure
Such incidents that have occurred in the past at terminals have been due to these specifications being ignored by the airport or the aircraft operator
Although aircraft stands typically are designed to fit certain codes of aircraft, i.e. aircraft like the B737 are Code C for the purposes of airport design. However, it is not essential for aircraft stands to be an absolute size, so long as the airport specify the variation within their stand charts. I know a number of airports with non standard sized gates, at Dublin for example, there are some very marginal stands which can take some variations of the same aircraft families, but not others, despite standard wingspans etc. I also know of some airports where the wing span allowance of some stands is non standard.
BA Don’t…
Yet
Wow, someone at Air France needs to go and have a chat with US Airways about what paint they use and what they coat it with….even after a bath in the Hudson river (of all manky waters!), the A320 is more pristine than most of the AF fleet!
Don’t hold your breath on that one!
In this “where’s there’s blaim there’s a claim” society would a doctor make himself known?
I have seen the disclaimer form that a Doctor has to sign BEFORE recieving the Doctor’s medical kit carried onboard one of our tour operators aircraft. I wouldn’t blaim them for not having anuthing to do with it!Rgds Cking
My ex was a dr and was called upon once, he was gutted because he wanted a nice upgrade to business class, and all they gave him was a small bottle of champagne and sent him back to his seat!
As for not having anything to do with it, I don’t know about other nations, but a UK dr is not allowed to refuse to treat a patient presented to them, so disclaimer or not, under the GMC rules they have no choice. I’m fairly certain the same applies to US doctors.
Todays Herald gives Globespans side of the story
To be fair, no airline is going to stand up and say “oh yes, we have been in a precarious position”, their forward sales would plummet and then they would be out of business. It is typical for a failing airline to put a positive spin on their business, and we’ve seen examples of this where an airline at the close of a working day has said they’re fine, and then grounded their fleet at midnight because their behind-the-scenes last ditch attempts have not been succesful. SkyEurope is a classic example of an airline which put a positive spin on their position. I often think that the UK CAA should more closely watch the finances of carriers in a similar way to the Italians (not that I want to openly praise something the Italians do too loudly! :dev2:, oh and forgetting Alitalia of course) because it is too easy to say you’re doing well and then fold very soon afterwards, which is unfair on travellers and leaves the CAA exposed to potentially substantial payouts on lost air fares!
In the case of GSM, it is a hard one to call. When they were previously reported as having problems, they came out in force and highlighted that they were in a strong position particularly as they owned much of their fleet, which I don’t understand as I have just checked their fleet and all their aircraft are all leased. Unless they’ve already sold them to secure extra cash, in which case, having secured cash through sale and leaseback AND then gone out for additional funding it would suggest some issues.
We’ve been hearing rumours on and off for a while, and I would say for the last 12 months or so I wouldn’t have booked a ticket with them, just in case.
Just sounds like a polite excuse to me.
These stupid comments towards the German are typical British! When it comes to commercial aviation who at the moment has the most financially stable airlines? Why its the Germans, and yet BD/BA/VS are all in trouble!
Ohh quickly old man, call for the English old chap! Dont bother they’ll only push it towards financial ruin!
Where on earth did that come from? I’m absolutely certain that Andy was making the German comment “tongue in cheek”!
Oh, and just incase you weren’t aware, after 3 quarters of the financial year, LH have managed to make a net loss of €28million.
I’ve heard rumour that Flybe are looking at bmi Regional and/or bmi Baby as possible purchases. Anyone else heard this?
It would be a real shame if bmi were to disappear.
1L.
They looked at bmi regional sometime ago, though within the last 12 months. Nothing has so far come of it, so we’ll have to wait and see. I think the competition commission would have a field day though as the two overlap on bmi regional’s primary routes from MAN.