BA to lease 9 Qatar A320s + crews during strike
Jul 3, 2017, 6:06 pm
#346
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Over the North Atlantic
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 494
Jul 3, 2017, 6:17 pm
#347
formerly southsidesilver
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Diego,CA
Programs: BA Gold, UA Silver, HH Diamond
Posts: 996
Hard to tell from the photo but the J class seat doesn't look massive - assume the aisle is much wider than normal as a result??
Jul 4, 2017, 7:53 am
#348
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London, UK
Programs: Ronin - churn and burn
Posts: 701
Service was fantastic in J on yesterday's BUD-LHR. Things got off to a great start with the PDBs and improved from there.
Points of interest:
Points of interest:
- QR barriers used at the gate area to section out the various boarding groups.
- During boarding I overheard one Y passenger saying, "this is actual business class, not economy with a stupid little table. I can see why this is worth paying for".
- The crew apologised for the BA catering and assured us that the selection is usually far better on Qatar catered flights.
- No printed menus but the crew had memorised the F&B already.
- Every passenger in J was showering the crew in praise, many seemed to already have future travel with QR booked too. This was discussed when the crew came to individually thank each passenger for flying with them and hoped that they would see us on a QR flight in the future.
- IFE compartments in armrests had been glued shut and no headphones were handed out.
Jul 4, 2017, 9:33 am
#349
Join Date: Feb 2014
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 285
Do any of the leased aircraft have the full lie flat seat product. I've had it on their A320's on both short long haul flights ie around 4 hours and also on short hops?
I assume QR have kept these ones as they are all shiny and new and also BA may not want people to see what the competition provides. Also very limited numbers of seats.
Bit of an eye opener for anyone used to BA though!
I assume QR have kept these ones as they are all shiny and new and also BA may not want people to see what the competition provides. Also very limited numbers of seats.
Bit of an eye opener for anyone used to BA though!
Jul 5, 2017, 2:28 am
#352
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
For those who are interested, the CAA wrote to me this morning enclosing a copy of their advice to the secretary of state for transport (now on their website).
To summarize,
To summarize,
- there were seventeen comments on the wetlease (including mine), comprising one from BALPA, one from Unite, thirteen private individuals objecting, one individual making neutral comments, and one individual in favour;
- as far as is permitted by EU law, the CAA adopts a "liberal" policy towards wetleasing of foreign aircraft;
- the CAA accepts that the industrial action is "an exceptional need", is "unusual and unlikely to happen frequently" and does not think it is relevant whether this is something BA could have avoided;
- the lack of available crew (rather than the lack of aircraft) is a valid reason for a wetlease (this might be of concern to the pilots union);
- the safety grounds raised by Unite are dismissed (rightly in my view);
- a fresh application for wetleasing beyond the 16th of July would have to be made, the open-ended nature of the original request was impermissible.
Last edited by Calchas; Jul 5, 2017 at 5:05 am Reason: Missing "not" in "does not think it is relevant"
Jul 5, 2017, 4:01 am
#353
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Little dot in Asia
Programs: AA-EP, TK-*G, HL-DM, HY-GLO, MR-LTP
Posts: 25,932
Service was fantastic in J on yesterday's BUD-LHR. Things got off to a great start with the PDBs and improved from there.
..
[*]Every passenger in J was showering the crew in praise, many seemed to already have future travel with QR booked too. This was discussed when the crew came to individually thank each passenger for flying with them and hoped that they would see us on a QR flight in the future...[/LIST]
..
[*]Every passenger in J was showering the crew in praise, many seemed to already have future travel with QR booked too. This was discussed when the crew came to individually thank each passenger for flying with them and hoped that they would see us on a QR flight in the future...[/LIST]
If BA wanted 'bad' service, they should have wet leased from AB or IB instead, don't you think?
Jul 5, 2017, 4:06 am
#354
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BA, AF
Posts: 10,130
IB would have probably been delighted to send up their surplus midhaul A319s 
The reason for the QR aircraft is simply due to the fact most of their regional network is shut down.
The reason for the QR aircraft is simply due to the fact most of their regional network is shut down.
Jul 5, 2017, 4:27 am
#355
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: DWC
Programs: OWS, *A G
Posts: 626
For those who are interested, the CAA wrote to me this morning enclosing a copy of their advice to the secretary of state for transport (now on their website).
To summarize,
To summarize,
- there were seventeen comments on the wetlease (including mine), comprising one from BALPA, one from Unite, thirteen private individuals objecting, one individual making neutral comments, and one individual in favour;
- as far as is permitted by EU law, the CAA adopts a "liberal" policy towards wetleasing of foreign aircraft;
- the CAA accepts that the industrial action is "an exceptional need", is "unusual and unlikely to happen frequently" and does think it is relevant whether this is something BA could have avoided;
- the lack of available crew (rather than the lack of aircraft) is a valid reason for a wetlease (this might be of concern to the pilots union);
- the safety grounds raised by Unite are dismissed (rightly in my view);
- a fresh application for wetleasing beyond the 16th of July would have to be made, the open-ended nature of the original request was impermissible.
I wonder what BA (and the CAA) would to in case of another strike, say 1-15 August. Would that be considered as "happening frequently"?
Jul 5, 2017, 5:07 am
#356
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
BA has provided evidence to the CAA that it was impractical to source the required aircraft from within the EU.
Jul 5, 2017, 5:42 am
#358
Community Director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norwich, UK
Programs: A3*G, BA Gold, BD Gold (in memoriam), IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 8,478
For those who are interested, the CAA wrote to me this morning enclosing a copy of their advice to the secretary of state for transport (now on their website).
To summarize,
To summarize,
- the CAA accepts that the industrial action is "an exceptional need", is "unusual and unlikely to happen frequently" and does not think it is relevant whether this is something BA could have avoided;
Just when on earth is the CAA definition of "unusual and unlikely to happen frequently" reached then?
All the other criteria may well make perfect sense, and leaving aside the issue of sympathy with the MF crew I'd have no issue with my own safety stepping on a QR plane, but this sort of statement does nothing to disprove a theory that the CAA is but a glove puppet for the aviation industry in this country in far too many ways.
Jul 5, 2017, 7:16 am
#359
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 532
I find this absolutely astonishing - this is the 9th set of notified strike action, of which 7 have actually taken place, over a period of just over 6 months.
Just when on earth is the CAA definition of "unusual and unlikely to happen frequently" reached then?
Just when on earth is the CAA definition of "unusual and unlikely to happen frequently" reached then?
From reading the letter it's not that the strike is unusual but the need to lease from outside the EU that is unusual. The previous strikes were managed by either stuffing the passenger or by leasing from within the EU.
Jul 5, 2017, 8:21 am
#360
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
For those who are interested, the CAA wrote to me this morning enclosing a copy of their advice to the secretary of state for transport (now on their website).
To summarize,
To summarize,
- there were seventeen comments on the wetlease (including mine), comprising one from BALPA, one from Unite, thirteen private individuals objecting, one individual making neutral comments, and one individual in favour;
- as far as is permitted by EU law, the CAA adopts a "liberal" policy towards wetleasing of foreign aircraft;
- the CAA accepts that the industrial action is "an exceptional need", is "unusual and unlikely to happen frequently" and does not think it is relevant whether this is something BA could have avoided;
- the lack of available crew (rather than the lack of aircraft) is a valid reason for a wetlease (this might be of concern to the pilots union);
- the safety grounds raised by Unite are dismissed (rightly in my view);
- a fresh application for wetleasing beyond the 16th of July would have to be made, the open-ended nature of the original request was impermissible.
I am assuming the CAA will approve the request?