If you only had 10% of pilots working which route would you save....
Jul 31, 2019, 5:40 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2013
Programs: BA Gold, VS Gold, IHG Platinum, Hilton Gold, Hertz Presidents Circle.
Posts: 1,443
If you only had 10% of pilots working which route would you save....
Was discussing the strike last with the Mrs as our family holiday could be impacted, she asked how will they decide which routes to operate..... Now obviously it's all down to type ratings, captains v FOs, rotas, number of crews to operate rotation etc.... However parking that for one for one minute and over simply flying it what routes would you keep on.
I'm assuming some JFK and LAX services would be on the list, maybe AMS, FRA and CDG short haul.... Got me wondering anyway.
I'm assuming some JFK and LAX services would be on the list, maybe AMS, FRA and CDG short haul.... Got me wondering anyway.
Jul 31, 2019, 5:57 am
#3
Join Date: Jan 2018
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 439
It's a pretty irrelevant question anyway as the amount of pilots voting to strike would be vastly different to those that actually will.
However in your example, I imagine that BA would probably aim to protect the higher yielding routes. New York is probably one to keep as you're flying into an AA hub there so connections across the US could be made up via there on AA metal if direct BA flights get cancelled. You'd think possibly South Africa would be kept and a couple in the far east?
However in your example, I imagine that BA would probably aim to protect the higher yielding routes. New York is probably one to keep as you're flying into an AA hub there so connections across the US could be made up via there on AA metal if direct BA flights get cancelled. You'd think possibly South Africa would be kept and a couple in the far east?
Jul 31, 2019, 6:01 am
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2013
Programs: BA Gold, VS Gold, IHG Platinum, Hilton Gold, Hertz Presidents Circle.
Posts: 1,443
It's a pretty irrelevant question anyway as the amount of pilots voting to strike would be vastly different to those that actually will.
However in your example, I imagine that BA would probably aim to protect the higher yielding routes. New York is probably one to keep as you're flying into an AA hub there so connections across the US could be made up via there on AA metal if direct BA flights get cancelled. You'd think possibly South Africa would be kept and a couple in the far east?
However in your example, I imagine that BA would probably aim to protect the higher yielding routes. New York is probably one to keep as you're flying into an AA hub there so connections across the US could be made up via there on AA metal if direct BA flights get cancelled. You'd think possibly South Africa would be kept and a couple in the far east?
Jul 31, 2019, 6:19 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 266
I
I would expect the percentage of pilots actually striking to be very significantly higher than previous cabin crew strikes for a variety of reasons.
Also, pilot strikes are significantly more effectual than cabin crew strikes as BA largely already operate on standard legal minimum crew required - you generally can’t send an aircraft one or two pilots down as BA did with cabin crew. Even worse, BA are already running extremely close to the wire in resourcing for pilots - the reason the recent weather cancellations/delays were so bad was a shortage of pilots available to operate.
Pilots were specifically directed to only vote for a strike if they were prepared to follow-through and strike.
Whether it’s 60% or 70% of 90% pilots actually striking the effect will be totally catastrophic to operations - especially so for a long haul network airline in a time with low wet-lease and minimal spare other-airline capacity in high season.
It's a pretty irrelevant question anyway as the amount of pilots voting to strike would be vastly different to those that actually will.
However in your example, I imagine that BA would probably aim to protect the higher yielding routes. New York is probably one to keep as you're flying into an AA hub there so connections across the US could be made up via there on AA metal if direct BA flights get cancelled. You'd think possibly South Africa would be kept and a couple in the far east?
However in your example, I imagine that BA would probably aim to protect the higher yielding routes. New York is probably one to keep as you're flying into an AA hub there so connections across the US could be made up via there on AA metal if direct BA flights get cancelled. You'd think possibly South Africa would be kept and a couple in the far east?
I would expect the percentage of pilots actually striking to be very significantly higher than previous cabin crew strikes for a variety of reasons.
Also, pilot strikes are significantly more effectual than cabin crew strikes as BA largely already operate on standard legal minimum crew required - you generally can’t send an aircraft one or two pilots down as BA did with cabin crew. Even worse, BA are already running extremely close to the wire in resourcing for pilots - the reason the recent weather cancellations/delays were so bad was a shortage of pilots available to operate.
Pilots were specifically directed to only vote for a strike if they were prepared to follow-through and strike.
Whether it’s 60% or 70% of 90% pilots actually striking the effect will be totally catastrophic to operations - especially so for a long haul network airline in a time with low wet-lease and minimal spare other-airline capacity in high season.
Jul 31, 2019, 6:23 am
#8
Join Date: Jan 2018
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 439
True. Agreed. I always find BA make decisions in times like these that don't really seem to make a lot of sense to the naked eye so I'm sure there'll be plenty of surprises if we get a large portion of pilots striking.
Jul 31, 2019, 6:23 am
#9
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Lemonia. Best Greek ever.
Posts: 2,266
Some one in BA will already have the profit per route and possible "partners" spread sheet loaded. (I hope it is not the calamitous Intern).
They should have had the planning meetings with AA, and will be on the phone to One World folk.
After all of that, I would focus on profits in USA and keeping some presence to Sin and HKG.
They should have had the planning meetings with AA, and will be on the phone to One World folk.
After all of that, I would focus on profits in USA and keeping some presence to Sin and HKG.
Jul 31, 2019, 6:27 am
#10
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 153
These a couple of ways a looking at it, if you are BA.
Long haul you could say "LAX, JFK, Hong Kong, Sydney, Miami have plenty of other OW options, we will cancel these and protect the routes without OW options". However these routes are were BA are likely to make the most money, and the last thing they want to do is upset the customers who fly these regularly.
Do you cut routes that have less options first? People of these routes may not be able to use a different airline even if they wanted to in the future.
For the US would there be a preference of east coast routes? As these would allow people to connect to West Coast via AA and reduce the amount of time the crews are spending at the outbound destination, require less 3rd crew for rest hence allowing you to work the crew harder over the strike period?
Short haul, I suppose you'd schedule all the A321's as these require the same number of flight crew as an A319. Then first cut domestic routes were people can get the train, then cut routes with multiple flights per day but hope the upscaling compensated for this. Then you have a similar question to the one for LH. Do you focus your short haul of major hubs where there is lots of competition? Or do you say the major european hubs will have IB, AA, CX or QR flying there that would be able to take on most of the connecting traffic then BA cover airports that have few/no OW options
I'm sure BA have a very cleaver computer somewhere working out what is best for the long term revenue.
Added to which BA may not know how many staff they will have until they turn up (or don't turn up), you don't have to tell your employer if you are in a union and you don't have to tell them if you plan of striking or not. Many people will tell BA their plans but you don't have to.
Long haul you could say "LAX, JFK, Hong Kong, Sydney, Miami have plenty of other OW options, we will cancel these and protect the routes without OW options". However these routes are were BA are likely to make the most money, and the last thing they want to do is upset the customers who fly these regularly.
Do you cut routes that have less options first? People of these routes may not be able to use a different airline even if they wanted to in the future.
For the US would there be a preference of east coast routes? As these would allow people to connect to West Coast via AA and reduce the amount of time the crews are spending at the outbound destination, require less 3rd crew for rest hence allowing you to work the crew harder over the strike period?
Short haul, I suppose you'd schedule all the A321's as these require the same number of flight crew as an A319. Then first cut domestic routes were people can get the train, then cut routes with multiple flights per day but hope the upscaling compensated for this. Then you have a similar question to the one for LH. Do you focus your short haul of major hubs where there is lots of competition? Or do you say the major european hubs will have IB, AA, CX or QR flying there that would be able to take on most of the connecting traffic then BA cover airports that have few/no OW options
I'm sure BA have a very cleaver computer somewhere working out what is best for the long term revenue.
Added to which BA may not know how many staff they will have until they turn up (or don't turn up), you don't have to tell your employer if you are in a union and you don't have to tell them if you plan of striking or not. Many people will tell BA their plans but you don't have to.
Jul 31, 2019, 6:36 am
#11
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lausanne Switzerland
Programs: BA Gold; Swiss Blue
Posts: 1,244
Jul 31, 2019, 6:41 am
#12
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: KOI
Programs: BA
Posts: 309
Jul 31, 2019, 6:49 am
#13
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 928
GLA is equipped right upto A380 now as well.
This would obviously depend on the type rating of non striking pilots. But would they be able to consolidate loads onto single aircraft at peak times.
I seem to recall years ago that a 744 was used on a GLA-LHR flight due to the regular plane going tech.
Would means hi-viz would lose out on his BoB every cloud and all that.
Jul 31, 2019, 7:20 am
#15
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Lemonia. Best Greek ever.
Posts: 2,266
These a couple of ways a looking at it, if you are BA.
Long haul you could say "LAX, JFK, Hong Kong, Sydney, Miami have plenty of other OW options, we will cancel these and protect the routes without OW options". However these routes are were BA are likely to make the most money, and the last thing they want to do is upset the customers who fly these regularly.
Do you cut routes that have less options first? People of these routes may not be able to use a different airline even if they wanted to in the future.
For the US would there be a preference of east coast routes? As these would allow people to connect to West Coast via AA and reduce the amount of time the crews are spending at the outbound destination, require less 3rd crew for rest hence allowing you to work the crew harder over the strike period?
Short haul, I suppose you'd schedule all the A321's as these require the same number of flight crew as an A319. Then first cut domestic routes were people can get the train, then cut routes with multiple flights per day but hope the upscaling compensated for this. Then you have a similar question to the one for LH. Do you focus your short haul of major hubs where there is lots of competition? Or do you say the major european hubs will have IB, AA, CX or QR flying there that would be able to take on most of the connecting traffic then BA cover airports that have few/no OW options
I'm sure BA have a very cleaver computer somewhere working out what is best for the long term revenue.
Added to which BA may not know how many staff they will have until they turn up (or don't turn up), you don't have to tell your employer if you are in a union and you don't have to tell them if you plan of striking or not. Many people will tell BA their plans but you don't have to.
Long haul you could say "LAX, JFK, Hong Kong, Sydney, Miami have plenty of other OW options, we will cancel these and protect the routes without OW options". However these routes are were BA are likely to make the most money, and the last thing they want to do is upset the customers who fly these regularly.
Do you cut routes that have less options first? People of these routes may not be able to use a different airline even if they wanted to in the future.
For the US would there be a preference of east coast routes? As these would allow people to connect to West Coast via AA and reduce the amount of time the crews are spending at the outbound destination, require less 3rd crew for rest hence allowing you to work the crew harder over the strike period?
Short haul, I suppose you'd schedule all the A321's as these require the same number of flight crew as an A319. Then first cut domestic routes were people can get the train, then cut routes with multiple flights per day but hope the upscaling compensated for this. Then you have a similar question to the one for LH. Do you focus your short haul of major hubs where there is lots of competition? Or do you say the major european hubs will have IB, AA, CX or QR flying there that would be able to take on most of the connecting traffic then BA cover airports that have few/no OW options
I'm sure BA have a very cleaver computer somewhere working out what is best for the long term revenue.
Added to which BA may not know how many staff they will have until they turn up (or don't turn up), you don't have to tell your employer if you are in a union and you don't have to tell them if you plan of striking or not. Many people will tell BA their plans but you don't have to.
