BA to cut up to 12,000 jobs in "restructuring and redundancy programme"
#151
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,270
Yes I guess so, although with the increased focus on more sustainable and eco friendly models of business, CSR etc. I wonder whether the days of such extravagance would have been numbered anyway? And did large scale jollies account for that much business travel? 99% of my business travel is alone. And certain conferences and symposiums that draw in people from all over the place will necessarily require people to travel- I can's see there being a massive decline in that in the long term.
#152
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 18
I think most of us can agree that business travel will remain at lower levels for years to come. Lower, but not non-existent. Some functions HAVE to be face to face. However, to those who say online conferencing is not as effective, could it that (this will be controversial I know), that you are just not very good at it - because it is out of your current skillset? Does this make you afraid that if you no longer travel, you will be of less value to your employer as you can't get deals done?
#153
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,678
If agree it's this.
I spent 3 years working in a train crew resource office, allocating crews to trains. The more people that signed a route or traction type, ie the more people who could work over it, the easier it was to cover and the less overtime you'd need as your spares and standbys would be more likely to be able to cover it. Everyone was on the same staggered Rest Day pattern so everyone rotated around the roster in the same way.
So where you don't need them to work a long haul and short haul sector on the same day, the fact that an individual crew member could work any aircraft to any destination on any day makes rostering much much easier.
I spent 3 years working in a train crew resource office, allocating crews to trains. The more people that signed a route or traction type, ie the more people who could work over it, the easier it was to cover and the less overtime you'd need as your spares and standbys would be more likely to be able to cover it. Everyone was on the same staggered Rest Day pattern so everyone rotated around the roster in the same way.
So where you don't need them to work a long haul and short haul sector on the same day, the fact that an individual crew member could work any aircraft to any destination on any day makes rostering much much easier.
Of course structurally they are different with multiple crew bases / hubs flying domestically and internationally instead of one huge one doing everything, but it definitely gives them operational flexibility especially in irregular operations.
#154
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 71
I obviously don't have the data, but it could be that they are worried about even a relatively small drop in very-high-yield travel? Could the loss of even a couple of last-minute full-fare CW clients per flight turn the flight from profitable to unprofitable? I imagine things like tickets booked to go on a work jolly / attend a conference are often booked months ahead at a much lower margin.
#155
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,060
Though I'm not convinced BA needs such flexibility. It rosters (tens of) thousands of crew members on hundreds of flights every day, and presumably has dozens on stand-by at LHR, so the numbers are large enough so that the flexibility counts for very little.
Where flexibility does make sense is where numbers are small or where the business demands can vary. For example, if they pooled the 777 and 787 pilot fleets, then they would be able to get a crew to fly a 777-300 out to a destination (on a busy day of the week), and a 787-8 back (on a quiet day). In this case, the flexibility makes sense because the number of pilots at the outstation is small (i.e. the people who flew out a couple of days prior) and the business demands vary by the day.
Where flexibility does make sense is where numbers are small or where the business demands can vary. For example, if they pooled the 777 and 787 pilot fleets, then they would be able to get a crew to fly a 777-300 out to a destination (on a busy day of the week), and a 787-8 back (on a quiet day). In this case, the flexibility makes sense because the number of pilots at the outstation is small (i.e. the people who flew out a couple of days prior) and the business demands vary by the day.
#156
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,211
Having everyone on the same roster, flying the same routes in the same way is going to be a saving (they currently have 3 sets of people doing rosters, people doing admin, people doing management... see where I'm going?). Having everyone on the same regulations - so that a JNB flight is a 3-day-trip for everyone and not a 3-day-trip for MF or a 5-day-trip for WW - is going to be a massive saving. The (possibly apocryphal) story that was circulating at the time of the end of the Qantas JV and the move of the BA15/16 trip to 77W and Mixed Fleet was that the reduction in the trip length alone was enough to bring the route to break even: I've never seen the data and I can't vouch for its correctness, but I've heard it enough times and from different people to believe it.
It goes without saying that this is, yet again, a levelling down of the work conditions in the industry. But we passengers want cheap tickets; City wants big dividends; managers want fat bonuses. Something is got to give and unfortunately it's the employees. Unless we collectively change our attitudes... but I don't see it likely.
#157
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,678
Well worth reading the article over at headforpoints on why the days of cheap flying will not be over. It's a rare bit of optimism.
Despite the headline, "Why cheap air travel is NOT going away, despite what you may read," the author then goes on to explain why the cheap air travel of the past few years IS indeed going to go away. It just won't be as expensive (relatively speaking) as it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
#158
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Lemonia. Best Greek ever.
Posts: 2,266
I feel for the impacted staff. I have been made redundant 3 times from major corporates. I have been lucky enough to find better futures - but each one took hard work. Some times very hard work, with many disappointments on the way. I will not put in print what I think of many "recruitment" and "talent" so-called experts.
However, nowadays there is a lot more self-help stuff on the internet. From understanding the psychological impacts of redundancy, and the stages of recovery, through to cv preparation, Self awareness, Interview training, Networking, Self-presentation, and so on.
Good luck to each and every person.
However, nowadays there is a lot more self-help stuff on the internet. From understanding the psychological impacts of redundancy, and the stages of recovery, through to cv preparation, Self awareness, Interview training, Networking, Self-presentation, and so on.
Good luck to each and every person.
#159
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 3,438
Unfortunately I think it comes down to the greatest good for the greatest number. If BA didn’t act now and make some redundant, then there probably wouldn’t be a BA in 3/4 years. Arguably, it’s better to save the airline and the rest of the jobs by losing 12,000 (of which half could be voluntary redundancies). In this industry, being overly nice doesn’t get you anywhere, if airlines decide not to lay anyone off, trying to be caring, they will fail.
BA has taken action ahead of many others to ensure it’s safe for the future, Virgin and the others needs to do the same. They need to cut any costs they can and I’m sorry to say employees are always a good place to start.
Im not saying Willie and Alex aren’t acting for themselves too, of course they want BA to be as cost effective and profitable as possible, their jobs depend on it. But they aren’t cutting jobs out of malice, they just want BA to survive and be financially stable after this.
BA has taken action ahead of many others to ensure it’s safe for the future, Virgin and the others needs to do the same. They need to cut any costs they can and I’m sorry to say employees are always a good place to start.
Im not saying Willie and Alex aren’t acting for themselves too, of course they want BA to be as cost effective and profitable as possible, their jobs depend on it. But they aren’t cutting jobs out of malice, they just want BA to survive and be financially stable after this.
#160
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC GGL/GFl, HH Diamond, BW Diamond, Virgin Voyages Deep Blue Extra, Blue Peter Badge Holder
Posts: 3,937
Unfortunately I think it comes down to the greatest good for the greatest number. If BA didn’t act now and make some redundant, then there probably wouldn’t be a BA in 3/4 years. Arguably, it’s better to save the airline and the rest of the jobs by losing 12,000 (of which half could be voluntary redundancies). In this industry, being overly nice doesn’t get you anywhere, if airlines decide not to lay anyone off, trying to be caring, they will fail.
BA has taken action ahead of many others to ensure it’s safe for the future, Virgin and the others needs to do the same. They need to cut any costs they can and I’m sorry to say employees are always a good place to start.
Im not saying Willie and Alex aren’t acting for themselves too, of course they want BA to be as cost effective and profitable as possible, their jobs depend on it. But they aren’t cutting jobs out of malice, they just want BA to survive and be financially stable after this.
BA has taken action ahead of many others to ensure it’s safe for the future, Virgin and the others needs to do the same. They need to cut any costs they can and I’m sorry to say employees are always a good place to start.
Im not saying Willie and Alex aren’t acting for themselves too, of course they want BA to be as cost effective and profitable as possible, their jobs depend on it. But they aren’t cutting jobs out of malice, they just want BA to survive and be financially stable after this.
The BALPA response comes across as a bit head in sand, although that may be positional rather than genuine shock at the position.
#161
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: UK
Programs: BA Silver, IHG Platinum
Posts: 935
It is inevitable that job losses will occur in many industries, sadly. The furlough scheme does help to sustain them in the interim but it's becoming depressingly clearer that there is not going to be an immediate bounce back and the furlough scheme won't go on forever. In that respect it is in some way a method of managing job losses and spreading them out a bit rather than everyone being made redundant at once.
That said, if furlough is extended will BA push back the planned consultation period at all?
That said, if furlough is extended will BA push back the planned consultation period at all?
#162
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX Green, QF Platinum, BAEC Silver, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 10,780
I will be curious what the Union response to the abolition of “fleets” will be. They are likely to see it as a cynical opportunistic chance to finally break the unions.
Last edited by sxc; Apr 29, 2020 at 8:41 am
#163
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London N8
Programs: BA (LTG), Miles&More (whatever the lowest level is), Oyster card (zones 1-2)
Posts: 885
#164
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,059
In the longer term, having everyone on the same contracts will lead to the same issues down the line, once things have settled down, bedded in, and the new ‘single’ union starts getting stronger. MF round two, anyone?
#165
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,270
Their best hope is to lobby the government, who could threaten regulatory hostility if it felt BA had gone too far. Most notably it could tweak the "use it or lose it" slots rule to force BA to run unprofitable services. I'm not saying the government will go this far, actually I would be shocked if they did, but it won't stop the unions trying.