WFH is not a realistic medium term option for most people.
Most people need a work life balance.
Most people can skive on their phones in meetings by WFH.
In our large multi national org, WFH is having a massive impact on enthusiasm and efficiency. Once the economy bounces back to any extent, any job offer that doesn't have human interction and humanity in our days is not something I want in my life and at my level I can pick and choose. WFH means an office or free kitchen, fine if you're comfortable or have children to look after but it's 100% not a serious propostion for general efficiency, it doesn't scale. I have spent so much time trapped at home that I am seriously thinking about moving house when this crap is over, and I sure as Hell don't want my work life and home life overlapping to that extent. WFH enthusisasts are either cost cutters with their own corporate interests at heart or genuine niche / edge cases where it can work well. But most people need to get back out into the world ASAP for the sake of their physical and mental health.

As for Business Travel no longer being so important, fair, BUT if you're pitching on Zoom and the other guy is pitching in person, I know which one is going to have a competitive advantage all other things being equal.

Personally I don’t dispute any of that skipness1E . I’m on your side with a lot of your sentiments, as are a lot of my colleagues. I miss the human interaction of the office and this is before we even mention my home now feeling as if it is my office, rather than my escape.

I also don’t dispute the fact there are roles which require face to face (as I said in my original post). I guess I am lucky because my role is quite diverse which involves talking to senior stakeholders through to being knee deep in engineering as a SME. How I work moving forward is probably heading towards more of a personal choice as my company likely begin to offer additional flexibility above the pre-covid WFH policy.

There is a balance to be had from the discovery that a fair portion of jobs don’t need to be face to face every time. That balance for a significant number of roles in our organisation is likely to lead to less travel and more WFH/work from HQ. The alternative is putting full teams on airplanes every week because the customer wants to see us on site.

Driven by necessity over the COVID19 lockdown period, customers are bound to appreciate it is possible deliver large scale projects with teams working remotely ie. away from the customers office.

Just summed up my business

The suggestion of using CFE to operate ex LHR is interesting. Not least as mentioned up thread it would open up more options for some domestic routes including the suggested year round NQY.

It also, as pointed out opens up operational issues for CFE with bases, mx etc.

could we start seeing w pattern flying ex LCY ?

Apart from line mx am I correct in saying that all mx is outsourced ? Could we perhaps see that brought back to the UK ? Apple at Nqy for example? (used as I know them and know that BE used them here and at other bases) then rotate the aircraft through the outstation when mx is due or needed in the same way as mainline rotate through GLA ?


cs

i wonder if BA might also keep a presence at LGW by operating W patterns from LCY ?

Maybe not, im sure they would consider putting extra seats on the 190 if its operating ex - LHR meaning its not constrained by the shorter LCY runway and the 98 seats.Then BOB would work, dependent on cost of 3rd crew member. Depends how long they would operate at LHR ? Most LCY Crew furloughed untill at least October i heard.

I’ll say it again, Balpa will not be giving up their scope agreement. It will not be on the table no matter how much BA might want it. Therefore talk of CFE at LHR/LGW is - at this point - pure fantasy.

Can I ask why this agreement is in place? What benefits do CFE get from it?

It’s not a CFE agreement, it’s a mainline agreement that any British Airways flying, in aircraft purchased or leased by British Airways regardless of aircraft size that operates on or out of London Heathrow or London Gatwick, will be flown by British Airways Mainline Flight Crew. Irrespective of the AOC under which the aircraft is operated. It’s there in order to prevent Mainline Flight Crew Ts and Cs from being undercut.

Given COVID19 BA can simply impose a new contract. I mean, what could BALPA do? Strike?
The formation of Mixed Fleet was similar, it would never be allowed as it opens up a two tier workforce, until BA just did it anyway. It’s pretty brutal in travel.

Plus there always seems to be opportunities for compromise when there are large scale redundancies looming.

They (BA) could. But they’d be taking a hell of a risk considering there’d be nobody to fly their jets if things pick up (which is starting to happen now and will pick up pace). Remember we take a hell of a lot longer to recruit and train than the cabin crew.

There is no fire and rehire clause in the S188 for the pilots. They like to paint it that they’ve done that out of the goodness of their own hearts but the truth is they need us on side.

So it’s ok for BA to claim that they need to change our contracts because they financially cannot afford our costs moving forward but it’s ok for BALPA to refuse to allow smaller aircraft and cheaper crews to operate from LHR if it helps BA survive?

Can’t BA break up CFE, sell the planes/assign leases to BA and TUPE over the staff to BA?
CFE would then no longer exist.

isn't the point that CFE are on cheaper contracts than mainline - so BA are more likely to *expand* CFE rather than close it ?!