Alex Cruz responds to BA critics
Jun 14, 2020, 10:39 am
#31
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Hertfordshire
Programs: BA Gold, Accor Diamond, IHG Diamond
Posts: 553
I know very little about the cabin crew fleets etc, but wouldn’t a more pragmatic way forward be to reduce the entitlements of WW and reduce the size of that fleet?
Eg a 5 day trip to South Africa could be cut to 3 days, like I imagine it would be on Mixed Fleet and therefore you’d need fewer crew to run these routes.
Surely that would make a significant dent in the crew cost to the airline?
It’s not the fault of the employees that BA decided to pay them £40k at some point, but now market conditions are such that far fewer £40k cabin crew are required.
Wouldn’t this have been a better starting point than the slash and burn approach they’ve taken to date?
Eg a 5 day trip to South Africa could be cut to 3 days, like I imagine it would be on Mixed Fleet and therefore you’d need fewer crew to run these routes.
Surely that would make a significant dent in the crew cost to the airline?
It’s not the fault of the employees that BA decided to pay them £40k at some point, but now market conditions are such that far fewer £40k cabin crew are required.
Wouldn’t this have been a better starting point than the slash and burn approach they’ve taken to date?
Jun 14, 2020, 10:45 am
#32
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: London
Programs: BA Silver (for now)
Posts: 1,000
I know very little about the cabin crew fleets etc, but wouldn’t a more pragmatic way forward be to reduce the entitlements of WW and reduce the size of that fleet?
Eg a 5 day trip to South Africa could be cut to 3 days, like I imagine it would be on Mixed Fleet and therefore you’d need fewer crew to run these routes.
Surely that would make a significant dent in the crew cost to the airline?
It’s not the fault of the employees that BA decided to pay them £40k at some point, but now market conditions are such that far fewer £40k cabin crew are required.
Wouldn’t this have been a better starting point than the slash and burn approach they’ve taken to date?
Eg a 5 day trip to South Africa could be cut to 3 days, like I imagine it would be on Mixed Fleet and therefore you’d need fewer crew to run these routes.
Surely that would make a significant dent in the crew cost to the airline?
It’s not the fault of the employees that BA decided to pay them £40k at some point, but now market conditions are such that far fewer £40k cabin crew are required.
Wouldn’t this have been a better starting point than the slash and burn approach they’ve taken to date?
Sounds like an idea, why don’t the union engage? If it were me I’d rather protect my pay reduce the down route rest time.
Jun 14, 2020, 11:26 am
#33
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,668
Jun 14, 2020, 11:38 am
#34
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Scotland
Programs: BA Silver, Hilton Diamond, BD Blue (RIP)
Posts: 1,986
I'm trying not to be party in taking this thread in the direction of the other (suspended) thread, so I will post only once.
We can all play the name another airline game:
The reason that no other UK airline is trying to impose drastically different T & C's is that other airlines don't have the millstone of legacy contracts hanging around their necks. Do you seriously think that Michael O'Leary would not contemplate exactly the same at Ryanair if he was in WW's position?
We can all play the name another airline game:
- can you name another UK airline that pays a large section of its cabin crew £40k a year
- can you name another UK airline where employees have threatened industrial action as often as BA.
The reason that no other UK airline is trying to impose drastically different T & C's is that other airlines don't have the millstone of legacy contracts hanging around their necks. Do you seriously think that Michael O'Leary would not contemplate exactly the same at Ryanair if he was in WW's position?
Jun 14, 2020, 11:54 am
#35
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,668
Another voice calling for a number of BA's LHR slots to be reduced as a result of this downturn? Thereby hampering any recovery back to normality and ensuring BA never returns to the 2019 traffic levels and resulting in even fewer jobs?
Jun 14, 2020, 12:11 pm
#36
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: LAX and LHR. UA lifetime Gold 1.9MM 1K , DL Gold Medallion, HHonors Gold, Marriott Gold, Avis President's Club
Posts: 3,592
Another overpaid airline executive trying to justify why they prioritise dividends to shareholders over their duty to their employees and customers. Firing off at the unions is just a diversionary tactic. He must think we don't know what has been going on all these years.
Jun 14, 2020, 12:12 pm
#37
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 97
How many people who are vociferously against what BA are doing, whether they be staff, their frequent flyers, politicians etc happily shop at Amazon? Even though their well publicised poor treatment of staff regarding minimum wage, many on zero hours contract, heavily policed loo breaks, pressure to come into work when ill for fear of dismissal etc.
Jun 14, 2020, 12:13 pm
#38
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Yorkshire
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 355
or a valid point depending on your viewpoint
Jun 14, 2020, 12:21 pm
#39
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OSL
Posts: 2,646
I have given the slots some thought. If BA is genuinely saying they can’t employ the people for an airline of its size, then why should they keep the slots? Give them to airlines who can (and thus fly the route and aid UKs recovery) and to avoid other airlines slot hogging, have them capacity related, ie you need to fly x % load over a period, if not you lose them. If this leads to airlines dumping prices to fill the seat surely the market will take care of it by those airlines going out of business. Further restriction on those airlines which are stated owned. Simple.
Jun 14, 2020, 12:30 pm
#40
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,668
a
...although you may well have completely missed the point 
There is a big difference between RR and BA because RR are not perceived to treat their employees badly, I have a cousin and two friends at the Derby facility and they are generally viewed as a good employer. So not a comparison.
However Amazon certainly is perceived by those who work there and a wider public as not treating their workforce fairly. So a perfectly valid comparison.
There is a big difference between RR and BA because RR are not perceived to treat their employees badly, I have a cousin and two friends at the Derby facility and they are generally viewed as a good employer. So not a comparison.
However Amazon certainly is perceived by those who work there and a wider public as not treating their workforce fairly. So a perfectly valid comparison.
Jun 14, 2020, 12:33 pm
#41
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,668
...I did not say it wasn't a valid point but indisputably a course of action that will no doubt result in a lower number of jobs for BA. "Cutting off their nose to spite their face" is a phrase that springs to mind for those calling for this 
Jun 14, 2020, 12:38 pm
#42
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: BA Exec Club Gold, *G, EK Skywards Silver
Posts: 1,020
Stage managed, choreographed rubbish.
Completely sums up the lack of inspiration and innovation engulfing the airline, led by a Chairman and CEO who can’t even go in front of the broadcast media.
Completely sums up the lack of inspiration and innovation engulfing the airline, led by a Chairman and CEO who can’t even go in front of the broadcast media.
Last edited by surryson; Jun 14, 2020 at 3:22 pm
Jun 14, 2020, 12:39 pm
#43
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Scotland
Programs: BA Silver, Hilton Diamond, BD Blue (RIP)
Posts: 1,986
I don't recall saying that. All I did was point out that BA is trying to keep the bits of being a legacy player (brand power, Heathrow slots, route rights) that suit it and cast off the bits that don't. It's not a reasonable thing for them to demand. I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think BA is being unreasonable in how it is acting. They claim they need to shrink their cost base in order to compete fairly, yet there is a huge barrier to competition in the form of Heathrow slots and legacy longhaul route rights that I imagine they would not want shifting.
Jun 14, 2020, 12:48 pm
#44
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,668
I don't recall saying that. All I did was point out that BA is trying to keep the bits of being a legacy player (brand power, Heathrow slots, route rights) that suit it and cast off the bits that don't. It's not a reasonable thing for them to demand. I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I do think BA is being unreasonable in how it is acting. They claim they need to shrink their cost base in order to compete fairly, yet there is a huge barrier to competition in the form of Heathrow slots and legacy longhaul route rights that I imagine they would not want shifting.
You are right about competition being good for the consumer too - but giving up LHR slots does not help BA (and their staff numbers) recover from the CV19 disaster. If BA have to shrink permanently then they may well need another round of redundancies later and am not sure any staff will want that.
Jun 14, 2020, 12:52 pm
#45
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 97
a
...although you may well have completely missed the point
There is a big difference between RR and BA because RR are not perceived to treat their employees badly, I have a cousin and two friends at the Derby facility and they are generally viewed as a good employer. So not a comparison.
However Amazon certainly is perceived by those who work there and a wider public as not treating their workforce fairly. So a perfectly valid comparison.
...although you may well have completely missed the point
There is a big difference between RR and BA because RR are not perceived to treat their employees badly, I have a cousin and two friends at the Derby facility and they are generally viewed as a good employer. So not a comparison.
However Amazon certainly is perceived by those who work there and a wider public as not treating their workforce fairly. So a perfectly valid comparison.