Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was Concorde The Top Of The List For AF And BA?  
User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4854 times:

So we always hear about pay scales and what not within airlines, and people having to 'work their way up' to bigger planes and stuff like that. Was the concorde considered the top echelon in AF and BA? Certainly it was the most exclusive, but what about pay?

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4783 times:

Yes. Concorde was on the top of the pyramid in France.

User currently offlineACEregular From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

I am sure its been covered on here before. If I am not mistaken BA selected only the best from both short and long haul, and they only got it for a three year stint. I believe they still flew on regular aircraft during the time and went back to thier respective fleets full time after the three years. As for pay I think Cabin Crew wise, they did it just for the thrill of it. Now I may be wrong and this is only how I remember it from last discussion so dont quote me thanks.

User currently offlineShamrock_747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4619 times:

At BA there was more money to be made on larger longhaul aircraft. Many 'career pilots' passed up on the chance to fly Concorde for this reason.

In terms of cabin crew, in Concorde's final years she had shorthaul crew who had to apply and were selected on personal merit, then specially trained.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4595 times:



Quoting ACEregular (Reply 2):
If I am not mistaken BA selected only the best from both short and long haul, and they only got it for a three year stint. I believe they still flew on regular aircraft during the time and went back to thier respective fleets full time after the three years.

I assume you're referring to cabin crew? I think you'll find many of the flight crew stayed with it for years.

Quoting Shamrock_747 (Reply 3):
At BA there was more money to be made on larger longhaul aircraft. Many 'career pilots' passed up on the chance to fly Concorde for this reason.

Yes, as confirmed by our resident Concorde Captain, and to my surprise, it was regarded as a "junior" aircraft. I suspect many wanted to fly it for aviation reasons rather than career reasons.


User currently offlineVc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1408 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4421 times:

Well I can only give an idea as to what went on in BA, and the quick answer is that from a seniority point of view Concorde was a very junior fleet from the very beginning. Many senior crew members turned down the chance of going on it for perhaps 3 reasons

a] Less well paid than other long haul aircraft
b] Limited route structure
c] Suspicion, especially at the beginning, that the aircraft would not operate with BA for very
long

The crews on the two courses back in 1975 were selected and consisted mainly of instructors, who would then go on and train the future crews. After that crews bid to go on the aircraft as per normal, but not many senior crews wanted to take that opportunity and so in the Captain and F/E ranks it was a very junior fleet , with the youngest Captain being 32 years old and the youngest F/E being 28 years old . The Co-pilots tended to to be more senior in their rank but all hovered somewhere around the 30 year old mark. Not all the crews were that young with a core of Captains and F/E being around 50 years old at Concorde's introduction into service. With the crews staying on the aircraft they became quite senior as the years passed by, with a lot of retirements in the 1990s of captains and F/Es

The basic pay was the same as other long haul aircraft however, however take-home pay was less on Concorde due to lack of allowances etc that frequent long haul flying generated, so BA did initially pay an additional lump sum per annum to try and attract people onto the aircraft and also to keep them on it,but this was not increased over the years so with inflation became relatively smaller and was eventually absorbed in some general pay deal or other.

To come on the aircraft if I remember correctly, because of the cost of the course, the pilots had to remain on the aircraft for at least 7 years although this was reduced often so as to allow the co-pilots to go on other aircraft to get their command as and when their turn came up. As for the F/E there was no minimum term, and they were expected to stay on the aircraft until released for good behavior at retirement age. A couple manage to escape over the wire, but the majority did stay with the old girl until they or her retired.

Why then did crew go on Concorde, and you have to say they went for the experience, and once there, other aircraft did seem quite boring. Being a small fleet generally less than 20 sets of crews, they all became very close friends, which then made it hard to leave. The aircraft aswell as being rewarding to operate, could also be quite a challenge on times and I think this is what the crew liked, it was old fashion civil aircraft operation.

Some of the co-pilots that left to get their commands, returned to the old girl, as Captains,as soon as their seniority allowed them too, with Mike Bannister being just on of them.

As far as the Cabin Crew were concerned initially they were all selected crews from the Overseas Division [long haul] side of BA and they operated solely on Concorde. Around about the 1980s [memory failing here though] the cabin crew changed and they were now taken from the short haul side of BA as their scheduling agreement was said to be better suited to Concorde's operation, and up to the end as far as Concorde Cabin crew were concerned it was a short haul aircraft. Whilst they were on Concorde they would also operate on short haul aircraft.

Well enough of all this drivel

littlevc10


User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4207 times:

Vc10, that's not drivel at all! Thanks for the enlightenment.

User currently offlineFbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3706 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4037 times:



Quoting Vc10 (Reply 5):
Some of the co-pilots that left to get their commands, returned to the old girl, as Captains,as soon as their seniority allowed them too, with Mike Bannister being just on of them.

Thanks for all that info  thumbsup  Is Mike Bannister still at BA? He's been in the media on and off but wasn't sure if he was still working for the company. I met him onboard in 2002 and he said he'd been on the Concorde fleet since he joined BA (IIRC) so I'm wondering if he went to train on another a/c type. I suspect he is doing more of a corporate position within the airline now.



"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2314 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3995 times:

Thanks for the information, Vc10. I guess with such a quick trip across the pond, it could be considered "short haul"  Smile


KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1408 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Mike was on the VC-10 when he joined BOAC and around 1976/77 transferred to Concorde as a co-pilot, leaving some time later to get his command and also enter management. Came back to Concorde as a Captain and if I remeber correctly also in a managment role.

I believe he has now left British Airways

littlevc10


User currently offlineBeany From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3922 times:



Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 6):
Some of the co-pilots that left to get their commands, returned to the old girl, as Captains,as soon as their seniority allowed them too, with Mike Bannister being just on of them.

The same with Les Brodie and Chris Norris!


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3835 times:



Quoting Vc10 (Reply 5):
Many senior crew members turned down the chance of going on it for perhaps 3 reasons

a] Less well paid than other long haul aircraft
b] Limited route structure
c] Suspicion, especially at the beginning, that the aircraft would not operate with BA for very
long

Wasn't there also a concern re the long-term health impact of the additional solar radiation Concorde crews were exposed to due to the much higher altitudes reached? Wonder if that would have been a deterrent factor. I recall reading that Concorde flight crews (not sure about cabin crews) were limited to only about half the annual flying hours on Concorde than on other types due to the radiation issue. Was that true?


User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3762 times:

NO / NOT CORRECT

Was the concorde considered the top echelon in...BA?

Certainly it was the most exclusive..

BA selected only the best..

They only got it for a three year stint...

I believe they still flew on regular aircraft during the time..

Is Mike Bannister still at BA?

he'd been on the Concorde fleet since he joined BA..

Some co-pilots returned..as soon as their seniority allowed...with Mike Bannister being just one of them.

The same with Les Brodie...

Concorde flight crews...limited to...half the annual flying hours..than on other types...


YES / CORRECT

Quoting Vc10 (Reply 5):
Why then did crew go on Concorde, and you have to say they went for the experience, and once there, other aircraft did seem quite boring. Being a small fleet generally less than 20 sets of crews, they all became very close friends, which then made it hard to leave. The aircraft as well as being rewarding to operate, could also be quite a challenge on times and I think this is what the crew liked, it was old fashion civil aircraft operation.

Couldn't have put it better myself !


Best Regards to all

Bellerophon


User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1408 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3762 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 11):
I recall reading that Concorde flight crews (not sure about cabin crews) were limited to only about half the annual flying hours on Concorde than on other types due to the radiation issue. Was that true?

The radiation problem was mentioned especially during the early years of operating the aircraft, and a close watch was kept on sun spot activity, but through out Concordes life sun spot activity was at a low reading. There was some concern as to female crew operating in the early months of pregnancy, but nothing seemed to come of it.

There was no restriction to flying hours on Concorde for radiation considerations, but if there had been this would not have bothered most of the crews as hours were difficult to accrue as usually some other limitation came in first to limit your flying.The crew were always issued with a radiation advice prior to every trip and there was a radiation meter on the aircraft. If radiation got too high then descend to FL 470 or less and continue the flight . This would, for fuel reason, usually mean a diversion, but I do not remember any Concorde service being put in this situation

I do not think though that radiation came into any body's head when they were considering biding for Concorde

littlevc10


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Reasons For Needing To Be At Top Of Standby List.. posted Wed Oct 15 2003 06:44:06 by Zrs70
The E-mail Address For UAL And Cathay In Hong Kong posted Sun Jan 21 2001 06:26:59 by United Airline
Future Of PrivatAir Operations For LH And LX posted Fri Jan 11 2008 16:39:53 by CX288
Accident At CDG. Big Trouble For AF And A380 posted Mon May 24 2004 19:40:35 by FraT
New Fleet For AF And TG posted Tue Nov 25 2003 20:01:09 by Birka340
LGA Wins Top Honor In Competition For Food And Bev posted Sun Jul 6 2003 17:58:12 by Bigphilnyc
AF-KLM And The Andean Market: Good Results For 05. posted Tue May 16 2006 18:30:59 by 777jaah
When Are The 175's For S5 And Delta Coming? posted Thu Jul 17 2008 16:31:53 by F16arm
AF And The B777F posted Wed Feb 20 2008 12:25:19 by AFCDGPTP
What Is The Plan For TP And NI? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 13:25:04 by RicardoFG