B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16575 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
LaPaige From Sweden, joined May 2007, 51 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2156 times:
They do but not all of the CC are actually licensed on the 767 (as they have the option of coming off that aircraft after some time). For WW it's either 747 and 777 or 747, 767 and 777.
Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1581 times:
Quoting LaPaige (Reply 2): They do but not all of the CC are actually licensed on the 767 (as they have the option of coming off that aircraft after some time). For WW it's either 747 and 777 or 747, 767 and 777.
BA's cabin crew management sometimes have little sense, why not have all WW crew licensed on all 3 seeing as they can be! And why give them the option of coming off, who runs BA crew??!?! Bassa is seems.............
Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 4): Plus you had Concorde which I believe was done by EF cabin crews, but I could be wrong
BFS From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 734 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
Quoting Theginge (Reply 6): BA's cabin crew management sometimes have little sense, why not have all WW crew licensed on all 3 seeing as they can be! And why give them the option of coming off, who runs BA crew??!?! Bassa is seems
I believe part of the reasoning behind not all WW crew being on the 767 is that compared to the 747 and 777 there are so few of them that if all the however many thousands of cabin crew at WW (including those on various part time contracts) trained on it, they would more often than not go out of check and constantly have to be retrained. By keeping a limited number of crew licensed on it, it is easier to control this problem which is also quite common on Eurofleet.
It is similar at LGW, in that not everybody is trained on the few A319s they have as it would be easy to go out of check. For a long time people would volunteer to go on the Airbus, and now as the fleet is growing it is being rostered to crew in reverse seniority.
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3126 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1517 times:
Sorry for hijacking the thread but you probably know the answer already... I was wondering how many examples of each type (767, 777, etc...) BA has based at LHR and LGW.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16575 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1261 times:
Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 8): Sorry for hijacking the thread but you probably know the answer already... I was wondering how many examples of each type (767, 777, etc...) BA has based at LHR and LGW.
Well BA base all of its 747 fleet at LHR, so that is 54 744s.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1185 times:
So which specific 777s remain based at LGW, and which A319s are now classed as being LGW based (or are due to move there from LHR)?
Are all LGW CC trained on the 777 as well as the 737, as I know BA use the CC on both S/H and L/H flights. With A318 flights from LCY later next year the LGW CC will operate these, so crew ill need to be AIrbus and 777 trained. From what has been said above about rostering by reversed seniority, does this mean that LCY and JFK flights (The LCY crew will work in/out via JFK on the 777 too) will not be open to senior CC?
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined May 2007, 51 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16575 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 273 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
