anstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5393 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9294 times:
I think LGW have been overstaffed (in customer service roles) for a while - especially as they seem to be downsizing the short haul ops every year that passes. (and EZ grows)
I go through regularly and it amazes me they need 4 people to sit on the lounge desk at times - or even 2 for the first class lounge... And then when you walk around the airport there always seems to be BA staff just sitting at some of the gates - more so than at LHR.
virgincrew From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 422 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 8778 times:
Sad times for BA staff .... over 500 staff to be made redundant.
Quote from Sky News:
"The airline is to make 120 check-in and customer service staff redundant at the London airport, while 400 baggage handlers, drivers and loaders have been told that they will lose their jobs unless they transfer to a sub-contractor"
"The plans will see 'ramp work' such as baggage, de-icing and coaching operations and the arrivals baggage service outsourced to another firm"
I am surprised this hasn't happened sooner, most airlines outsource this kind of ramp work.
Speedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8481 times:
BA is possibly the only airline at LGW that employs its own staff and this was move, as unfortunate as it is, was always a possibility. Outsourcing is cheaper and would allow BA to have a more competitive cost base at LGW and hopefully better compete with other carriers out of LGW.
jet72uk From UK - England, joined Oct 2011, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8209 times:
It can only mean one of two things: either BA want to drastically downscale the LGW operation and move services to LHR or, get new aircraft there and become a more dominant force. Considering BA at LGW has been doing rather well of late it will most likely be the latter.
planesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8107 times:
Quoting liverpoola380 (Thread starter): Its a shame it looks like this is the beginning of the end for BA at LGW unless they are streamlining to reduce costs and maintain a gatwick presence?
"News on the ramp" has been that BA has been looking at the ground handling options at LGW for the past few weeks. As far as the rumor mill was aware, a decision was due soon.
Quoting anstar (Reply 1): I go through regularly and it amazes me they need 4 people to sit on the lounge desk at times - or even 2 for the first class lounge... And then when you walk around the airport there always seems to be BA staff just sitting at some of the gates - more so than at LHR.
Or just walking around the terminal with all the time in the world, seemingly not heading to anywhere!
Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 2): I understand that this is being done in order to make a business case for a new short haul aircraft order at LGW.
The present omens at LGW would suggest it probaby is more in line with a reduction in services from the airport.
Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 6): BA is possibly the only airline at LGW that employs its own staff and this was move, as unfortunate as it is, was always a possibility. Outsourcing is cheaper and would allow BA to have a more competitive cost base at LGW and hopefully better compete with other carriers out of LGW.
By all accounts the BA ramp staff are on amazing contracts compared to the going rate these days. Not sure how TUPE transfers is going to make a good business case for the ground handler who picks up the contract.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7829 times:
Quoting jet72uk (Reply 7): a more dominant force. Considering BA at LGW has been doing rather well of late it will most likely be the latter.
Huh? Long haul does well, short haul is in a death spiral and they gifted dominance to easyJet years ago. Short haul is a fraction of it's former size, with an ever decreasing number of based, elderly B737s flying routes head to head with EZY. They are now trying to get their cost base closer to EZY at the midnight hour but it's way too late as the market flies orange.
Why fly BA to arrive after midnight when I can pay a little *more* and fly EZY and arrive at a decent hour? I am a huge BA fan but there's no way back for short haul LGW. If outsourcing all ground ops is the only way for the board to contemplate replacing the B734s, then that shows how unlikely the capital investment is likely to be. Even with the cost savings, they'll still be emloying more staff at higher cost per departure and still having to meet EZY on price and frequency. They don't have the cost base to be profitable on price and they don't have the aircraft for frequency.
If they do decide to invest in a new fleet, I think we'll see war at LGW on short haul. Stelio will moan no doubt....
ZKOJH From China, joined Sep 2004, 1758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7784 times:
So they get there hands on BD and then start shedding jobs at other stations - silly most likely see a shift of flights up to LHR so back to the joke of BA becoming London Heathrow Airlines! haha, there be more job losses to come yet from the BD shop, so not a good day for BA or the economy. bit of news on LGW that BA have re-introduced a 4th service up to MAN again.
I imagine you are right. Im pretty sure the pilots have already been advised they are to be integrated. As for the CC I am aware that their reps are to meet this week with BA and hash out an agreement on integration but I dont believe any firm decisions have yet been made.
Personally I can see the majority of crew being safe, as for their ranks and seniority well I fear that could be wiped out. Rumour has it that they will be placed into Eurofleet but I wonder if they will remain on some of their currently served routes for a time until BA decides what to do with the longhaul configured airbuses!!!
My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
vectismanpaul From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 week ago) and read 6728 times:
I am sorry Mikey but I cannot let your comments go without a response.
I have been reading these forums for a number of years but now feel the need to join to answer some of the comments made by users that need to be challenged.
Closing the Gatwick base would be rather shortsighted. BA is gaining 42 slots at Heathrow with the BMI slots many of which it wishes to use to develop new routes and strengthen its overall network. This welcome expansion will only bring brief relief to capacity constraints in the short/medium term.
Currently in the summer BA can have up to 62 Departures a day from Gatwick carrying about 5 million passengers a year. What company what give away 5 million passengers to other airlines? There is also the consequence of losing the brand presence etc...
Even with the BMI slots there is no way BA could transfer all its operations to Heathrow. Every transfer takes up a slot that could be used for route development at Heathrow.
Also many people seem to overlook the fact that for BA to expand at Heathrow another British Airline has been 'lost'. You could look at it as a similar number of passengers being carried just with a different carrier. Although I accept BA will probably do so more efficiently and in greater numbers. True expansion at Heathrow will only come with 'bigger Heathrow'.
I am a strong supporter of BA and believe that with foresight and commitment to offering a good and cost effective product it can run 3 profitable and well regarded London bases(Heathrow, Gatwick and City) I hope this cost reduction works and in the long term safeguards the base and leads to more employment opportunities there. The company needs to be brave enough to invest in aircraft and routes. It is interesting that on the routes on which it competes with Easyjet it seems to hold its own quite well. In same cases it has been Easyjet that has reduced capacity to certain destinations.
There is also the human cost that has to be considered(unfashionable I know) but is is rather glib to say that you would close the base and transfer all the profitable routes to Heathrow.
The day may also come when the government finds it more politically acceptable to encourage the expansion of Gatwick (ie with a 2nd runway) than at Heathrow (ie 3rd runway). BA would find it difficult to start up again there if that were to happen.
Also I doubt that BA would walk away from at least 62 slot pairs at London's 2nd airport.
The base does have a loyal following and is well regarded by passengers.
I believe that BA made a serious tactical error by not purchasing GB Airways a few years back, but that is history now.
I also am not anti Easyjet and have flown them several times but all airports need to offer choice and BA/Easyjet both at Gatwick is important. At Heathrow BA has many others to keep it on its toes. Likewise at Gatwick Easyjet also Needs the same.
I apologise for rambling on and fully expect to be shouted down but I feel better for having made my comments and that's what matters to me!!
Finally I wish all staff affected at Gatwick well and hope they do not have to endure along period of uncertainty and in some cases long periods of unemployment.
I would also like to stress I have no connection with BA.
mikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6561 times:
Quoting vectismanpaul (Reply 18): There is also the human cost that has to be considered(unfashionable I know) but is is rather glib to say that you would close the base and transfer all the profitable routes to Heathrow.
Totally aware of that. Really don't want to see anyone lose their job.
Doesn't mean certain realities can just be ignored a la Air France etc
Airlines do that at their peril....and the list is long.
I don't call it giving up I call it adapting.
Anyway, you could be right, is just my opinion after all.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
LTU330 From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6463 times:
London Airways starts to look more like Heathrow Airways. It's strange how things pan out. In Engineering many years ago, people had to accept jobs at Heathrow or lose their jobs. Maybe the same will apply here. At least the situation is not as bad as what B.A did to Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Belfast......
LHRFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 852 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6354 times:
Quoting LTU330 (Reply 20): London Airways starts to look more like Heathrow Airways. It's
Not so. BA is now the largest operator of flights at London City airport and is continuing to grow there. A few years ago it was behind CityJet (who looked like they had gained a major foothold at LCY), but with the new fleet of Embraer aircraft (which has gone down very well with customers) it has managed to play catch up and overtake them.
Competing against easyJet at LGW will be much harder, but if LGW's MD manages to secure board approval for a new aircraft order, perhaps with a more competitive cost base and a better product, we'll see BA start to fight back at LGW rather than constant cutting back of the schedule. (Though I appreciate this will of little comfort to those who are facing redundancy and changes to their roles.)
anstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5393 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6247 times:
Quoting vectismanpaul (Reply 18): Currently in the summer BA can have up to 62 Departures a day from Gatwick carrying about 5 million passengers a year. What company what give away 5 million passengers to other airlines?
The same airline that gave up around that many passengers in the past 10 years as it shed BMED, GB and BACON etc
If the routes are not profitable - dump them and consolidate on the more profitable ones up the road.