I do understand why BA CityFlyer now exists, historically, but what is the point of it, as from a customer point of view - and operationally - it's the same as BA mainline? Same classes, service etc. Why don't they just operate all LCY as BA mainline, but just on the E-jets?

8herveg wrote:

operationally - it's the same as BA mainline

Is this correct? I have always assumed it has a lower cost base than mainline (e.g. different staff T&Cs) hence the separate operation.

Different Ts&C's, different cost base, and different AOC. Thats why.

Nickd92 wrote:

Different Ts&C's, different cost base, and different AOC. Thats why.

Ok, wasn't aware. Apologies. So 1), why do they have different Ts&C's, cost base and AOC? And 2) Do they therefore - legally - have to have a different name?

Sorry that came across really blunt apologies.

The BA connect sale to Flybe didn't include the LCY operation as BA didn't want to give Flybe the LCY operation. BA CityFlyer was born out of that i believe.

Nickd92 wrote:

Sorry that came across really blunt apologies.

The BA connect sale to Flybe didn't include the LCY operation as BA didn't want to give Flybe the LCY operation. BA CityFlyer was born out of that i believe.

No problem. I was aware that the BA Connect sale to Flybe didn't include the LCY operation, but why didn't BA just setup their own operation with the same 'rules' as mainline rather than setting up a subsidiary?

8herveg wrote:

Nickd92 wrote:

Sorry that came across really blunt apologies.

The BA connect sale to Flybe didn't include the LCY operation as BA didn't want to give Flybe the LCY operation. BA CityFlyer was born out of that i believe.

No problem. I was aware that the BA Connect sale to Flybe didn't include the LCY operation, but why didn't BA just setup their own operation with the same 'rules' as mainline rather than setting up a subsidiary?

At that time mainline t&c's were definitely way better than those at LCY, this was before the set up of mixed fleet cabin crew at LHR and the alteration of pilots payscales to reflect retirement at 65 rather than 55.

The gap will definitely have closed, but may well exist.

And to keep in mind it is not quite the same service. LCY have still to implement the Buy-On-Board disaster in Economy.

The BoB is coming to LCY. BA had a high and uncompetitive cost base. They ended up taking an axe to ts&cs at regional and LGW. The problem was staff were making flying a career and expecting to be well paid. They also had in house handling with staff having been around more than a single season.
To mitigate this foolishness and to allow us to fly for silly money to eveywhere at a whim, BA cut and cut and kept every other part of the operation seperate from high cost and unionised LHR. Then came mixed fleet and the final attack on the looney left at BASSA.

Ahh we live in better days. Well, I can afford to fly more, so "yaaay".
There is NO entry to the BA seniority list via CFE, you go in at the bottom if you somehow manage to get into BA proper. #sarcasm

Remember BA originally bought out CityFlyer at Gatwick, there was no need to set up another subsidiary, they had CFE, BRY and BRT all in one giant Union Jack liveried mixture...... That's before you consider just how many different aircraft they flew. Simpler now

skipness1E wrote:

The BoB is coming to LCY. BA had a high and uncompetitive cost base. They ended up taking an axe to ts&cs at regional and LGW. The problem was staff were making flying a career and expecting to be well paid. They also had in house handling with staff having been around more than a single season.
To mitigate this foolishness and to allow us to fly for silly money to eveywhere at a whim, BA cut and cut and kept every other part of the operation seperate from high cost and unionised LHR. Then came mixed fleet and the final attack on the looney left at BASSA.

Ahh we live in better days. Well, I can afford to fly more, so "yaaay".
There is NO entry to the BA seniority list via CFE, you go in at the bottom if you somehow manage to get into BA proper. #sarcasm

Remember BA originally bought out CityFlyer at Gatwick, there was no need to set up another subsidiary, they had CFE, BRY and BRT all in one giant Union Jack liveried mixture...... That's before you consider just how many different aircraft they flew. Simpler now

You sound like you really don't care about the workers. A freemarketeering arch-capitalist at play

TheLion wrote:

You sound like you really don't care about the workers. A freemarketeering arch-capitalist at play

More than a little sarcasm in Skip's post!

TedToToe wrote:

TheLion wrote:

You sound like you really don't care about the workers. A freemarketeering arch-capitalist at play

More than a little sarcasm in Skip's post!

It was almost too serious to be sarcastic

Same reason all of the 'regional' offshoots exist - to pay a proportion of their staff less wages and give less benefits.

Thats about the long and short of it.

Airline Business is all about cutting costs. Plain & Simple.

CityFlyer is BA's take on the outsourcing model to cut costs. Delivering services with a subsidiary operating on a lower cost structure.

If you dont see a difference between CityFlyer service & BA mainline, it just shows they have have been doing a very good job with it.

The concept isn't unique by the way. KLM also has KLM Cityhopper who operate the smaller aircraft (Fokker and Embraer) for them. Lufthansa has Lufthansa Regional, Iberia has Air Nostrum. Also in America the US3 got seperate airlines for their regional operations.

BA Cityflyer isn't strictly bound to London City by the way, they also operate flights out of some other airports like Stansted.

Having flown on BA City Flyer yesterday for the first time to see LCY and clock a flew FF miles, I flew EDI-LCY then LCY-DUB. What a cracking operation and really surprised to see the old fashioned in flight service having come prepared for another Bob flight. I'll try them again sometime even if they have adopted mainstream service.

BawliBooch wrote:

Airline Business is all about cutting costs. Plain & Simple.

CityFlyer is BA's take on the outsourcing model to cut costs. Delivering services with a subsidiary operating on a lower cost structure.

If you dont see a difference between CityFlyer service & BA mainline, it just shows they have have been doing a very good job with it.

Ok, understood. So why doesn't BA mainline have/copy/follow the same t&c's as CityFlyer so they too can cut costs?

8herveg wrote:

Ok, understood. So why doesn't BA mainline have/copy/follow the same t&c's as CityFlyer so they too can cut costs?

Because you can't just go around slashing people's wages and especially pensions without huge blowback.

@8herveg Hey old chap, mind doing your company a favour so we can hit profit targets for shareholders please? Fancy losing your pension, benefits, restricting staff travel and double digit % terms pay cut to a market rate driven by Ryanair? SERIOUSLY? #facepalm

skipness1E wrote:

@8herveg Hey old chap, mind doing your company a favour so we can hit profit targets for shareholders please? Fancy losing your pension, benefits, restricting staff travel and double digit % terms pay cut to a market rate driven by Ryanair? SERIOUSLY? #facepalm

So how do they get away with it at CityFlyer?!

8herveg wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

@8herveg Hey old chap, mind doing your company a favour so we can hit profit targets for shareholders please? Fancy losing your pension, benefits, restricting staff travel and double digit % terms pay cut to a market rate driven by Ryanair? SERIOUSLY? #facepalm

So how do they get away with it at CityFlyer?!

There is a union agreement in place which limits CityFlyer to aircraft that have fewer than 100 seats. That's why the leg room on BACF's E-190s is so generous.

LHRFlyer wrote:

8herveg wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

@8herveg Hey old chap, mind doing your company a favour so we can hit profit targets for shareholders please? Fancy losing your pension, benefits, restricting staff travel and double digit % terms pay cut to a market rate driven by Ryanair? SERIOUSLY? #facepalm

So how do they get away with it at CityFlyer?!

There is a union agreement in place which limits CityFlyer to aircraft that have fewer than 100 seats. That's why the leg room on BACF's E-190s is so generous.

Thanks.

And SkipnessIE - I don't appreciate your tone - I obviously don't know the answer to my original question, hence asking in a forum. We're here to share information with each other and learn. That's the whole point.

BTW is there a aircraft size limit to operate from LCY? In other words can a BBJ (737) operate from this airport?

In fairness your question was : "Why don't they just slash everyone's wages?" My answer was blunt and direct, sometimes couching in nicer language is unhelpful.
They got away with it as the original companies that made up what became BA CityFlyer lacked a powerful union like BASSA to prevent a slash and burn cost cutting strategy. However given Ts & Cs weren't as high as BA to start with and Rod Eddington and Willie Walsh were tempted with simply closing all regional flying, cuts were accepted for survival. From the sold remains of regional BA, what became BA Connect at the end was a reborn BA Cityflyer flying RJ100s out of LCY. With this operation kept at arms length from mainline and unable to operate regular ops from LHR/LGW as all Hell would break loose with BALPA with the pilotsunder threat.
Remember the mainline Cabin Crew have already been broken as a force with new hires on nee Mixed Fleet contracts focussed on getting young good looking people who will leave for better paid work elsewhere after a few years of world travelling and before their crows feet show. It's the Singapore /Cathay business model.

skipness1E wrote:

In fairness your question was : "Why don't they just slash everyone's wages?" My answer was blunt and direct, sometimes couching in nicer language is unhelpful.
They got away with it as the original companies that made up what became BA CityFlyer lacked a powerful union like BASSA to prevent a slash and burn cost cutting strategy. However given Ts & Cs weren't as high as BA to start with and Rod Eddington and Willie Walsh were tempted with simply closing all regional flying, cuts were accepted for survival. From the sold remains of regional BA, what became BA Connect at the end was a reborn BA Cityflyer flying RJ100s out of LCY. With this operation kept at arms length from mainline and unable to operate regular ops from LHR/LGW as all Hell would break loose with BALPA with the pilotsunder threat.
Remember the mainline Cabin Crew have already been broken as a force with new hires on nee Mixed Fleet contracts focussed on getting young good looking people who will leave for better paid work elsewhere after a few years of world travelling and before their crows feet show. It's the Singapore /Cathay business model.

Actually, my specific question was 'So why doesn't BA mainline have/copy/follow the same t&c's as CityFlyer so they too can cut costs?' - and what I meant by that was, how comes CityFlyer doesn't benefit from the same t&c's as mainline.

But thanks for your explanation.

Sorry that is even less clear.....
BA have much higher costs than CFE if they simply implemented further wage cuts, it would mean even more strikes.
CFE don't have the same ts and cs as BA are trying to keep a lid on costs, not add to them.

8herveg wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

In fairness your question was : "Why don't they just slash everyone's wages?" My answer was blunt and direct, sometimes couching in nicer language is unhelpful.
They got away with it as the original companies that made up what became BA CityFlyer lacked a powerful union like BASSA to prevent a slash and burn cost cutting strategy. However given Ts & Cs weren't as high as BA to start with and Rod Eddington and Willie Walsh were tempted with simply closing all regional flying, cuts were accepted for survival. From the sold remains of regional BA, what became BA Connect at the end was a reborn BA Cityflyer flying RJ100s out of LCY. With this operation kept at arms length from mainline and unable to operate regular ops from LHR/LGW as all Hell would break loose with BALPA with the pilotsunder threat.
Remember the mainline Cabin Crew have already been broken as a force with new hires on nee Mixed Fleet contracts focussed on getting young good looking people who will leave for better paid work elsewhere after a few years of world travelling and before their crows feet show. It's the Singapore /Cathay business model.

Actually, my specific question was 'So why doesn't BA mainline have/copy/follow the same t&c's as CityFlyer so they too can cut costs?' - and what I meant by that was, how comes CityFlyer doesn't benefit from the same t&c's as mainline.

But thanks for your explanation.

Because the CF t&c are lower wages and worse conditions for workers, and the unions of mainline BA would never agree to that

BA CityFlyer crew do not benefit from the same terms and conditions as BA Mainline crew because the CityFlyer terms and conditions have developed from an entirely different base to those of BA itself. This base was the terms and conditions pertaining to CityFlyer Express crew, This airline was an LGW based BA franchise operator until it was bought by BA in October 2002.

Back then an agreement was reached between BA and BALPA that this situation was acceptable provided what evolved into BA CityFlyer did not operate any aircraft with 100+ seats.

This has resulted in BA CityFlyer operating their E190s with 98 C/Y 34" pitch seats. This is of course very generous for Y Class passengers. It is the same as that for W Class passengers on BA Mainline long-haul configured aircraft.

vv701 wrote:

BA CityFlyer crew do not benefit from the same terms and conditions as BA Mainline crew because the CityFlyer terms and conditions have developed from an entirely different base to those of BA itself. This base was the terms and conditions pertaining to CityFlyer Express crew, This airline was an LGW based BA franchise operator until it was bought by BA in October 2002.

Back then an agreement was reached between BA and BALPA that this situation was acceptable provided what evolved into BA CityFlyer did not operate any aircraft with 100+ seats.

This has resulted in BA CityFlyer operating their E190s with 98 C/Y 34" pitch seats. This is of course very generous for Y Class passengers. It is the same as that for W Class passengers on BA Mainline long-haul configured aircraft.

That's the answer I was looking for - thank you!

OPDRVR wrote:

BTW is there a aircraft size limit to operate from LCY? In other words can a BBJ (737) operate from this airport?

No, far too big to fit into LCY, and not certified to operate there (the runway length and surrounding buildings require special certification).
Biggest planes that are certified are CS100, A318, RJ100, or E190. No Boeings at all, because Boeing haven't been interested in this size of aircraft for a very long time, and to get certification requires work by the manufacturer.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The concept isn't unique by the way. KLM also has KLM Cityhopper who operate the smaller aircraft (Fokker and Embraer) for them. Lufthansa has Lufthansa Regional, Iberia has Air Nostrum. Also in America the US3 got seperate airlines for their regional operations.

BA Cityflyer isn't strictly bound to London City by the way, they also operate flights out of some other airports like Stansted.

I disagree. Cityline, Cityhopper, Air Nostrum etc. mainly or exclusively cover the smaller-sized aircraft segment of those airlines and are fully integrated into mainline hub operations. Cityflyer is a standalone niche product for a niche market. The (rather limited) operation from other airports than LCY has to do with the weekend curfew at LCY, so for 1,5 days each week the fleet is deployed elsewhere, if possible.