Well positioned for domestic flights, definitely yes. But I'd be a little dubious as to how fast non-stop flights to Europe return...

hohd wrote:

Others are second tier, might take longer to restart. (Aus, Phx, Den, San Diego, Baltimore, Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa etc.). Although PHX might come back sooner as it is a hub to hub.

And Charleston, New Orleans and Pittsburgh which may be in the 3rd tier, may not ever return.

Considering DY hibernation, places like AUS, DEN, Orlando or Tampa will see less pressure on extremely low fares. Same with LAX,BOS,SEA, SFO or JFK, but these are anyway very competitive markets.

gsg013 wrote:

Has there been any news on BA LHR-BNA-LHR? I'm hoping this will stick around.

It was one of their highest yielding routes, so much so that they were planning to send a 78X there.

The question is whether the volume is still there. If so, it's certain we'll see it among the first of the tertiary routes to come back.

Hard to see DFW being dropped, as others had said hub to hub. Plenty of people will want to take BA on the LHR-DFW sector rather than AA; I know I have the last few times. I doubt they will let AA handle all the 3 or 4x daily flying, they should want at least one if for nothing other than 'prestige' etc.

BA are running 787s now LHR to DFW cargo only. I was told they fly with two sets of crew... after landing the other crew takes over and they all fly back. No overnights.

gdg9 wrote:

BA are running 787s now LHR to DFW cargo only. I was told they fly with two sets of crew... after landing the other crew takes over and they all fly back. No overnights.

Not to Dallas - they've been nightstopping the whole time. Only round-trip crewed flights are the PEK & PVG cargo flights and a few British repatriation flights from India and Bangladesh. The rest are still nightstopping.

LAX772LR wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

but it makes more sense to drive traffic through hubs now.

To which (again) I'll inform you that that's only an assumption on your part... not a factual statement.

You lack the numerical basis on which to claim that, specific to this (or really any) airline on a specific route.
We simply do not know yet whether and to what extent they will implement their strategy of fragmentation vs. hubbing upon return.

I mean, I get the generalization: I'm sure most airlines will indeed prefer to send the majority of secondary and tertiary TATL traffic through hubs. But no one here has the numbers to say that "XXX will resume nonstop" but "YYY 'makes more sense' through a hub"

I agree with you. You can generally drive higher yields with non stop passengers than connecting ones. BA know that and have acted on this for years. If the can find the right size plane they can fill, they'll offer the flights non stop rather than feed through existing hubs.

gdg9 wrote:

Hard to see DFW being dropped, as others had said hub to hub. Plenty of people will want to take BA on the LHR-DFW sector rather than AA; I know I have the last few times. I doubt they will let AA handle all the 3 or 4x daily flying, they should want at least one if for nothing other than 'prestige' etc.

BA are running 787s now LHR to DFW cargo only. I was told they fly with two sets of crew... after landing the other crew takes over and they all fly back. No overnights.

The days of flying routes "for prestige" have long gone at BA. If a route does not perform as it should (be this cargo or passengers, feed or otherwise) it will be cut. If a partner can serve the route better, it will go to the partner. I suspect we will see BA continue to fly to DFW but only because it makes sense economically.

SeanM1997 wrote:

Summer seasonal gone for S20 (unclear if they will return):
- Podgorica (TGD)

I did not know BA flied LHR-TGD! Is that a summer only route? I always thought TGD would be a Gatwick route.

chonetsao wrote:

SeanM1997 wrote:

Summer seasonal gone for S20 (unclear if they will return):
- Podgorica (TGD)

I did not know BA flied LHR-TGD! Is that a summer only route? I always thought TGD would be a Gatwick route.

It never actually started. It was to be a new summer seasonal route this year.

Can somebody explain the rationale behind BA opening a Heathrow-Podgorica route as a summer seasonal ?

I can understand London-Tivat to take people on holiday to the coast (Budva, Kotor,etc). Virtually all the summer seasonal routes to Montenegro seem to go to Tivat instead of Podgorica. Cetinje is nice but only worth a few hours to look round. However Podgorica is not a major tourist draw and is not near the coast - it seems like classic Ryanair or Wizz territory carrying migrant labour between locations of job and family. And yes, there are possibly a few people deciding a flight to Tivat cost too much so taking a cheaper flight to Podgorica followed by a longer bus ride (not usually a good indicator of airline profitability !)

Naff all in the drive from Tivat or Podgorica to Budva both are about a hour and half drive away by road.

Ground transfers on the local buses ain’t breaking the bank ether €10 each way and a taxi €30 maximum

Believe World Holidays US agents generated a quite some interest from Chicago from the local Montenegrin diaspora as well

Still ain’t happening so we can leave it there.

Interestedly though nought to do with BA if for a certain annoyance and inconvenience Manchester would have had flights to both this summer .

It’s an in place among the travel industry “cue cheap !” at the moment

Do you see changes in their network to South America? With IB also heavily affected by the COVID19, do you see IAG tunneling more through MAD?

SeanM1997 wrote:

BA London Heathrow routes gone so far:
- Helsinki (HEL)
- Beirut (BEY)
- Leeds/Bradford (LBA)

Summer seasonal gone for S20 (unclear if they will return):
- Podgorica (TGD)
- Charleston (CHS)
- Calgary (YYC)

They had already cut the Helsinki frequency to 1 per day before this happened, with Finnair increasing to 6 or 7 per day with BA codeshares. I always found it strange that BA had flights at almost exactly the same times as Finnair at around 0800 from HEL and 1800 from LHR.

Demand last year was strong on HEL-LHR early in the morning (Finnair were able to fill an A350 !) and LHR-HEL - there are a lot of suits on these flights

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Demand last year was strong on HEL-LHR early in the morning (Finnair were able to fill an A350 !) and LHR-HEL - there are a lot of suits on these flights

Were finnair able to fill an A350 or were they just using it for the cargo?

BA777FO wrote:

gdg9 wrote:

BA are running 787s now LHR to DFW cargo only. I was told they fly with two sets of crew... after landing the other crew takes over and they all fly back. No overnights.

Not to Dallas - they've been nightstopping the whole time. Only round-trip crewed flights are the PEK & PVG cargo flights and a few British repatriation flights from India and Bangladesh. The rest are still nightstopping.

Interesting. Well the report I got was from an AA Crew Chief, so I suppose not surprising its wrong. Thanks for the update!

British Airways have cut its London Heathrow (LHR) to Moscow Sheremetyevo (SVO) route. BA will continue to serve Domodedovo (DME) 2x daily

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/tr ... faqid=8238

Westerwaelder wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

but it makes more sense to drive traffic through hubs now.

To which (again) I'll inform you that that's only an assumption on your part... not a factual statement.

You lack the numerical basis on which to claim that, specific to this (or really any) airline on a specific route.
We simply do not know yet whether and to what extent they will implement their strategy of fragmentation vs. hubbing upon return.

I mean, I get the generalization: I'm sure most airlines will indeed prefer to send the majority of secondary and tertiary TATL traffic through hubs. But no one here has the numbers to say that "XXX will resume nonstop" but "YYY 'makes more sense' through a hub"

I agree with you. You can generally drive higher yields with non stop passengers than connecting ones. BA know that and have acted on this for years. If the can find the right size plane they can fill, they'll offer the flights non stop rather than feed through existing hubs.

The problem is they now don’t have the aircraft fleet they had even six months ago. Also, high yield VFR and business travel has been damaged. Certainly BA will drive some traffic non-stop but to think all the Pre-COVID destinations are coming back short or even medium-term is a stretch.

izbtmnhd wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

To which (again) I'll inform you that that's only an assumption on your part... not a factual statement.

You lack the numerical basis on which to claim that, specific to this (or really any) airline on a specific route.
We simply do not know yet whether and to what extent they will implement their strategy of fragmentation vs. hubbing upon return.

I mean, I get the generalization: I'm sure most airlines will indeed prefer to send the majority of secondary and tertiary TATL traffic through hubs. But no one here has the numbers to say that "XXX will resume nonstop" but "YYY 'makes more sense' through a hub"

I agree with you. You can generally drive higher yields with non stop passengers than connecting ones. BA know that and have acted on this for years. If the can find the right size plane they can fill, they'll offer the flights non stop rather than feed through existing hubs.

The problem is they now don’t have the aircraft fleet they had even six months ago. Also, high yield VFR and business travel has been damaged. Certainly BA will drive some traffic non-stop but to think all the Pre-COVID destinations are coming back short or even medium-term is a stretch.

Of course not. The point made is that they would much prefer to offer a route non stop than simply feeding it through a hub. If that's possible in the short or medium term is everyone's guess.

Westerwaelder wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

I agree with you. You can generally drive higher yields with non stop passengers than connecting ones. BA know that and have acted on this for years. If the can find the right size plane they can fill, they'll offer the flights non stop rather than feed through existing hubs.

The problem is they now don’t have the aircraft fleet they had even six months ago. Also, high yield VFR and business travel has been damaged. Certainly BA will drive some traffic non-stop but to think all the Pre-COVID destinations are coming back short or even medium-term is a stretch.

Of course not. The point made is that they would much prefer to offer a route non stop than simply feeding it through a hub. If that's possible in the short or medium term is everyone's guess.

Pre-COVID, I'd agree. Now, it's a more complex situation due to how they have to utilize the fleet.

If BA wants to surrender service to the AA hubs and fly to MSY, I don't think AA will complain even with the OW alliance. Also, if serving PIT or CHS means one less flight to places like JFK, BOS or IAD, I think their competitors would be thrilled.

This being said, BA isn't "re-opening" this way. They're establishing their top-tier destinations first.

izbtmnhd wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

The problem is they now don’t have the aircraft fleet they had even six months ago. Also, high yield VFR and business travel has been damaged. Certainly BA will drive some traffic non-stop but to think all the Pre-COVID destinations are coming back short or even medium-term is a stretch.

Of course not. The point made is that they would much prefer to offer a route non stop than simply feeding it through a hub. If that's possible in the short or medium term is everyone's guess.

Pre-COVID, I'd agree. Now, it's a more complex situation due to how they have to utilize the fleet.

If BA wants to surrender service to the AA hubs and fly to MSY, I don't think AA will complain even with the OW alliance. Also, if serving PIT or CHS means one less flight to places like JFK, BOS or IAD, I think their competitors would be thrilled.

This being said, BA isn't "re-opening" this way. They're establishing their top-tier destinations first.

One more time: they have the flexibility in their fleet to fly thinner routes. Any flights that can be filled on a non stop basis will be flown that way and not through hubs. Of course trunk routes open first as that is where the demand is. There won't be eight flights a day to JFK but equally competitors will not fly that route with their pre Covid frequencies. This discussion is pointless really.

Arion640 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Demand last year was strong on HEL-LHR early in the morning (Finnair were able to fill an A350 !) and LHR-HEL - there are a lot of suits on these flights

Were finnair able to fill an A350 or were they just using it for the cargo?

Onward connecting traffic as well as cargo. Was also popular with tour groups connecting to the Far East. Like BA uses a 777 to MAD and IB an A340 for S America onward traffic.

TC957 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Demand last year was strong on HEL-LHR early in the morning (Finnair were able to fill an A350 !) and LHR-HEL - there are a lot of suits on these flights

Were finnair able to fill an A350 or were they just using it for the cargo?

Onward connecting traffic as well as cargo. Was also popular with tour groups connecting to the Far East. Like BA uses a 777 to MAD and IB an A340 for S America onward traffic.

Yes but the 777 and A340 fleet are there for the cargo, not the passenger demand.

a350lover wrote:

Do you see changes in their network to South America? With IB also heavily affected by the COVID19, do you see IAG tunneling more through MAD?

BA is returning to EZE Sept 1st, initially 4x w with 787 (was with 3-class 77E & 77W before the pandemic), IIRC. In the meantime it has been flying often to Buenos Aires with repatriation and cargo flights. GRU is a given too. Not so sure about GIG (more leisure-driven market). Can't speak whether or when SCL returns. LIM is seasonal and ex-Gatwick so it may be a while until we see BA back there.

dcajet wrote:

GRU is a given too. Not so sure about GIG (more leisure-driven market).

Maybe not so soon, as Brazil is giving the USA a run for its money in the "most poorly handled pandemic response" category.

Could very much delay a return to either, even GRU.

Arion640 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Demand last year was strong on HEL-LHR early in the morning (Finnair were able to fill an A350 !) and LHR-HEL - there are a lot of suits on these flights

Were finnair able to fill an A350 or were they just using it for the cargo?

Shed loads of Connections over Helsinki to the secondary Asian points ( not served by BA) indeed when they added the second evening flight that was an A333 connecting to the very late second wave departures .

dcajet wrote:

BA is returning to EZE Sept 1st

BA is HOPING to return to EZE September 1st.

Given they don’t know what their programme for July looks like yet, anything beyond that remains someone’s optimistic guess.

Pi7472000 wrote:

hohd wrote:

All the first tier cities are already operational or soon will be (may be as soon as June) which includes New York, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, DFW, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle.

Others are second tier, might take longer to restart. (Aus, Phx, Den, San Diego, Baltimore, Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa etc.). Although PHX might come back sooner as it is a hub to hub.

And Charleston, New Orleans and Pittsburgh which may be in the 3rd tier, may not ever return.

AUS is a third tier city when it comes to European service. Smaller city and not a hub city. Economic downturn has hit AUS harder than other cities. Very easy to put the limited European traffic to AUS through a hub.

Sorry if I missed something, but aren't all passenger flights from the EEA and the UK still restricted to the 13 CDC enhanced screening airports? A list that is Pacific-oriented, and excludes hubs like CLT and PHL as well as the so-called "third tier" ex-LHR spokes in the BA network? All well and good to plan for when that restriction is lifted, and BA is rightly doing that, but I don't see how they'd have any better idea than we do of when that restriction will be lifted. Or, failing that, when the list of airports would be expanded, and where.

LAX772LR wrote:

Curiousflyer wrote:

What about on-board service? It has become a joke, are they going to do anything about it?

What do you propose they "do"...?

Bring meals and drinks back. The current onboard offering is abysmal while many other airlines still offer proper food and drinks. Also the IFE has not been updated since March.

Curiousflyer wrote:

Also the IFE has not been updated since March.

Given the circumstances, Im guessing that is (rightly) low down on their list of priorities

Curiousflyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Curiousflyer wrote:

What about on-board service? It has become a joke, are they going to do anything about it?

What do you propose they "do"...?

Bring meals and drinks back. The current onboard offering is abysmal while many other airlines still offer proper food and drinks.

Fair, though the followup would be:
what evidence do you have that that's high priority among their clientele at this particular point in time, other than your own (highly anecdotal) personal preferences?

LAX772LR wrote:

Curiousflyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What do you propose they "do"...?

Bring meals and drinks back. The current onboard offering is abysmal while many other airlines still offer proper food and drinks.

Fair, though the followup would be:
what evidence do you have that that's high priority among their clientele at this particular point in time, other than your own (highly anecdotal) personal preferences?

They will see how important it is when I will move my reservations to American Airlines. And will not book them again when competition does better for the same price or less.

Curiousflyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Curiousflyer wrote:

Bring meals and drinks back. The current onboard offering is abysmal while many other airlines still offer proper food and drinks.

Fair, though the followup would be:
what evidence do you have that that's high priority among their clientele at this particular point in time, other than your own (highly anecdotal) personal preferences?

They will see how important it is when I will move my reservations to American Airlines. And will not book them again when competition does better for the same price or less.

But why would that bother them in the slightest? They have a full Joint Venture with American Airlines and whichever of the two you fly with the other benefits too.

LAX772LR wrote:

Curiousflyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What do you propose they "do"...?

Bring meals and drinks back. The current onboard offering is abysmal while many other airlines still offer proper food and drinks.

Fair, though the followup would be:
what evidence do you have that that's high priority among their clientele at this particular point in time, other than your own (highly anecdotal) personal preferences?

On board service has never ranked highly as a decision factor for people choosing BA. years and years of CSQs state the biggest reasons for choosing BA are
1) price
2) heathrow
3) it’s frequent flyer programme

So no, at a time where the planned programme changes weekly, and its relations with its crew unions are through the floor, they won’t be too much focus on introducing anything new.

Curiousflyer wrote:

They will see how important it is when I will move my reservations to American Airlines.

Taking your money to the joint venture that they co-profit from in similar proportion to tickets sold via their own coffers?

....that'll show 'em!

BA777FO wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Just don’t see it myself.

We’ll have a recession like 2008 for sure but BA still flew the vast majority of their schedule.

You’ll be surprised how quickly things will come back.

I think, honestly that’s delusional. BA are cutting 12,000 staff. This isn’t like 2001 or 2008.

BA won't cut 12,000 staff. This is a "don't let a good crisis go to waste" moment - a final opportunity to push through getting rid of Eurofleet and Worldwide cabin crew who are paid more than most of the FOs on the A320 (even some longhaul DEP FOs too!) and possibly outsource ground handling at LHR like at LGW with GGS. All above-wing staff are being proposed to be essentially TUPEd to GGS, which is just below wing at the moment. 12,000 was a worst case scenario - it was their opening salvo and among some departments the local figures have already been shown to be unworkable.

I know fleet plans have been changing on a weekly basis and will no doubt change again with the government's foolish quarantine policy but the A380 was planned to return in September. The 747 will soon be doing some South African repatriation flights.

I remember back in 2009 - some of the best performing routes back then were the longhaul leisure destinations from LGW - it'll the same this time around. It's no wonder the latest plan had MCO as a daily flight from July, double daily in August and Tampa as a 5x week with meaningful returns to UVF, ANU and CUN.

BA is well placed to take advantage of the return to normality - European rivals will be saddled with debt, as will US carriers. BA also has one of the more flexible fleets with the ability to add and withdraw capacity quite quickly. For now, the 77W is bringing in useful and substantial amounts of cash from cargo. Competition from Virgin and Norwegian will be substantially lower and while the likes of PIT and CHS won't come back this summer, I'd be surprised if they're not back by summer 2021.

Your comment about most crew being paid more than most of the FOs on the airbus sounds rather bitter, Why is it BA pilots are always so willing to watch the crew get shafted, as long as you lot are left alone?. Its a shame that we never get the support of our own flight crew, you know like you did over Openskies... I walked down that Bath Road supporting you lot, and when we needed support where were you?

I'm post 97 EF and I certainly dont earn as much as an FO, and i certainly dont have the same rates of overtime, or the same number of days off as a full time FO.

We'll get through this without your support, again!

gdg9 wrote:

Hard to see DFW being dropped, as others had said hub to hub. Plenty of people will want to take BA on the LHR-DFW sector rather than AA; I know I have the last few times. I doubt they will let AA handle all the 3 or 4x daily flying, they should want at least one if for nothing other than 'prestige' etc.

BA are running 787s now LHR to DFW cargo only. I was told they fly with two sets of crew... after landing the other crew takes over and they all fly back. No overnights.

You are not taking in consideration the amount of connecting traffic AA puts through DFW. Right now it's non existent but give it two or three years and we will see an increase. The Oil market has collapsed so I don't see that traffic picking up though.

Channex101 wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

I think, honestly that’s delusional. BA are cutting 12,000 staff. This isn’t like 2001 or 2008.

BA won't cut 12,000 staff. This is a "don't let a good crisis go to waste" moment - a final opportunity to push through getting rid of Eurofleet and Worldwide cabin crew who are paid more than most of the FOs on the A320 (even some longhaul DEP FOs too!) and possibly outsource ground handling at LHR like at LGW with GGS. All above-wing staff are being proposed to be essentially TUPEd to GGS, which is just below wing at the moment. 12,000 was a worst case scenario - it was their opening salvo and among some departments the local figures have already been shown to be unworkable.

I know fleet plans have been changing on a weekly basis and will no doubt change again with the government's foolish quarantine policy but the A380 was planned to return in September. The 747 will soon be doing some South African repatriation flights.

I remember back in 2009 - some of the best performing routes back then were the longhaul leisure destinations from LGW - it'll the same this time around. It's no wonder the latest plan had MCO as a daily flight from July, double daily in August and Tampa as a 5x week with meaningful returns to UVF, ANU and CUN.

BA is well placed to take advantage of the return to normality - European rivals will be saddled with debt, as will US carriers. BA also has one of the more flexible fleets with the ability to add and withdraw capacity quite quickly. For now, the 77W is bringing in useful and substantial amounts of cash from cargo. Competition from Virgin and Norwegian will be substantially lower and while the likes of PIT and CHS won't come back this summer, I'd be surprised if they're not back by summer 2021.

Your comment about most crew being paid more than most of the FOs on the airbus sounds rather bitter, Why is it BA pilots are always so willing to watch the crew get shafted, as long as you lot are left alone?. Its a shame that we never get the support of our own flight crew, you know like you did over Openskies... I walked down that Bath Road supporting you lot, and when we needed support where were you?

I'm post 97 EF and I certainly dont earn as much as an FO, and i certainly dont have the same rates of overtime, or the same number of days off as a full time FO.

We'll get through this without your support, again!

It was a comment regarding the disparities in pay considering the difference in training and the personal cost of that training.

As for pilots watching the crew get shafted? Utter nonsense. As it's nonsense that we get left alone. It's just that our union actually bothers to turn up to the negotiating table. Where was your support? In 2009? When you went on strike when the company was close to going bust because CSDs didn't want to work a trolley? Where was your support during the last pay round? As for days off, you get fewer than 10 days off? Regularly fly 12 hour duties? Bounce off 900 hours a year? Your overtime rate is lower than 1.08 your normal hourly rate? Really?

You would get through it if your union didn't serve you so badly. Tell them to negotiate, for your own good. We have nothing to do with it, you can't blame us.

Please keep in mind that this thread is about route updates. Other discussion belongs in more appropriate topics.

✈️ atcsundevil

Any word on if/when they might resume to Denver? I assume we likely see it downsized with the 787 or will they keep the 777/747 on that route?

AndoAv8R wrote:

Any word on if/when they might resume to Denver? I assume we likely see it downsized with the 787 or will they keep the 777/747 on that route?

At the moment Denver is not on the list of airports open to international travel as decided by the US government. Unless and until the US government changes its policy BA is not permitted to operate passenger flights there.
Here's the list of which airports are permiitted:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/05/27/dep ... strictions

I suspect BNA will be back, but maybe not until S21. It was obviously successful, BA was planning to put the 787-10 on the route this year.

Does anyone know why is BA flying double daily LHR-GRU with the 788 as regular BA247 and an hour later a 77W as BA3XXX for 4 days now in a row?

Also I see a BA A380 to JNB for 2 days. Wasn't the A380 grounded?

ojjunior wrote:

Does anyone know why is BA flying double daily LHR-GRU with the 788 as regular BA247 and an hour later a 77W as BA3XXX for 4 days now in a row?

Also I see a BA A380 to JNB for 2 days. Wasn't the A380 grounded?

BA3XXX usually refer to cargo flights. Are they operating passenger services to Brazil or the regular BA 246/7 flt #s are being used for cargo as well?

dcajet wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

Does anyone know why is BA flying double daily LHR-GRU with the 788 as regular BA247 and an hour later a 77W as BA3XXX for 4 days now in a row?

Also I see a BA A380 to JNB for 2 days. Wasn't the A380 grounded?

BA3XXX usually refer to cargo flights. Are they operating passenger services to Brazil or the regular BA 246/7 flt #s are being used for cargo as well?

BA 246/7 are the regular pax flights. Open for sales.

ojjunior wrote:

Does anyone know why is BA flying double daily LHR-GRU with the 788 as regular BA247 and an hour later a 77W as BA3XXX for 4 days now in a row?

Also I see a BA A380 to JNB for 2 days. Wasn't the A380 grounded?

Definitely extra cargo, lots of vaccines coming through our warehouse at the moment (not Covid-19, YET!).

The A380 is operating repatriation flights bringing Brits back home form South Africa.

ojjunior wrote:

dcajet wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

Does anyone know why is BA flying double daily LHR-GRU with the 788 as regular BA247 and an hour later a 77W as BA3XXX for 4 days now in a row?

Also I see a BA A380 to JNB for 2 days. Wasn't the A380 grounded?

BA3XXX usually refer to cargo flights. Are they operating passenger services to Brazil or the regular BA 246/7 flt #s are being used for cargo as well?

BA 246/7 are the regular pax flights. Open for sales.

The BA246/7 flights this month are cargo only. The only longhaul flights carrying passengers, apart from repatriation flights, are: LAX, ORD, IAD, JFK, BOS and HKG as well as the odd SIN now carrying passengers too. Everything else longhaul is cargo or charter/repatriation.

Interestingly there's a cargo flight to Salt Lake City today on the 787-8

BA777FO wrote:

Channex101 wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

BA won't cut 12,000 staff. This is a "don't let a good crisis go to waste" moment - a final opportunity to push through getting rid of Eurofleet and Worldwide cabin crew who are paid more than most of the FOs on the A320 (even some longhaul DEP FOs too!) and possibly outsource ground handling at LHR like at LGW with GGS. All above-wing staff are being proposed to be essentially TUPEd to GGS, which is just below wing at the moment. 12,000 was a worst case scenario - it was their opening salvo and among some departments the local figures have already been shown to be unworkable.

I know fleet plans have been changing on a weekly basis and will no doubt change again with the government's foolish quarantine policy but the A380 was planned to return in September. The 747 will soon be doing some South African repatriation flights.

I remember back in 2009 - some of the best performing routes back then were the longhaul leisure destinations from LGW - it'll the same this time around. It's no wonder the latest plan had MCO as a daily flight from July, double daily in August and Tampa as a 5x week with meaningful returns to UVF, ANU and CUN.

BA is well placed to take advantage of the return to normality - European rivals will be saddled with debt, as will US carriers. BA also has one of the more flexible fleets with the ability to add and withdraw capacity quite quickly. For now, the 77W is bringing in useful and substantial amounts of cash from cargo. Competition from Virgin and Norwegian will be substantially lower and while the likes of PIT and CHS won't come back this summer, I'd be surprised if they're not back by summer 2021.

Your comment about most crew being paid more than most of the FOs on the airbus sounds rather bitter, Why is it BA pilots are always so willing to watch the crew get shafted, as long as you lot are left alone?. Its a shame that we never get the support of our own flight crew, you know like you did over Openskies... I walked down that Bath Road supporting you lot, and when we needed support where were you?

I'm post 97 EF and I certainly dont earn as much as an FO, and i certainly dont have the same rates of overtime, or the same number of days off as a full time FO.

We'll get through this without your support, again!

It was a comment regarding the disparities in pay considering the difference in training and the personal cost of that training.

As for pilots watching the crew get shafted? Utter nonsense. As it's nonsense that we get left alone. It's just that our union actually bothers to turn up to the negotiating table. Where was your support? In 2009? When you went on strike when the company was close to going bust because CSDs didn't want to work a trolley? Where was your support during the last pay round? As for days off, you get fewer than 10 days off? Regularly fly 12 hour duties? Bounce off 900 hours a year? Your overtime rate is lower than 1.08 your normal hourly rate? Really?

You would get through it if your union didn't serve you so badly. Tell them to negotiate, for your own good. We have nothing to do with it, you can't blame us.

Woah! The reason your union is at the table is simply because they went gun-hoe to the company as soon as the pandemic became a crises and negotiated your 50% temporary pay cut in order to keep you all on the books, something never considered for the cannon fodder of cabin crew, ground staff, engineers, loaders etc. It was done weeks before the government announced the furlough scheme and therefore as all pilots are still technically “on the roster” you can be “meaningfully” consulted. The other departments cannot be as the vast majority are on furlough and under the legal terms of furlough can not engage, not to mention that the reps are also furloughed on the large part.

As for thinking the company was close to going bust in 2009, wow! Even history has proved this was far from the truth! Move on!

tonystan wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Channex101 wrote:

Your comment about most crew being paid more than most of the FOs on the airbus sounds rather bitter, Why is it BA pilots are always so willing to watch the crew get shafted, as long as you lot are left alone?. Its a shame that we never get the support of our own flight crew, you know like you did over Openskies... I walked down that Bath Road supporting you lot, and when we needed support where were you?

I'm post 97 EF and I certainly dont earn as much as an FO, and i certainly dont have the same rates of overtime, or the same number of days off as a full time FO.

We'll get through this without your support, again!

It was a comment regarding the disparities in pay considering the difference in training and the personal cost of that training.

As for pilots watching the crew get shafted? Utter nonsense. As it's nonsense that we get left alone. It's just that our union actually bothers to turn up to the negotiating table. Where was your support? In 2009? When you went on strike when the company was close to going bust because CSDs didn't want to work a trolley? Where was your support during the last pay round? As for days off, you get fewer than 10 days off? Regularly fly 12 hour duties? Bounce off 900 hours a year? Your overtime rate is lower than 1.08 your normal hourly rate? Really?

You would get through it if your union didn't serve you so badly. Tell them to negotiate, for your own good. We have nothing to do with it, you can't blame us.

Woah! The reason your union is at the table is simply because they went gun-hoe to the company as soon as the pandemic became a crises and negotiated your 50% temporary pay cut in order to keep you all on the books, something never considered for the cannon fodder of cabin crew, ground staff, engineers, loaders etc. It was done weeks before the government announced the furlough scheme and therefore as all pilots are still technically “on the roster” you can be “meaningfully” consulted. The other departments cannot be as the vast majority are on furlough and under the legal terms of furlough can not engage, not to mention that the reps are also furloughed on the large part.

As for thinking the company was close to going bust in 2009, wow! Even history has proved this was far from the truth! Move on!

Okay, apologies this off topic but this needs to be addressed.

Balpa agreed to the unpaid leave before other unions came to an agreement with the airline - all unions were in negotiations at the same time, it was just that Balpa were sensible and came to an agreement first. A good deal for pilots - 2 weeks unpaid leave in April and May with payments spread over 3 months - many of us had more than 2 weeks off! This offer was put to other staff groups but it was refused. The JRS saved Unite's bacon.

You can still be meaningfully consulted while on the government furlough scheme. If Unite is telling you otherwise they are doing you a disservice. Government advice on the JRS was updated on 30th April and says:

Union or non-union representatives may undertake collective redundancy consultation. They may undertake duties and activities for the purpose of individual or collective representation of employees or other workers while furloughed, so long as they do not provide services to or generate revenue for or on behalf of the employer. This also means union reps should be able to accompany employees to disciplinary hearings while furloughed. It's clear cut.

As for 2009 - the airline was close to going below £1bn cash - below which credit card companies would have withheld payments and suppliers would have demanded payment upfront rather than a month in arrears. That would have technically made the company insolvent.

You're not necessarily being treated well but your union is doing you a huge disservice. Just as it did in 2009 when mixed fleet came to being - if you hadn't gone on strike and just agreed to some modest changes you wouldn't all be under threat of being moved onto a mixed fleet style contract.

I'm done with this here though, happy to continue it via PM.