British Airways To Cut 12000 Jobs

Beginning to think we may indeed be twins in a parallel universe although I do have a licence to drive ;-)

To be fair most of the girls were fed up of being hit on and groped by every male passenger and just wanted a fun night out ..... we were at a considerable disadvantage as a certain Barry Sheene and Steve Parish also frequented many of the same pubs ;-) and for them it certainly was a target rich environment....
There was an old cinema at one end of Crawley (?) High Street that had been converted into a club. Wednesday or Thursday night was a “bring your Crew ID, get in free” night. Didn’t half have some ...

Anyway, don’t know about where you are but it’s been cold and wet here.
 

Oops

War Hero
Beginning to think we may indeed be twins in a parallel universe although I do have a licence to drive ;-)

To be fair most of the girls were fed up of being hit on and groped by every male passenger and just wanted a fun night out ..... we were at a considerable disadvantage as a certain Barry Sheene and Steve Parish also frequented many of the same pubs ;-) and for them it certainly was a target rich environment....
Just correct me where I've gone wrong...
You are happily married to a former air hostess, after partying during your formative years with a great many of her colleagues, whilst drinking in the same watering hole in as Stavros and Lucky 7, all the while stubble burning with gay abandon from the seat of a 180horse Deere......
All the while getting farmers to buy ammunition for you bang through five a time!
If I was clever enough I'd post a gif of the 'jail scene' Life of Brian....

"You Lucky Lucky Bastard"
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Gone now :-( .....
Shocked, it was a lovely pub in the summer, sit outside with a few beers watching the sun go down and the planes take off (if you were into that kind of thing).
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
There was an old cinema at one end of Crawley (?) High Street that had been converted into a club. Wednesday or Thursday night was a “bring your Crew ID, get in free” night. Didn’t half have some ...

Anyway, don’t know about where you are but it’s been cold and wet here.
Was that the one opposite The Punchbowl?
 
Just correct me where I've gone wrong...
You are happily married to a former air hostess, after partying during your formative years with a great many of her colleagues, whilst drinking in the same watering hole in as Stavros and Lucky 7, all the while stubble burning with gay abandon from the seat of a 180horse Deere......
All the while getting farmers to buy ammunition for you bang through five a time!
If I was clever enough I'd post a gif of the 'jail scene' Life of Brian....

"You Lucky Lucky Bastard"
For balance ....never driven a Deere ......had the "Nothing Kills a Deere like a Magnum" sticker in my Magnum though ........

Ammo ...yes you got me on that one

Hostess was second hand so to speak and last time I was partying with a group of Hostesses the their average age was 60 I suspect ;-)

Drunk in the same pubs maybe but rarely at the same time ......worked as a mechanic in a Crawley motorbike shop for a couple of years when Suzuki Race team were based pretty much next door .....

Wife claims Mr Sheene complemented her on her legs ......he went out with her best mate for a while ( she's Steph's double ......not the wife ;-) ) .

If you get chance read Steve's book "My life as a racer " but even better try and see him in his one man show he's bloody brilliant

I'm still above ground , not cold and hungry and have a Collie sitting on my feet as I type this so yes feel pretty lucky ........was without doubt lucky to have grown up on a Farm with parents who made up for the lack of financial things at times by being caring , fun and encouraging .
 
The pilots’ union is engaging, no others are AFAIAA. By engaging I mean banging their head against the wall as it’s pretty clear BA have no intention of honouring any kind of current agreements regarding redundancies and are hell bent on prosecuting their own agenda.

They‘ve engaged consultants (always a bad sign) who are apparently using a “zero up” model (always a really bad sign and wholly discredited). Essentially this means starting with the assumption that everything, people, assets, the lot will go and justifying anything that you want to take back on board on a cost basis.

The problem with that is that consultants rarely have the faintest idea, that’s why they consult rather than actually do and cost is very different to value. Never has the saying “they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing” been more appropriate.
It’s Zero Basing, not “Zero Up” (the latter is an eCommerce system). And it’s not discredited. Zero basing has been around 40 or more years; it fell out of favour because it was unwieldy, invasive, very resource intensive and often didn’t deliver the results promised on bottom line. It’s had something of a resurgence over the last decade a organisations respond to rapidly changing business environments. It’s nowhere near as intrusive or labour intensive now because data is much more available and mineable than it was in the 90s.

Zero basing can only really be delivered by consultants; businesses don’t have the internal resources to do this kind of review and nor should they have. Also, it needs an objective view; it has to be carried out without the personal prejudices and views that are inevitable amongst internal managers.

Your analysis of what consultants do is way off. The whole point of Zero Basing is to identify which areas of the business generate the most value and direct resources, including investment, infrastructure, assets and people at them. It’s got very little to do with cost.

Frankly all businesses big and small should be going through a deep review of how they are going to create value in the post-COVID environment. BAs pre-COVID businesses strategy cannot be valid in the post COVID market; it isn’t going to emerge looking like it did before because it can’t.

Another thought. The current hiatus in operations is also a golden to carry out strategy reviews, refocus the business and address many of the deep issues that don’t get addressed when the business is in its normal operational routine. The entire intellectual horsepower of the corporate HQ is available to contribute as they have little else to do. It’s a great opportunity to get the most out of consultants as people have time to engage in the process.
 
It’s Zero Basing, not “Zero Up” (the latter is an eCommerce system). And it’s not discredited. Zero basing has been around 40 or more years; it fell out of favour because it was unwieldy, invasive, very resource intensive and often didn’t deliver the results promised on bottom line. It’s had something of a resurgence over the last decade a organisations respond to rapidly changing business environments. It’s nowhere near as intrusive or labour intensive now because data is much more available and mineable than it was in the 90s.

Zero basing can only really be delivered by consultants; businesses don’t have the internal resources to do this kind of review and nor should they have. Also, it needs an objective view; it has to be carried out without the personal prejudices and views that are inevitable amongst internal managers.

Your analysis of what consultants do is way off. The whole point of Zero Basing is to identify which areas of the business generate the most value and direct resources, including investment, infrastructure, assets and people at them. It’s got very little to do with cost.

Frankly all businesses big and small should be going through a deep review of how they are going to create value in the post-COVID environment. BAs pre-COVID businesses strategy cannot be valid in the post COVID market; it isn’t going to emerge looking like it did before because it can’t.

Another thought. The current hiatus in operations is also a golden to carry out strategy reviews, refocus the business and address many of the deep issues that don’t get addressed when the business is in its normal operational routine. The entire intellectual horsepower of the corporate HQ is available to contribute as they have little else to do. It’s a great opportunity to get the most out of consultants as people have time to engage in the process.
I disagree but then we already knew that. Why is just about every communication to staff from airlines I see is full of talk about reducing costs? The ones that don’t talk about cost refer to things like outgoings, bottom lines, head counts and overheads which last time I looked meant costs.

PS, I see all of them.
 
I disagree but then we already knew that. Why is just about every communication to staff from airlines I see is full of talk about reducing costs? The ones that don’t talk about cost refer to things like outgoings, bottom lines, head counts and overheads which last time I looked meant costs.

PS, I see all of them.
Because they are a business. Their sole purpose is to create shareholder value and their sole income comes from sales. If costs exceed revenue, the business is burning shareholders cash and, if it persists, it is only going one way. If revenue is greater than costs, then it’s making a profit and generating shareholder value and can invest, grow and generate more value. Bottom line is all; it’s the difference between death it survival.

All businesses have to constantly review their cost base and keep pruning them. They live in a dynamic market in which efficiency is all. Fixed overhead costs are always a particular target as they don’t generate revenue.

The basics of all businesses are the same; it doesn’t matter if you run a corner shop or a global airline. You maximise revenue and minimise the costs of doing so.
 
Because they are a business. Their sole purpose is to create shareholder value and their sole income comes from sales. If costs exceed revenue, the business is burning shareholders cash and, if it persists, it is only going one way. If revenue is greater than costs, then it’s making a profit and generating shareholder value and can invest, grow and generate more value. Bottom line is all; it’s the difference between death it survival.

All businesses have to constantly review their cost base and keep pruning them. They live in a dynamic market in which efficiency is all. Fixed overhead costs are always a particular target as they don’t generate revenue.

The basics of all businesses are the same; it doesn’t matter if you run a corner shop or a global airline. You maximise revenue and minimise the costs of doing so.
Now were getting somewhere. They exist to create shareholder value. One of the problems BA have is that they are increasingly peddling a product nobody wants, overpriced, under delivered. That may reduce costs and maximise revenue but it creates little value, in fact arguably it decreases value. It’s like spending money on anything else, if you go cheap you go twice.

Creating a cheap product is great but are people prepared to accept that cheapness? The Ryanair experience suggests that some are but Ryanair aren’t chasing business passengers on trans Atlantic routes (and increasingly Far Eastern routes) where money is less of an object, quality more).

Certainly any business needs to have revenue exceeding expenditure and here too, BA don’t have an issue, at least in relative terms, they’re sat on a stack of cash. The accountant’s number are all very well until you realise (often too late) that a healthy ledger soon becomes less so when people no longer want your product and realise that it’s actually overpriced crap; Jamie Oliver refers.

Anyway, my prediction:

BA will sack about 1/3 rd of their staff and sack and re-engage the remainder on vastly reduced Ts&Cs thus creating a demoralised and disinterested staff that will be largely foreign and distinctly unwilling to go the extra mile when localised issues crop up down route. This happens all the time and airlines rely heavily on their on-the-spot staff to fly the flag. This doesn’t appear in any accounts as it’s neither a cost nor a revenue stream. It is however a tangible and extremely valuable asset. Think about it, when volcanoes erupt or twats fly drones over airports, which airlines get slated? The ones whose crews say to their Ops people “I‘m off to the hotel, call me when it’s sorted“ and to their passengers “talk to the Agent (selected as lowest bidder for the now outsourced contract)“ or the ones with well paid, motivated Crews who see this as time to step up and show loyalty to a company that has shown loyalty to them?

Next, BA will strip out as much of the Customer Experience as they can. On board, the exhausted Crew, now on new contracts replacing old ones designed around fatigue mitigation, will be further demoralised by having to deliver a cheap, shit product at inflated prices and by soaking up the abuse from disgruntled passengers. Many will leave and be replaced by the lemmings seduced by the apparent glamour (on further reduced contracts of course) and round goes the wheel. people expect surly crew and scratch card sales, expensive but shit sarnies and all the rest on Ryanair because they’re paying Ryanair prices. BA are already a byword for this on their shorthaul network.

Which brings us to networks. BA no longer operates any flights that don’t connect through London. There are two problems with that, neither of BA’s doing but problems nonetheless. 1) Heathrow is crap and Gatwick (where they’re planning to strip their operation to the bone anyway) is not much better. Long haul travellers will connect via Paris, Amsterdam and increasingly, via Middle Eastern airports because the experience is less grim. 2) Air Passenger Duty which ties in to 1) above. This tax (theft) is absurdly high, triply so on long haul so why not pay a short haul APD to Paris and no ongoing APD from Paris to wherever? All European carriers and all Middle Eastern carriers now operate extensive connections from U.K. regional airports, BA from just Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle. And even Air France manages a better on board product, Lufthansa, SAS (for a shorter run to the Far East), KLM and Swiss all considerably better and all cheaper.

So BA will have cut costs, maintained revenue but lost value, not to the investor, to the customer. The customer will walk, costs will have been pared to the bone, assets, reputation and experience which takes years to build will have been stripped and all of a sudden their are no more costs to cut, revenues are falling and value to the investors will fall. The investors will run, never mind walk.

And the only thing that will have changed for the better, and that only in the short term is the bottom line. All the value will have gone. All the non tangible assets, principally your people, gone.
 
Now were getting somewhere. They exist to create shareholder value. One of the problems BA have is that they are increasingly peddling a product nobody wants, overpriced, under delivered. That may reduce costs and maximise revenue but it creates little value, in fact arguably it decreases value. It’s like spending money on anything else, if you go cheap you go twice.

Creating a cheap product is great but are people prepared to accept that cheapness? The Ryanair experience suggests that some are but Ryanair aren’t chasing business passengers on trans Atlantic routes (and increasingly Far Eastern routes) where money is less of an object, quality more).

Certainly any business needs to have revenue exceeding expenditure and here too, BA don’t have an issue, at least in relative terms, they’re sat on a stack of cash. The accountant’s number are all very well until you realise (often too late) that a healthy ledger soon becomes less so when people no longer want your product and realise that it’s actually overpriced crap; Jamie Oliver refers.

Anyway, my prediction:

BA will sack about 1/3 rd of their staff and sack and re-engage the remainder on vastly reduced Ts&Cs thus creating a demoralised and disinterested staff that will be largely foreign and distinctly unwilling to go the extra mile when localised issues crop up down route. This happens all the time and airlines rely heavily on their on-the-spot staff to fly the flag. This doesn’t appear in any accounts as it’s neither a cost nor a revenue stream. It is however a tangible and extremely valuable asset. Think about it, when volcanoes erupt or twats fly drones over airports, which airlines get slated? The ones whose crews say to their Ops people “I‘m off to the hotel, call me when it’s sorted“ and to their passengers “talk to the Agent (selected as lowest bidder for the now outsourced contract)“ or the ones with well paid, motivated Crews who see this as time to step up and show loyalty to a company that has shown loyalty to them?

Next, BA will strip out as much of the Customer Experience as they can. On board, the exhausted Crew, now on new contracts replacing old ones designed around fatigue mitigation, will be further demoralised by having to deliver a cheap, shit product at inflated prices and by soaking up the abuse from disgruntled passengers. Many will leave and be replaced by the lemmings seduced by the apparent glamour (on further reduced contracts of course) and round goes the wheel. people expect surly crew and scratch card sales, expensive but shit sarnies and all the rest on Ryanair because they’re paying Ryanair prices. BA are already a byword for this on their shorthaul network.

Which brings us to networks. BA no longer operates any flights that don’t connect through London. There are two problems with that, neither of BA’s doing but problems nonetheless. 1) Heathrow is crap and Gatwick (where they’re planning to strip their operation to the bone anyway) is not much better. Long haul travellers will connect via Paris, Amsterdam and increasingly, via Middle Eastern airports because the experience is less grim. 2) Air Passenger Duty which ties in to 1) above. This tax (theft) is absurdly high, triply so on long haul so why not pay a short haul APD to Paris and no ongoing APD from Paris to wherever? All European carriers and all Middle Eastern carriers now operate extensive connections from U.K. regional airports, BA from just Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle. And even Air France manages a better on board product, Lufthansa, SAS (for a shorter run to the Far East), KLM and Swiss all considerably better and all cheaper.

So BA will have cut costs, maintained revenue but lost value, not to the investor, to the customer. The customer will walk, costs will have been pared to the bone, assets, reputation and experience which takes years to build will have been stripped and all of a sudden their are no more costs to cut, revenues are falling and value to the investors will fall. The investors will run, never mind walk.

And the only thing that will have changed for the better, and that only in the short term is the bottom line. All the value will have gone. All the non tangible assets, principally your people, gone.
The UK Corporate Governance Code is quite clear; the primary duty of the Board is to create long term shareholder value. There is a secondary duty to contribute to wider society.

Nowhere does it talk about providing value to the customer or providing comfortable (or any) employment for employees. A company delivers long term shareholder value by delivering two things; appreciating stock and solid dividend.

I would argue that the IAG board has been uniquely successful amongst global long haul airlines in delivering its primary responsibility of shareholder value. It’s major competitors have either destroyed shareholder value by going bust or have never delivered an operating profit let alone a dividend.

IAG may well have been sitting on a pile of cash before COVID hit, but it’s burning through it at an alarming rate (£1M an hour IIRC). There will rapidly come a time when there is no cash left; at that point, there will be no IAG, no BA and no jobs.

You really need to get real. Talk about air passenger duty, food charges, outsourcing, Ts&Cs etc etc is frankly irrelevant; there won’t be a BA when they run out of cash. And they won’t run out of cash because of anything the leadership has done; as you point out, they started with plenty (although quite how a badly run business sits on a mountain or cash beats me).

Reality pill. BA will exit COVID in a very different position to how it entered. It’s cash mountain will have gone. It’s market will be significantly reduced. And it will be competing with yet more airlines that have been kept alive with taxpayers money. Perfect opportunity to lean out the business, get rid of non-productive costs and grow again.
 
The UK Corporate Governance Code is quite clear; the primary duty of the Board is to create long term shareholder value. There is a secondary duty to contribute to wider society.

Nowhere does it talk about providing value to the customer or providing comfortable (or any) employment for employees. A company delivers long term shareholder value by delivering two things; appreciating stock and solid dividend.

I would argue that the IAG board has been uniquely successful amongst global long haul airlines in delivering its primary responsibility of shareholder value. It’s major competitors have either destroyed shareholder value by going bust or have never delivered an operating profit let alone a dividend.

IAG may well have been sitting on a pile of cash before COVID hit, but it’s burning through it at an alarming rate (£1M an hour IIRC). There will rapidly come a time when there is no cash left; at that point, there will be no IAG, no BA and no jobs.

You really need to get real. Talk about air passenger duty, food charges, outsourcing, Ts&Cs etc etc is frankly irrelevant; there won’t be a BA when they run out of cash. And they won’t run out of cash because of anything the leadership has done; as you point out, they started with plenty (although quite how a badly run business sits on a mountain or cash beats me).

Reality pill. BA will exit COVID in a very different position to how it entered. It’s cash mountain will have gone. It’s market will be significantly reduced. And it will be competing with yet more airlines that have been kept alive with taxpayers money. Perfect opportunity to lean out the business, get rid of non-productive costs and grow again.
If this is correct, then BA's best course of action to provide value to their shareholders is to dispose of their assets, close down and return any cash left over to their shareholders as soon as possbile.

I say this, because the issue of passenger duty and quality of service aren't irrelevant once the airline industry returns to operation. These other airlines, the ones that have received Government support and which aren't handicapped by additional duty, will provide a better service at a lower cost point.

You and Toastie are arguing about different points in the cycle, and I see where you are both coming from. I don't see a way out of it for BA because in many respects you are both right.
 
This could be a bit more of its cash reserves burned then... two pieces from Auntie’s 'Live' news section.
  • IAG - the parent company of British Airways - says it's thinking about launching a legal challenge against the UK government over a new rule that will require incoming travellers to quarantine for 14 days. Willie Walsh, chief executive of IAG, told Sky News earlier that the "irrational" rule would "torpedo" the airline's chances of flying in July, and said there had been no consultation with the industry before the legislation was announced

No 10 'disappointed' BA did not join meeting about quarantine plans
The UK government is "disappointed" that British Airways chose not to join a meeting between the home secretary and the travel industry on Thursday to discuss the UK's coronavirus quarantine plans, Downing Street has said.
The prime minister's spokesman added that Downing Street was not going to comment on "threats" of legal action over the quarantine measures.
As we mentioned earlier, IAG - the parent company of BA - says it is thinking about launching a legal challenge against the UK government over a new rule that will require incoming travellers to quarantine for 14 days.
 
This could be a bit more of its cash reserves burned then... two pieces from Auntie’s 'Live' news section.
  • IAG - the parent company of British Airways - says it's thinking about launching a legal challenge against the UK government over a new rule that will require incoming travellers to quarantine for 14 days. Willie Walsh, chief executive of IAG, told Sky News earlier that the "irrational" rule would "torpedo" the airline's chances of flying in July, and said there had been no consultation with the industry before the legislation was announced

No 10 'disappointed' BA did not join meeting about quarantine plans
The UK government is "disappointed" that British Airways chose not to join a meeting between the home secretary and the travel industry on Thursday to discuss the UK's coronavirus quarantine plans, Downing Street has said.
The prime minister's spokesman added that Downing Street was not going to comment on "threats" of legal action over the quarantine measures.
As we mentioned earlier, IAG - the parent company of BA - says it is thinking about launching a legal challenge against the UK government over a new rule that will require incoming travellers to quarantine for 14 days.
BA and success in the courts are often alien concepts. They tried an injunction in the pilot strike last year and got their arse handed to them on a plate. They appealed and er, got their arse handed to them on a plate.

Cost (or negative value added), £100m.
 
The UK Corporate Governance Code is quite clear; the primary duty of the Board is to create long term shareholder value. There is a secondary duty to contribute to wider society.

Nowhere does it talk about providing value to the customer or providing comfortable (or any) employment for employees. A company delivers long term shareholder value by delivering two things; appreciating stock and solid dividend.

I would argue that the IAG board has been uniquely successful amongst global long haul airlines in delivering its primary responsibility of shareholder value. It’s major competitors have either destroyed shareholder value by going bust or have never delivered an operating profit let alone a dividend.

IAG may well have been sitting on a pile of cash before COVID hit, but it’s burning through it at an alarming rate (£1M an hour IIRC). There will rapidly come a time when there is no cash left; at that point, there will be no IAG, no BA and no jobs.

You really need to get real. Talk about air passenger duty, food charges, outsourcing, Ts&Cs etc etc is frankly irrelevant; there won’t be a BA when they run out of cash. And they won’t run out of cash because of anything the leadership has done; as you point out, they started with plenty (although quite how a badly run business sits on a mountain or cash beats me).

Reality pill. BA will exit COVID in a very different position to how it entered. It’s cash mountain will have gone. It’s market will be significantly reduced. And it will be competing with yet more airlines that have been kept alive with taxpayers money. Perfect opportunity to lean out the business, get rid of non-productive costs and grow again.
I am proceeding on the assumption that BA will survive and will have changed Post Covid. It’s not the fact that change is undeniably needed, it’s the “how” they deliver that change that’s behind my argument because if they proceed as planned, cutting way beyond the necessary, then what is left will very quickly fail to comply with the Corporate Code of Governance as it will no longer provide long term shareholder value.

Why can you not get real as you urge me to yourself? The product you offer and the people you employ to deliver it are intrinsically linked to your supposedly irrelevant value to customers or employment to employees, comfortable or otherwise. If people don’t like the product and / or the way it is delivered they won’t buy it. Explain to me how a diminishing customer base / revenue stream will provide stock appreciation and dividends in the long term (or any timescale come to that)?

Do you order cooking wine in a restaurant 150 miles from home, pay fine vintage prices, have it slopped into a plastic cup by a disinterested waiter and say “hey, that was good, let’s go back there again”?
 
....

Do you order cooking wine in a restaurant 150 miles from home, pay fine vintage prices, have it slopped into a plastic cup by a disinterested waiter and say “hey, that was good, let’s go back there again”?
He lives in Australia. That's probably a pretty accurate description.
 
I am proceeding on the assumption that BA will survive and will have changed Post Covid. It’s not the fact that change is undeniably needed, it’s the “how” they deliver that change that’s behind my argument because if they proceed as planned, cutting way beyond the necessary, then what is left will very quickly fail to comply with the Corporate Code of Governance as it will no longer provide long term shareholder value.

Why can you not get real as you urge me to yourself? The product you offer and the people you employ to deliver it are intrinsically linked to your supposedly irrelevant value to customers or employment to employees, comfortable or otherwise. If people don’t like the product and / or the way it is delivered they won’t buy it. Explain to me how a diminishing customer base / revenue stream will provide stock appreciation and dividends in the long term (or any timescale come to that)?

Do you order cooking wine in a restaurant 150 miles from home, pay fine vintage prices, have it slopped into a plastic cup by a disinterested waiter and say “hey, that was good, let’s go back there again”?
Talking pre-COVID, if BA was so bad, how come it consistently ranked in the worlds top 20 airlines by Airline Ratings and how come it won the 2019 award for best staff in Europe? How come, of those above it, only two flew more passengers and none served more routes? And, more importantly, none were more profitable?

How come BA sat tenth globally by passenger volume. And how come three of the nine airlines above it by volume have been through Chapter 11 bankruptcy and four are state owned? Amongst airlines operating as a genuine business (without state ownership or bankruptcy protection) only three flew more passengers than BA in 2019. Two of those (Southwest Airlines and Ryan Air) aren’t direct competition. Only Lufthansa flew more passengers than BA in 2019, but at a lower operating profit.

All of which is why I believe BA has to survive. In terms of generating shareholder value, it was arguably the best long haul carrier in the world pre-COVID. It was, however, coming to the end of its business cycle.

It’s fleet is largely dated and out of sequence with others and ready for a refresh. It’s crews are “mature” compared with many, but that is a fact of life in western economies with age discrimination laws. But largely the businesses was in a very good place, with cash to invest in the next cycle. That cash is rapidly being burnt doing nothing.

To me COVID is a golden opportunity to lean out BA and prepare it for the post COVID world. If that means redundancies and / or pruning of staff benefits and Ts&Cs then it has to happen. If it means scrapping unprofitable routes and excess capacity, it has to be done. It’s a business, not a cash cow for its staff.
 
Talking pre-COVID, if BA was so bad, how come it consistently ranked in the worlds top 20 airlines by Airline Ratings and how come it won the 2019 award for best staff in Europe? How come, of those above it, only two flew more passengers and none served more routes? And, more importantly, none were more profitable?

How come BA sat tenth globally by passenger volume. And how come three of the nine airlines above it by volume have been through Chapter 11 bankruptcy and four are state owned? Amongst airlines operating as a genuine business (without state ownership or bankruptcy protection) only three flew more passengers than BA in 2019. Two of those (Southwest Airlines and Ryan Air) aren’t direct competition. Only Lufthansa flew more passengers than BA in 2019, but at a lower operating profit.

All of which is why I believe BA has to survive. In terms of generating shareholder value, it was arguably the best long haul carrier in the world pre-COVID. It was, however, coming to the end of its business cycle.

It’s fleet is largely dated and out of sequence with others and ready for a refresh. It’s crews are “mature” compared with many, but that is a fact of life in western economies with age discrimination laws. But largely the businesses was in a very good place, with cash to invest in the next cycle. That cash is rapidly being burnt doing nothing.

To me COVID is a golden opportunity to lean out BA and prepare it for the post COVID world. If that means redundancies and / or pruning of staff benefits and Ts&Cs then it has to happen. If it means scrapping unprofitable routes and excess capacity, it has to be done. It’s a business, not a cash cow for its staff.
I‘m not sure that consistently is the word I would use. Skytrax World Airline Awards has them ranked 31st in 2018 and 19th in 2019. I must admit that I stopped using them well before this as they don’t serve the routes that I fly. Which is curious if no airlines serve more routes, as KLM/AF do serve the routes I fly, with connections from a UK regional airport.
 
Which brings us to networks. BA no longer operates any flights that don’t connect through London. There are two problems with that, neither of BA’s doing but problems nonetheless. 1) Heathrow is crap and Gatwick (where they’re planning to strip their operation to the bone anyway) is not much better. Long haul travellers will connect via Paris, Amsterdam and increasingly, via Middle Eastern airports because the experience is less grim. 2) Air Passenger Duty which ties in to 1) above. This tax (theft) is absurdly high, triply so on long haul so why not pay a short haul APD to Paris and no ongoing APD from Paris to wherever? All European carriers and all Middle Eastern carriers now operate extensive connections from U.K. regional airports, BA from just Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle. And even Air France manages a better on board product, Lufthansa, SAS (for a shorter run to the Far East), KLM and Swiss all considerably better and all cheaper.
IIRC, they stopped their flights from LBA to LHR on 27/05/20, which is a great pity because it was good service, as is the one to Newcastle. Last year, I used both routes for work. By giving up on regional airports, BA are merely encouraging passengers to fly KLM/AF to AMS or CDG. And Alex Cruz is meant to be some sort of business genius? Right... :roll:
 
I‘m not sure that consistently is the word I would use. Skytrax World Airline Awards has them ranked 31st in 2018 and 19th in 2019. I must admit that I stopped using them well before this as they don’t serve the routes that I fly. Which is curious if no airlines serve more routes, as KLM/AF do serve the routes I fly, with connections from a UK regional airport.
Nail, head, hit.
 
Top