[rferguson]

To get to the point – I don’t think it is a level playing field. Saying that, the ‘legacy carriers’ have had their day of subsidies, fixed fares, regulated routes and government assistance in the past.

What the ME3 carriers have are extremely PRO aviation friendly governments which build the airlines and airports as an industry. Could anyone really imagine Dubai without EK? Would Dubai ever have gotten to where it is now without EK? The two – EK and Dubai are intertwined. The government knows this and so makes sure EK is successful.

There are many many advantages to being based in the middle east – hub airports that operate 24/7 allowing you to utilise your resources around the clock. A geographical advantage in terms of transfer traffic. No unions to contend with. A ‘one foot wrong and you are sent home’ employment ethos. No pension deficits. No long term sickness issues of staff (you are simply sent home). No local residents playing political ping pong with noise or other environmental issues. You want another runway – we’ll build it! This is the kind of operating environment western carriers can only DREAM of.

Then there is the financials. It’s interesting the comparison PhilBLND posted about employee costs between EK and BA. I remember seeing an article before about this but there were some glaring oversights. For example – Emirates obviously provides accommodation and transport for all their staff in DXB as they are an ex-pat workforce. Who picks up the bill for this? The answer when it was raised before was not Emirates. It was DNATA. Again when it was investigated further….how much rent was DNATA paying for a three bedroom apartment in Dubai in their financials. The answer – £80 per month. So it would be interesting to know what the real employee costs are of an emirates employee. And who is exactly providing/paying for what.

[Flightlevel]

Not all airlines operate in the same business environment, that’s life.I’m sure Thai, Sri Lankan & Vietnam airlines have totally different salary structures to EU & US airlines,even Ryanair & Norwegian are different to legacy carriers,however that’s irrelevant so long as safety is maintained,we can choose with whom we fly.The US carriers make their decisions based on their customers (N.B. UA just re-started economy snacks!) the world has never been a level playing field its always evolutionary.

[TominScotland]

FDOS – I think I give up. Changing working conditions of cabin crew is hardly in the same league as multiple fatalities on construction sites, is it?

[FDOS_UK]

TominScotland

The problem is that you cannot scope abuse in the workplace, that provides benefit to the company, in a way that suits your own moral compass, without getting some pushback – I suggest you try arguing this case in the UAE, next time you are there. You will be skinned alive.

Let me run the likely retort past you (from over 10 years experience of working in the region, combined to about 18 months of time across there.)

To take the view that you are seeking to take is proximate to the old ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ argument.

One could consider working on a construction site in the middle east as a dangerous occupation, compared to a construction site in the west, but shouldn’t we then look at the fatality rate in the oil and gas sector (for example, between 2002-2013, it was 7x higher than the mean rate for US industry.)

Does anyone force the oil and gas workers to accept their positions,does anyone force the workers to work in the ME construction sector?

Why is it acceptable for workers to suffer fatalities at 7x the mean, in the USA, when higher fatality rates in the ME construction sector provoke your righteous indignation?

[canucklad]

Ill add a bit of personality to this debate…

A story of 2 colleagues , both have cabin crew daughter’s. One wears her uniform with pride,the other is contemplating chucking it in.

Which one works for BA and which one works for EK?

[rferguson]

Before I could give an answer to that one i’d need to know whether BA daughter signed her contract pre or post 2010 😉

[canucklad]

Good point rferguson
She’s in he earlyr twenties so I’m assuming she’s an original hatter. .

[rferguson]

Attrition for ‘legacy crew’ at BA is 2.1%p.a. And most of that is retirement. Attrition for Mixed Fleet is 23%p.a.

One could guess the rate of attrition for Mixed Fleet must be of concern to BA. Nope – it’s the other way around. It’s the low attrition rate of legacy fleet they don’t like.

Many moons ago when our new CEO Alex Cruz was being interviewed as CEO of Vueling for the in-house ‘Up To Speed’ magazine the interviewer asked a question along the lines of was it true Vueling has a problem with staff turnover. Sr Cruz’ reply was that ‘it’s true cabin crew turnover is around 40%p.a(!!) however that is by DESIGN’. He went on to explain how this kept costs low.

Noone is saying that BA is the same animal as Vueling. But it is well known that BA do not want crew staying. Two years is the target. Have them in the job while they are all excited about flying to exotic destinations around the world then get rid of them when they discover they no longer want to live in a five bed flatshare in Hounslow or they want to move out of home (neither they could do in the London area on what they are paid) or when they are simply exhausted.

There are obvious advantages to this for BA (or any legacy carrier). These young guys are not interested in pensions or unions. They are likely to be more flexible without constraints such as arranging childcare or time off to care for a partner/child/elderly parent. And it’s no secret that as we get older we experience more nasties in our health – cancers and the such.

Compare that with an ex-pat lifestyle in the sun, no need to worry about paying rent and a nice little amount of tax free pocket money…..i’d imagine for a younger person a stint with EK would be desirable.

For me (even if I was not legacy fleet and I was a good few years younger) flying for a ME3 airline would not be something i’d consider. The difference between working for a western airline and a ME3 one is that a western airline is your employer. The ME3 airlines own you. In one click of a finger they can take away your entire lifestyle – the country you are enjoying living in, the apartment you reside, the friendships you have made AND of course your job. Even within the ME3 there is a hierarchy – the saying goes the only crew that work for QR are those that have been rejected first by EK and secondly by EY.

[FDOS_UK]

RFerguson

To add to your list, a terminated cabin crew member might find themselves persona non grata in the country (at least for a while.)

[MrMichael]

Is high staff turnover necessarily a bad thing? I am not sure that it is. I think on the “the shop floor” with the non professional posts it is probably to be desired to some extent. Whether it be cabin crew, croupiers, or burger flippers at McDonald’s, there are too many of them for them to all have career progression, and indeed many do it for a year or two as experience, to fund gap years etc. Those that want to stay and make a career out of it can do so, but most either don’t want to or don’t cut the mustard. Lack of staff turnover can be a huge problem in some cases, where too many people chase too few managerial positions and end up disgruntled and stuck in a rut. We have all experienced them.

[rferguson]

MrMichael i’d say there is a ‘sweet spot’ when it comes to retention/turnover. I believe BA’s aim was a figure of around 14-16% for Mixed Fleet. And a retention ‘break even’ point of two years in terms of costs. The problem is many Mixed Fleet crew are leaving within months (or in some cases weeks). Every time another airline recruits in the London area there is a vacuum from Mixed Fleet. Qantas has just recently recruited for their LHR base and i’m told from a friend involved in QF training that the bulk of applicants are BA Mixed Fleet crew. A large amount are also going to Norweigian as well.

[FDOS_UK]

According to Monster.com, the UK average churn rate is ~15% (although it says it varies widely.)

http://hiring.monster.co.uk/hr/hr-best-practices/workforce-management/employee-retention-strategies/what-is-the-ideal-employee-turnover-rate.aspx

[canucklad]

Alex Cruz’s comments about attrition suggest to me ,that his priorities are to drive costs down to the bare thread. As it appears that he doesn’t believe in staffing as an investment, more of a cost burden to be tolerated.

Sadly, companies that adopt this approach are either doomed to ultimately fail, or are loathed by their users.

MrMichael and rfeguson are both right, a great company manages their attrition sweet-spot, as a way of removing the chaff, and at the same time creating opportunities for internal movement/ promotion. Companies that follow this approach usually attain a reputation as an employer of choice. Identifying staff as a critical investment to be nurtured rather than a necessary burden.

Here’s why Cruz’s 40% strategy is fundamentally flawed……

> High continuous recruitment costs, that ultimately lead to a company exhausting the talent pool, eventually end up recruiting 2nd and 3rd choice candidates.
> This then leads to an over worked training team, struggling to pass certain new recruits,leading to de-motivation ,which inevitably is resolved by lowering pass standards to realize targets and worse fill needed back fill places.
> When these recruits go live, you have 3 defined groups whose actions will determine their own destiny. But as rferguson has eloquently pointed out already, only one of these groups will define the long tern brand future as they become the norm, or if you like statistics,the mean.

Group A …. Will ultimately realize their potential elsewhere, which means BA has wasted a whack of cash enhancing their short term top performers CV.This group of people are careerists and are generally driven by pride in the company they represent and demonstrate this through pride in themselves delivering great customer service.
Group B ……Are the mean, and fall into 2 sub-categories, those who are genuinely “keen’ to do a good job and will work hard as long as the company keeps them motivated. A cost focused company like BA probably sees motivation as a unnecessary luxury. And the 2nd lot, they’ll recognize their pay and conditions and do what is expected and no more.
Group C …..These are the sad individuals who should never have been recruited in the first place, but through sheer desperation by the business ultimately make it to the front line. Normally as a result of dropping standards in training to ensure a successful back fill. They are tagged with the phrase “with a bit of support and coaching, they should be ok” . Nice people who will realize themselves that they can’t hack it. Or more nicely , it’s not the job for them.

If I’m a CEO of a perceived premium company that relys on repeat custom, I know what group I’d want as the face of my brand. And actually the group that worries me least would be “C”
Group B would worry the shit out of me, because they’re more likely to become toxic ,rebellious and weaken my business.

Just my thoughts on a sunny Sunday morning…

[MrMichael]

Agree with you there Canucklad, but would perhaps add that recruitment of staff on the bottom rung is often done by those in group B. Subsequently I tell any manager that has the courtesy to listen to me….” Don’t worry too much about the recruitment, it is the probationary period you have to get right………and furthermore if you have a gut feeling about someone during the probationary period .get shot of them” Sometimes I go further and tell managers, sack everybody at 5 months and twenty five days unless you have a damn good reason not to..

[BigDog.]

rferguson – 12/12/2015 12:08 GMT

Methinks the near 25% pa attrition (ie 4 year avg) for BA mixed fleet is under egging it somewhat. Further, with HMRC apparently looking to tax a fair chunk of the “trip allowance” as it gets repatriated as opposed to spent tax free down route this will make it even tougher for MF CC to make ends meet.

[Author]

Posts