EXCLUSIVE: British Airways could close Gatwick short-haul after BALPA pulls pilot ballot

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Pablo says:

  18 Sep18 September 13:14

  The concessions offered with regards to pay have been enormous. Equally the scheduling and training agreement changes are a chasm of where they should be. I sincerely think this actually sets back safety standards that were hard fought for over many years. It’s quite clear we want BA at LGW to succeed and nothing has been put in the way against that. The industry is on its knees. The amount of pilots without jobs is eye watering and deeply saddening. If what’s been said about verbal promises not being put into writing when the cuts being made are so deep, then at some stage you might have to step away. Is it really worth it? I can’t honestly say that a new BA operation at LGW will be a safe affair. It’s not about pay for the vast majority of us. If there is a sincere wish to work together, it can be done, and vastly to the benefit of the company. Over to them…

• L. says:

  18 Sep18 September 14:42

  So the external headline says “close Gatwick”, but the article actually says “close Gatwick short-haul”. There is a big difference there, and I’m sure this wasn’t done by accident. The first one is more shocking, and it will attract more views. But it’s also inaccurate. It is very sad that a respected travel website thinks they need to do cheap clickbait tactics like this one, that add to the misinformation and stress of those directly or indirectly involved in the BA Gatwick operation, especially given that long haul is currently going and won’t be affected by the new subsidiary. Just sad, really.

  • Rob says:

    18 Sep18 September 14:59

    The headline says ‘short haul’ – look on Google News, Apple News etc.

    The tweet on Twitter says ‘short haul’.

    The clickable link on Facebook does not use the word ‘short haul’ but the phrase is in the line of text above it which everyone sees.

    It’s possibly the worst piece of clickbait ever written if that was the intention 🙂 I also don’t quite understand why you think I would want more page views for this topic. It is worthless to us, financially. We’re not going to sell any credit cards to someone who comes across to read this story, and such people are unlikely to become regular readers.

    All of the key adslots today are pre-sold for a fixed price so even 1 million page views today wouldn’t make us any extra ad revenue. If I was bothered about our bottom line I wouldn’t have run this and would have kept the Star Alliance credit card article which was originally meant to run there, which would have made us a few quid.

    • TB says:

      19 Sep19 September 07:59

      Actually, on my Google News feed, the headline doesn’t include the words “short haul”. I’ve been following the story though so I knew it would be about BA’s short haul operations.

      • Rob says:

        19 Sep19 September 08:16

        It depends where you look. In the dedicated HfP feed, the phrase ‘short haul’ does appear. The version that Google inserts into mixed feeds does seem to drop the ‘short haul’ text – I only just saw this (if Google doesn’t put it into my own feed, I don’t see how they run it).

  • MD says:

    18 Sep18 September 21:02

    Notwithstanding Rob’s comprehensive dismantling of your whining, the only thing ‘sad’ here seems to be your reading comprehension.

• Paul Pogba says:

  19 Sep19 September 09:27

  Heathrow in dogfight with airlines over plans to double airport charges
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/18/heathrow-dogfight-airlines-plans-double-airport-charges/

  “Leaked proposals, seen by The Telegraph, reveal that long-haul charges will rocket from £38.33 per traveller this year to £67.86 in 2022.”

  Do the current negotiations with pilots at Gatwick make it harder for BA/IAG to fight this as they don’t have a credible threat to move (some) flights away from Heathrow?

  • Lady London says:

    19 Sep19 September 11:03

    Another reason for BA to keep their hand in at Gatwick

• fred says:

  19 Sep19 September 20:34

  Union prefer no jobs to any compromise, thank goodness BA is weak at LGW. Lets hope the union stranglehold at LHR can be endef.

• Matarredondaaa says:

  20 Sep20 September 12:01

  I have long thought BA would be better served by dumping Gatwick short haul effectively closing the base and moving it to somewhere much cheaper, eg Stansted or Southend failing a southern base move north with Manchester conveniently situated to attract passengers from Scotland and the Midlands.
  The newco could be a genuine new project with many pilots currently operating out of LHR/LGW made redundant but able to apply for jobs at the newco if they wish.
  In this day and age to BA really need two bases so close together?

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.