Latest news on IFBT's

Unfortunately I think this will be the beginning of things to come from the employee point of view. You have seen many things from the customers perception, amenity packs, change in services, number of crew down, the list goes on.

Being able to book a treatment for e.h. the LHR clubhouse is great if you have time to book in advance, dont suddenly travel at short notice etc etc

So the crew headcount is to be reduced (perhaps they are hoping IFBT's wont want to transfer to crew) or it is to be redirected (perhaps this is due to another role that may be under threat in the imminent future) who knows, personally I think it will do nothing for customers, as has been mentioned that's another USP gone.

Perhaps the company needs to start looking in those offices they have too, more chiefs than Indians.

Thank you very much for all the words of support towards the IFBT's

[Decker]

Interestingly IFBTs are possibly one of THE most consistently visible VS presences out there. They HAVE to speak to all UC pax, they wear distinctive uniforms and the people they do interact with get undivided attention for 15-20 minutes. Real brand ambassadors. Whilst GOOD FSMs have cabin presence bad ones can hide - less so the IFBT. It's perhaps unsurprising how VS are spinning the 'pax don't rate IFBTs as highly as Club Houses'. 'So how did you rate the Club House experience you received over the treatment you were told you'd receive when booking but refused on board? And while we're at it - when DID you stop beating your wife?'.

As mentioned previously, the 2 distinguishers onboard for me (vs NZ who have the Suite) have been the IFBTs and the bar. I love NZ - their food is better than VS as is the wine - BUT if VS flew that route I'd go VS not NZ - for the bar and the IFBT (and actually the crew are NORMALLY better on VS too ).

Thank you Decker!!

In today's meeting we were told no decision has been made.

So it seems apparent to all that this a financial issue here (I know some may differ but bear with me), so we are all racking our brains trying to find solutions to the problem... basically fighting to keep the jobs we love and which most of you seem to appreciate.

So I was thinking... one of the issues raised today was that passengers are more and more frequently leaving the aircraft disappointed at not having a treatment... suggestions have been made to put 2 of us on each flight to increase chances but what about going the other end of the scale and reducing the amount of people eligible for treatment? By that I mean how about if only Gold/Silver Flying club were in the 'lottery' of treatment..surely this would mean we would be able to treat all of our most loyal passengers whilst encouraging more people to sign up and earn Silver/Gold. Or even make treatments redeemable against points earned?

I'm just throwing suggestions out there!

[Decker]

Or even EXPLICIT acknowledgement that you can only treat 1 in 3 - so keep your stubs (or a card) - offer three and you have a treatment. Rewards short term loyalty as well as long AND gives infrequent flyers an e-bayable card.

I'm not comfortable with selling the pre-flight stuff as a benefit. This month I'm probably rostering LHR-LAX-AKL-LAX-LAS-YVR-LAX-LHR and to be honest the in flight experience will be a lot more important that the ground.

Decker's idea makes sense. Or make people pay $5 - $10 for the privilege. I may be in the minority, but I'd pay to have the nice massages I've gotten onboard.

GJ

[preiffer]

Apology letters being issued from LHR today.

Well, I say 'issued', actually snuck into the ticket/baggage stub holder without mention - it was only me having a look inside that made me realise it was there.

I guess maybe staff are embarrassed about this whole thing.

Presuming that this is a cost saving excercise (working on that you can make a passenger of focus group survey say what you want) I'm trying to work out where the huge savings will be if they do scrap the IFBT position.

They've already promised that all staff will be offered jobs as crew, or on BT's on the ground so that is still wages to be paid. I would have thought in this position, its the wages that make up the bulk of the beans, not the products that they use (which seem to be the only other major cost in this).

Will getting rid of products, product advertising, the training, and the IFBT station really save that much?

Dean

IFBT station would save weight & allow perhaps another seat depending on config. With regards to salary, no saving but minimal training costs to get a CC member already attuned to UC service & demands.

With another airline rumoured to have gone today (HKG Oasis), airlines are very seriously looking at ALL weight/cost savings, this as has been mentioned, is probably only the start of it at VS.

If keeping the IFBT is a high priority you must be able to offer a true cost/weight saving suggestion to VS to justify it.

Feel for all the IFBT's who i guess feel a bit 'sold down the river' as it looks like the review of service is a done deal.

Originally posted by the-ifbt
...reducing the amount of people eligible for treatment? By that I mean how about if only Gold/Silver Flying club were in the 'lottery' of treatment

Not too sure this is the best way to go. Possibly prioritisation by fare class? Personally I think the objective is to maximise the chance of a treatment for those people for whom it really matters - not those who, when presented with an opportunity on board, grab it as a distraction. This could be done in a number of ways:

Pre-Booking / Requesting (Prior to Check-In)
Booking / Requesting at Check-In / Club-house (especially those who try for treatment in CH but are unlucky there)
Prioritise by shorter treatments to allow more pax to experience
Operate a one treatment per return trip as norm policy
Finally if all else fails - then by

Fare Class
FF Status
Celebrity Status [:D]



I would also suggest 2 IFBT if there is a need (see above), especially on shorter routings with expected full loads - hell if they end up with time on their hands pop back into PE and find any Au's or full W's there.

I don't get the chance to travel UCS very often but have enjoyed the treatment when I have had and would also be dissapointed if the service stops.

FM

the-ifbt, I dont know how you should feel that the job is under threat unless you guys can come up with a solution, isn't that what the people who sit in the Virgin offices are supposed to do ? If they are unable to come up with a viable financial solution it really begs the question of are they just 'playing' with you, trying to humour the IFBT's and say, 'well we gave you a chance'. I know that sounds really negative but if you have a Director of finance and associated team who earn thousands of pounds between them who have all the numbers to hand short of saying okay reduce our salaries I feel this is just a game to them and an exercise because it has leaked out.

As has been mentioned above what will the company gain if every IFBT transfers to a crew member ?

If everyone transfers to an onboard position there is no change in the wages bill at all, and the company has increased its number of fully trained cabin crew without enduing the full costs of selection and training new courses, I presume a conversion course for food handling will be cheaper than new recruits.

The IFBT's station will be removed, does this mean another Suite could be fitted in on the aircraft ? perhaps this is the goal ?

Perhaps the company wants to outsource the entire onboard IFBT system to the likes of the Delhi crew who are much cheaper to employ, threaten the positions, everyone moves to cabin crew and then reintroduce it 'due to unprecedented feedback from our customers we have decided....'. Not sure how that would work re employment law and redundancies if anyone took those, I believe if the job is reopened it has to be offered back, sure someone here knows though.

I dont genuinely think the company can believe that the club house treatments are a substitute, there has to be an angle.

Any more thoughts ?

V of R, if i recall the pay rates there is a major saving if all the IFBT's only get Junior positions & a food handling course!! So less salary, less training, less weight, but will it be a better UC service!!!!

Denzil,

I dont have the figures infront of me, but given what I think the delta is X number of crew the saving is not that significant, probably a drop in the ocean in the grande scheme of things. I heard once that excluding wages and fuel one of the next significant costs to the company is the limousines provided for upper class. Perhaps this is an area to look at too.

I can only believe that the only real goal is to squeeze another Upper class suite in.

[:#]

[Darren Wheeler]

I can't the CDC being targeted soom. When you look at the price difference between J and Z and then look at the service difference, the J cost more than covers the CDC.

[RichardMannion]

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
I can't the CDC being targeted soom. When you look at the price difference between J and Z and then look at the service difference, the J cost more than covers the CDC.

And they would not have just invested in the new Drive-thru facility at LHR, and the £6m ad campaign.

[Decker]

Perhaps they're counting on half the IFBTs not wanting to transfer to crew thereby saving up to £8m a year? (Remember the salary is not the cost to the company - you need EMPNI, Benefits, administrative support, training, uniforms etc so you can probably easily double the salary cost to get the true cost).

The post from True Beaut says BTS's are not being offered crew - surely not!

http://www.cabincrew.com/ccnetwork/foru ... 9699&PN=28

Originally posted by Decker
Perhaps they're counting on half the IFBTs not wanting to transfer to crew thereby saving up to £8m a year? (Remember the salary is not the cost to the company - you need EMPNI, Benefits, administrative support, training, uniforms etc so you can probably easily double the salary cost to get the true cost).

Could not agree more. I think VS are banking on a large proportion of IBFT's not wanting to transfer.

The more I think about it the more I am inclined to agree with LROM, surely this must be a fall out of the pay dispute.

I guess we will have to wait until May until we get a semi true picture on VS's financial state.

There have been some comments on here about their being an excess layer of fat in the 'brass' at Virgin Atlantic.

My personal opinion is that they do give the impression of having a lot of product people, and 'managers of managers', or 'managers of nothing', if that makes sense - even if they don't actually have that issue.

We seldom hear of job cuts at this middle/senior level in the organisation, probably because most of us don't directly engage with that level in the organisation, and indeed, one could argue that it's 'none of our business'.

However, by deciding to sacrifice on-board service and customer facing positions, rather than choosing to reduce non-essential back-office personnel who aren't directly visible to the customer, VAA do make it the travelling public's business.

While the middle and senior positions in the organisation are small in overall number, their higher salaries will account for a significant proportion of the organisation's wage bill and the other operating costs Decker eluded to.

A small number of job cuts at these levels seemed to have contributed positively to improved results for other airlines - for example, BA did reviews of middle management positions under both Eddington and Walsh.

Would I be wrong in suggesting that the impression from VS is that the torch of efficiency and cost saving isn't being shone into the corners of The Office, The Base, etc? It's usually directed at the service delivery elements only, and not at the management?

Mike

Originally posted by mike-smashing
There have been some comments on here about their being an excess layer of fat in the 'brass' at Virgin Atlantic.

My personal opinion is that they do give the impression of having a lot of product people, and 'managers of managers', or 'managers of nothing', if that makes sense - even if they don't actually have that issue.

We seldom hear of job cuts at this middle/senior level in the organisation, probably because most of us don't directly engage with that level in the organisation, and indeed, one could argue that it's 'none of our business'.

However, by deciding to sacrifice on-board service and customer facing positions, rather than choosing to reduce non-essential back-office personnel who aren't directly visible to the customer, VAA do make it the travelling public's business.

While the middle and senior positions in the organisation are small in overall number, their higher salaries will account for a significant proportion of the organisation's wage bill and the other operating costs Decker eluded to.

A small number of job cuts at these levels seemed to have contributed positively to improved results for other airlines - for example, BA did reviews of middle management positions under both Eddington and Walsh.

Would I be wrong in suggesting that the impression from VS is that the torch of efficiency and cost saving isn't being shone into the corners of The Office, The Base, etc? It's usually directed at the service delivery elements only, and not at the management?

Mike

Would agree, at the last company I worked, they thought it best to get rid of lower-level employees (via an attractive redundancy package) as a cost-cutting exercise and found out the middle management didn't have enough knowledge between them compared to the lower-level workers that did.

So, what happened, the following year another round of redundancies were introduced and the middle managers who weren't cutting it, were adviced to take redundancy as they had to re-apply for their jobs and weren't guaranteed getting them back.

Following that, the company decided to invest in more lower-level employees.

Mike: Would I be wrong in suggesting that the impression from VS is that the torch of efficiency and cost saving isn't being shone into the corners of The Office, The Base, etc? It's usually directed at the service delivery elements only, and not at the management?


I'd have to completely disagree with this - every area of the company including The Office has been undergoing operational reviews to see where operations can be streamlined and costs can be better managed; this has included senior positions not being filled when people have left, leaving teams to deliver better results with reduced headcount. This is totally unsurprising given the current economic environment, and is being done by every company in the world!

As upsetting as it would be to lose the IFBTs, don't feel like this is a suggestion that has been made lightly - a great deal of market/financial/customer research will have been completed to ensure that a decision either way is justified and necessary.

who else noticed the lack of ifbt in the current upper class tv ad?

Originally posted by RJD
I'd have to completely disagree with this - every area of the company including The Office has been undergoing operational reviews to see where operations can be streamlined and costs can be better managed

Okay, well, I stand corrected, and that's reassuring - if cold comfort to the IFBT corps - to know.

So much below the surface is invisible to those on the outside - it's all too easy to see cutbacks in service and facilities, while at the same time imagining well-paid individuals coining in large salaries and slapping each other on the back about outsourcing another 500 jobs to cheap Asian labour, doing Brits out of work at the same time.

It's that latter sort of short-sighted thinking which is damaging our economies beyond comprehension.

I just thought (hoped, maybe) that VAA would have been made of cleverer stuff, rather than following the herd on what looks like the fast-track to the bottom.

Mike

I have to say this smacks of a massive cost cutting exercise which leaves me wondering what state the balance sheet at VS is actually in?

We all know the issues with jet fuel over the past 12 months, which leaves me believing that they need to save money, and very quickly. Their options are however limited. Yes will all know about a layer of middle management that could be cut, but I'm yet to ever see this happen in ANY company I've ever worked for!

Ask yourself this - where does it stop? What might be next? Charging for drinks on board (Like Delta as an example) or even meals??

That said, two crucial points spring to mind:

1. Will it now become more and more difficult to get an appointment in the Clubhouse as people rush to get treatments in the knowledge there's none on board ?

2. Does a reduction in service mean a reductionin ticket prices ? I think not!

[RichardMannion]

Originally posted by andrew.m.wright
2. Does a reduction in service mean a reductionin ticket prices ? I think not!

No, but then I do think some of the lower end fares need to rise. Sale fare to NYC for £268 - the actual fare element is about £75. Compare that to a few years back where you could get a flight to NYC for £199, but ~£150 of that was fare element.

As more of these lower cost carriers go under, then I'd expect fares to climb a little. Open skies is most certainly not going to push fares down. There is trying to compete, and then there is putting yourself out of business. No wonder BA don't pay commission to TA's on mos tof hteir tickets, maybe that is next down the line.

What is interesting is to see such a lack of pushing customers to book online - the CoS is much less and helps the bottom line. EasyJet do 99% of their bookings online, and their results show the effect. BA charge if you book via telephone. Surely not long before VS have to do the same, though it would be great if they waived it for UC/PE travellers as the margin is better there.

Originally posted by RichardMannion
No, but then I do think some of the lower end fares need to rise. Sale fare to NYC for £268 - the actual fare element is about £75.

Well, if the food were a bit better £75 for two meals, two snacks, coffee and drinks wouldn't be too bad in some parts of the world.

Oh drat, did I really say that [B)].