BA are threatening to make BMI a stand alone operation if BA's pilots do not accept a host of productivity measures, plus giving up their Holiday Pay claim.

Captain Stephen Riley the Director of Flight Operations is using a carrot and stick approach. A promise of bonuses if they behave or it will be Open Skies at Heathrow. In his communication to BA's Flight Crew he stresses how it is only their extravagant pay that makes BA's shorthaul operation unprofitable. Or that is how it seems.

But with the Olympics looming, does Willy Walsh have enough leverage to push this through? Are BA's pilots going to roll over and take this whilst their peers at Iberia are currently engaged in industrial action over the creation of Iberia Express?

Err. Since IAG are buying bmi not BA, what's the issue? bmi is not currently going to be absorbed. Most suspect it might be in the future, but no-one really knows.

It's great to feel so welcomed into the IAG family by fellow pilots...

It's great to feel so welcomed into the IAG family by fellow pilots - yoo ain't seen nothing yet! Wait until you are spat on and sworn at.:mad:. You might want to try working in Spain while you are at it too.....................

Wait until you are spat on and sworn at
By whom???

Mainline Captains, Basil, the one I witnessed was from a crew bus on one of 'our' crew (LGW 1993).

Wow. Nearly 20 years ago. Hmmm

Maybe think about Leopards and spots? Who knows how the BMIs will be treated?

I'd have a guess the leopards retired about 10 years ago. Still, I know how the Dan Air gang like to get all nostalgic about how badly they were treated.

The problem is that the BMI takeover is the catalyst for the opportunistic Willie Walsh to have a crack at his loyal Flight Crew footsoldiers. What a betrayal!!

Now BMI pilots will forever be blamed for inviting this holocaust, simply because they joined the wrong airline and had to be saved by BA/IAG. BALPA achieved a huge victory after spending over 6 years fighting for holiday pay to be based on "overrall earnings", Walsh is now going to snatch it away. What a cheek!!

Of the 100s of posts on the Balpa forum I have read re the BA / BMI merger not a single one has blamed BMI pilots.
Yes, there is concern about how the merger will be managed , and how the lists will be integrated; but not 1 BA pilot has - so far - written with anything other than concern for the plight of the BMI guys.

There will be no spitting! FFS

a difficult one, damned if you do and damned if you dont. Personally I would leave BMI (BA Express?) as a stand alone company, with BA s track record of running airlines outside of mother BA it wont be long before IAG managers are back to the table with a different attitude. The management are preying on fear to force through something that will plaque mainline for years. Let them try "express" they wont succeed and then the power struggle will be very different.

Count N, I sincerely hope that I never get the "opportunity" to sit next to you.

That has to be some of the biggest nonsense I've ever read on this site.

I think the count is not a pilot. They wrote a lot during the cabin crew strike. Enough said?

At the risk of being contentious, is there any reason why BA pilots would want bmi to be integrated? Freetown, Almaty and Tehran (plus Beirut, Damascus, Amman, Yerevan and Baku whilst we're at it) are not exactly prime roster bidding turf and I'd have thought most BA pilots would be quite happy if bmi continued to exist to serve routes which they really couldn't get excited about. Based on the last 10 years, it's also not exactly as though bmi pilots are getting commands way faster than BA guys - probably the opposite.

Yes, it temporarily staves off the risk of bmi being used for a reverse takeover of BA mainline flying.

One list or 2 companies under the same umbrella being played out against eachother.

Although I do think a lot of it is complete spin we really do not have much choice other than accept current proposals.

One united bigger company can only be good for all of us. Sure, some people might be disadvantaged but thus it'll ever be.

Having been 6yrs in the company I'm still very much at the bottom of my aircrafts SFO status list and on a way inferior pension. That's the way the cookie crumbles. If we do not show unity and always look envious at what someone else has the race to the bottom will continue at a way faster pace than currently.
Why not strife and actually improve the situation together?

Jam today can go hand in hand with Jam tomorrow. Pick the battles and be prepared to give in order to recieve...

It's great to feel so welcomed into the IAG family by fellow pilots


Like when BMI Mainline welcomed BMI Regional to LHR ?

Where do the BMI guys fit into all of this? If there is a BA Express, they are all made redundant and re-employed new cheap contracts (they must have legacy costs/pay scales of their own)... If integrated, they join on the new BA B-scale PP1-34 back dated to 1st March, based on years service at BMI. Commands are kept, but everyone is on bottom of the MSL?

Lastly, aren't the LGW pilots capped at year 10, and yet SH there remains unprofitable? (could be wrong, but led to believe).

At the risk of being contentious, is there any reason why BA pilots would want bmi to be integrated?
I would have thought so. BA/IAG have said that if the integration goes ahead, then the career opportunities for BA pilots will be significant; so if it doesn't, then one can imagine where the recruitment/expansion will take place:- in the so called "standalone" entity that was bmi.
The slots that bmi would bring to the operation would have a significant effect on promotion prospects, etc. Consider 1 A319's daily operations between LHR & EDI, for instance: 5x takeoffs + 5x landings into LHR (5 slot pairs). 1 early crew, 1 late crew : 2x Capts & 2x F/Os = 4 pilots. Convert those slots for a longhaul operation with 5x Capts & 5x F/Os outbound to somewhere & the same number returning.=20 pilots (& that's without a 'heavy' crew which would increase that number still further). And that is just the effect from 1 aircraft.

Black Pudding: SPOT ON...!!!

The pilots of both companies know that if they are run as seperate opco's then they will be played against each other.

eg. BMI becomes BA Express - then after 6 months IAG offer them a 25% pay cut.
They can't strike because BA mainline will cover their operation!! Or vice versa. Or IAG will simply let IB Express do BMI's work.

BMI guys are :mad: if they don't join BA.

BA guys could vote no, but then all new work would go to BA Express (on their very lean T's and C's).

What can be guaranteed Blu Riband, is the fact that BA pilots will show the usual appalling self-intererst, as they did when hundreds of them volunteered to fly as cabin crew. I am very surprised they haven't been flying Iberia jets.

Why are BMI flight crew being treated differently to other DEP's that have been recruited in the last 12 months?

It is discrimination and opportunism by Walsh who, as he did with the cabin crew, loves to play the divide and conquer game.

What can be guaranteed Blu Riband, is the fact that BA pilots will show the usual appalling self-intererst, as they did when hundreds of them volunteered to fly as cabin crew. I am very surprised they haven't been flying Iberia jets.

Why are BMI flight crew being treated differently to other DEP's that have been recruited in the last 12 months?

It is discrimination and opportunism by Walsh who, as he did with the cabin crew, loves to play the divide and conquer game.

Point of order. BMI are being treated "differently" as you put it because a) TUPE will apply if they are merged with BA and b) most, if not all, BMI pilots under same will join on more money than a pay point 1 DEP would into BA. They won't be taking a pay cut and it will cost BA more than 300 DEPs. But we want the slots more than anything as a business I suspect so it's a cost worth bearing.

Re the CC dispute the difference is we recognise the value of having the BMI pilots on the same master seniority list as ourselves and thus still part of the same employee group for bidding and promotion. That option was there for the CC but you/they weren't prepared to make the concessions required to have that. We are being offered that option now and, if the straw polls are anything to go by, we will take it and not condemn ourselves to withering on the vine as per the CC dispute.

PS It's not discrimination. I know it's a favourite word in some parts but it's not. It's a change of terms and conditions. If it were discrimination to offer new recruitment terms we'd still be on flying boat contracts. Of course, however, it is opportunism. WW has an opportunity to extract a price for something we deem valuable. He's a businessman. Do I like the change? No. Would I do the same if I were him, bearing in mind his terms of reference are to maximise shareholder value and profitability? I would as he does, because it's his job. As morally uncomfortable as you or I may consider that.

Like when BMI Mainline welcomed BMI Regional to LHR ?

I wasn't aware that any idiocy had gone on then. I'm very disappointed if it did.

I'd have a guess the leopards retired about 10 years ago - hopefully shot rather than retired? I can just see one of the skins on my lounge floor.

PS like the name..................;)

Unfortunately and I think why the company aren't discussing the issue of seniority is that since the Dan Air and Cityflyer takeovers legislation has changed within Europe. Companies now acquiring/merging with another are required to maintain seniority, therefore merging the BA/BMI seniority list. Where a BA pilot and BMI pilot in this case join on the same day, the employee of the 'acquiring' company will have the higher seniority. The talk regading increased opportunities for BA mainline, therefore is negated as the additional slots in net terms are not an increase (covered by the exisiting workforce, ie BMI) The proposed opportunities are also a smoke screen as BMI has not had any significant recruitment for the last 7-10 years and as such SFO/FO in the acquiring company, BA will therefore find themselves several hundred places further down the seniority list, therefore adding a number of years to attain command. This is why we are being asked to vote without being given sufficient information to make an informed decision.

BALPA appear again to have boxed themselves into a corner.

It was clear after the cabin crew dispute that what Walsh decides goes.

He either gets huge concessions from BALPA or gets a uk Jetstar operation on BALPAs
doorstep.

I'm not sure how that equates to BALPA boxing themselves into a corner? The clever work was all Walsh and his lawyers.

The talk regading increased opportunities for BA mainline, therefore is negated as the additional slots in net terms are not an increase (covered by the exisiting workforce, ie BMI) You are correct if IAG's intention were to continue flying shorthaul with those slots. WW has stated that the slots, however would be used for much needed longhaul expansion. I refer you to my previous post and apologise if I've got the numbers wrong, but if WW was to go ahead & convert all of those slots to Longhaul, the expansion opportunities would be significant.
Also bear in mind that bmi are bringing across approx. 20% of the number of slots that BA owns with a workforce that constitutes a mere 10% of the BA one, & although it is more concentrated in the shorthaul area, I would imagine a significant number of senior BA SH pilots would see opportunities become available in the short to medium term as a result of the slot portfolio benefitting from such a rapid increase in size.
The proposed opportunities are also a smoke screen as BMI has not had any significant recruitment for the last 7-10 years and as such SFO/FO in the acquiring company, BA will therefore find themselves several hundred places further down the seniority listSeveral hundred? There's only about 320 pilots in bmi; if you're talking command opportunities then divide that number by 2. When bmi merged with BMED there were a handful of guys who lost about 100 places on the seniority list, that's all- and BMED constituted an airline about A THIRD of the size of bmi.
So:
20% slots vs. 10% pilots - straightaway the "impact" is halved.
Current use for large No. of slots = shorthaul - with longhaul use the "impact" will be more than halved again.
Whilst it is very easy to get drawn in to positions of opposition when talking of mergers,etc. I think in the long term a united front has to be far preferable.

sorry, seniority is NOT recognised in law...............period. There is NO obligation to merge seniority lists, seniority cannot even be used for redundancy legally due to age discrimination laws.

sorry, seniority is NOT recognised in law...............period. There is NO obligation to merge seniority lists

Isn't it the other way round?

Because seniority isn't recognized in law, you SHOULD merge the seniority lists because you can't just stick people on the bottom of the list?

seniority cannot even be used for redundancy legally due to age discrimination laws.

This isn't quite correct either, because "seniority" is not necessarily equivalent to "age". The age distribution, even in BA's seniority list, is not monotonically decreasing.

This isn't quite correct either, because "seniority" is not necessarily equivalent to "age". The age distribution, even in BA's seniority list, is not monotonically decreasing.

correct SR71, thats why you cannot use seniority!

Seniority is a union controlled list, it is not recognised in law. The last "merger" was Bcal and that caused all sorts of political fall out, and the only reason they got a "merger" was that they bought a significant longhaul fleet to the fold, Dan air (the few that were) cityflyer etc all were tagged on the bottom (with short haul command grandfather rights), i rather suspect that this is what will be in store for the BMI guys and girls. HOWEVER BA stated that they would not allow pilots to join BA mainline without passing the BA selection procedure, (applied to BACON and OPENSKIES pilots) so possibly another obsticle in the way. Its going to be messy whatever happens.

Seniority is a union controlled list

The way I see it, is, "Seniority" is "length of service/DOJ" isn't it, and you can use it to make redundancies, albeit it may have to be part of a matrix of criteria these days, as long as you can also show it is not age discriminatory. It won't be at BA. That said, if you use a matrix its not LIFO.

MartinAir guys have recently been stuck on the bottom of the list but they're contesting this because I believe they are claiming the incorporation of MartinAir into KLM is a merger not a takeover.

as they did when hundreds of them volunteered to fly as cabin crewEvery pilot who I have spoken to wanted the company to survive.
We wanted to support the 30,000+ staff who wanted to keep their jobs, and to support the 1000s of crew who came to work.
I personally beleived that many crew who voted to strike did so having been very poorly advised and led by Bassa.
I now am sure we did the right thing , even for the benefit of those who went on strike; because things could have become much worse for them.

Check out the transcript of the branch secretary's tribunal for some shock reading and insight into the behaviour and mindset of the Bassa top table.
And where is the money?????????

Anyway, back on topic.

Seniority can be recognised, but is not automatic, and cannot be "age" based.
I expect BMI pilots to go to the bottom of the list but keep"grandfather" rights and current pay , until they catch up to BA pay.

I am more than a little surprised that if the pay of pilots on shorthaul was making the operation unprofitable, why hasn't Walsh taken action before?

I feel sorry for the BMI guys who are being used as leverage to get BA pilots to give up their holiday pay claim and accepting inferior T&C's.

I feel sorry for the BMI guys who are being used as leverage to get BA pilots to give up their holiday pay claim and accepting inferior T&C's

Thats why you will find most of the mainline bmi guys reading these threads but not commenting. We are eager to finally have some security but are well aware of what is being played out with the BA guys, Good luck to everyone involved

It is clear that BA/IAG are playing hardball over this issue. Claiming that Easy/FR are poaching their business traffic has some validity. Saying that the pilots should be the ones to foot the bill for this doesn't. If anyone should be responsible it should be the management for allowing this to occur without understanding the long term implications. The "low cost carriers" have not sprung up over night, many have predicted their fortuitous growth back in the 90's and how they would become dominant within the short haul marketplace. BA has been slow to react to this, period.

However, it is not all negative. Mr Walsh (now speaking on behalf of IAG) has clearly pointed out that the future of BA is in the long haul marketplace. The reason for acquiring bmi is for their slots and with these slots he would like to expand further into the Asian/Indian market. BA therefore are not trying to focus their business model on short haul. BA short haul is essentially a feeder for BA long haul. Yes it would be great to make profits on short haul, why not, but to claim that it is the "Holy Grail" of BA and use their losses to erode short haul pilots T & Cs due to their mistakes, is a fallacy.

If the low cost carriers can continue to make inroads on the short haul market, then why not let them continue? This would free up further short haul slots for long haul. Equally, on the flipside, none of the serious contenders in the low cost carriers market are operating from LHR. One could easily argue that this is the reason that the "cheaper fare:ugh:" carriers can turn a profit. If the low cost carriers expand and continue to offer significantly lower prices than the likes of the legacy carriers on that particular route, surely this then makes long haul more accessible to passengers, who may not have travelled to the original long haul destination with BA because of the high short haul cost to get to LHR but now can afford to because of the potentially cheaper ticket offered from their departure airport to say Luton. Having used the low cost carriers in the past, it is my opinion that many will chose to use BA for their connection after they experience the costs and mayhem that can ensue when there are any issues affecting the low cost carrier.

This then brings me back onto the subject of the current vote proposal. Everyone more or less knows that IAG do not wish to have a standalone BA Express at LHR. Yes there are cost savings between the bmi and BA but these are transient. Operating a standalone Company on a different AOC with separate crewing, ops departments and all the other paraphernalia surely cannot be successful. bmi are losing money at a phenomenal rate, yes at a lower cost base but look at the outcome. HUGE LOSSES!!!

Why would IAG want this on their balance sheets? No one can be 100% certain that IAG will not run it as a standalone but in reality we can be >95% sure that this would not be the case.

Failing that, why don't the bmi and BA CCs come to some agreement that should the day ever occur that IAG were to try and create a BA Express, that terms such as the SCOPE agreement would be set in place to prevent BA Express pilots operating any of the BA routes, should BA BALPA envoke industrial action. This to my mind would be the strongest concern that current BA pilots have regarding the standalone proposal. If no crossing of a picket line were to occur by BA Express pilots and BA & IAG were aware of this condition, I would expect that it would take a lot of wind out of the management’s sails when negotiating future conditions. Of course the same terms would have to apply to a future BA Express if they were to call for industrial action, then equally BA pilots would not operate BA Express schedules.

I think BALPA are missing a big opportunity here to call IAG/BAs bluff here. Why not create their own terms which BA/IAG cannot interfere with?

As I said previously, I really don't think that a BA Express has any merit here in the UK. Yes I agree in Spain it would be considered as an option but not with BA's and bmi's costs being so closely matched if you were to try and make bmi profitable.

So in summary, BALPA should be playing hardball themselves and dictating the terms that their pilots will accept a standalone operation, such that it is a no brainer to even consider a standalone airline at LHR. This way, it is nearly 100% certain that a full integration will take place. Any/all savings will then have to be passed on to other departments (if need be?) such as devolving unnecessary management positions and streamlining other departments benefits. Current BA pilots and future BA pilots can then temporarilly enjoy a career that is not permanently threatened by cost cutting and the "sword of Damocles" perpetually hanging over them.

Thoughts, especially from other BA pilots welcomed.

I feel sorry for the BMI guys who are being used as leverage to get BA pilots to give up their holiday pay claim

Wrong again!.

We are not being asked to give up the holiday pay claim. It will be the cost going forward after 2014 that will need paying for. Upto 2014 (including gaw'd knows how many years back pay (i've lost count)) not affected.

That's a good piece Thick E. I agree that Walsh's bluff should be called. Let him start BA Express and he will lose money with that as well. Also with the Olympics not far away, does IAG really want to provoke a fight with their BA pilots?

VIRGIN seems to survive without a shorthaul network to feed its routes, so would LGW longhaul also limp on without the B737-400's. Inevitably, shorthaul is all but finished at LGW.

After concessions are made by BA's pilots at Eurofleet, what would be next on Walsh's shopping list? Perhaps mainline pilots pay flying longhaul holiday routes out of LGW will suddenly be unsustainable? Where does it stop unless BALPA draws a line in the sand now?

Walsh will push his luck and does not care if industrial action is provoked. He will take the short term pain for the long term gain if he can get away with it. BA pilots will find themelves in the unenviable position of their cabin crew "colleagues" (sic), of having their ballots for strike action injuncted and a campaign in the national press rubbishing them (as has happened before) and printing for all to see, how much they earn and the privileged lifestyle they enjoy.

Don't forget that Walsh will soon play the "this is the best deal you are going to get, the next offer will be worse. Take it or leave it" card, if it appears things are not going his way.

If BA's pilots are not sure where this is all going, just contact APA President Captain Dave Bates of the Allied Pilots Union at American Airliness, for some advice on where they went wrong in the past. Walsh hasn't re-invented the wheel here, there is a blueprint he is following and he will break BALPA's grip on BA at the same time if given the chance

Hi Thick E,

I went to the BA seminar on 4th January at Waterside. There is another BA seminar with the Chief Financial Officer and all the Flt Ops managers on the 10th January. I would urge you to go to that seminar if you possibly can, or attend one of the ad-hoc manager's meetings in the CRC. You will then be able to put your point of view regarding the deal to them, and maybe find some answers to your questions.

The BACC have seen and accepted the BA financial figures; I put a great deal of faith in the current BACC and trust them to make the best of the cr*p hand they have been dealt.

The take it or leave it deal on offer is not very palatable, but to vote No to maybe call a bluff is a big call. A Yes vote means that BA will have 51+% of the LHR slots and that over 3700 pilots will be on one seniority list. It would then be more difficult, time and effort for IAG to set up a new airline in an airport so slot constrained as LHR.

Whichever way the vote goes, BA and BMI will effectively be integrated - we are really only voting on whether the pilot workforces are integrated. If not, there will be two IAG airlines at LHR bidding against each other for work; if BA Lite offers to fly A380s at a lower cost, they will be flying the A380s. For the BMI guys and new entants to BA Lite (there will never be any further recruitment to BA Mainline, just stagnation) the terms and conditions to fly those shiny new aircraft will be much, much worse than those available now if an integrated solution is agreed.

In summary, go to a BA meeting, or at least a BACC GMM to satisfy yourself that your viewpoint is absolutely correct.

Cheers,

Mark

You cannot trust Walsh. He moved the goalposts in the cabin crew dispute over the cost savings BASSA offered. I believe he will start BA Express anyway after he has got the deal he wants over the BMI takeover. And what would you do then? You would be done up like a kipper.

As for sharing information on the figures, when BALPA 'saw the books' (well, one set anyway) the reps were convinced that the airline was in a terminal downward financial spiral, until with perfect timing the volcano erupted and Walsh suddenly found £1bn in cash reserves and a secure line of credit up to £6bn. From 'fight for survival' to that in 8 months. Not bad going. Even in the EU they cannot match that for creative accounting.

Clearly shorthaul at LHR will not continue in its present form anyway. The extra APD on Club Europe tickets is killing that segment and will take a further hit in April. Walsh loves to start confusion and in-fighting. He managed to convince BA's pilots that the airline was in a "fight for survival" just becuase of cabin crew pay. Whilst cabin crew pay is much lower at LGW anyway, he leaves the pilots with their mainline wages, accomodation before and after flights, double nights for short longhaul sectors with a two man crew and so on.

Like the cabin crew, the BA flight crew are playing a defensive game against a hostile and agressive CEO. You are asking for nothing other than being left alone. There is no enthusiasm for the BMI takeover if it means this - an attack on your T&C's. As for the BMI guys, do you really want to be part of a dysfunctional airline that is racked with industrial relations problems, and be the catalyst of a pernicious downward spiral of pay and conditions at BA?

Stop trolling mate. :=:=:=

VIRGIN seems to survive without a shorthaul network to feed its routes, so would LGW longhaul also limp on without the B737-400's. Inevitably, shorthaul is all but finished at LGW.

Virgin can't even make ORD work all year round and they have a significant frequency disadvantage against BA on other routes. BA short-haul "tops up" London O&D traffic to support high frequencies that business customers value and provides top-up when London demand is soft and when there are currency advantages from sales outside the UK.

The pathological obsession with Walsh is a misnomer.

IAG is spending up to £170m of its shareholders' money buying a business (which thanks to the restructuring of BA under WW and the IB merger it is able to do so from its own cash reserves without, like Virgin, having to find external financing which is in very short supply at the moment) that is bleeding red ink and has cost its current owner close to £1bn in acquisition costs and losses.

It is axiomatic to anyone with a shred of of business acumen that you can't turn around a loss making business if by integrating it into the acquirer you immediately inflate the cost base. Whilst bmi slots will ultimately be used to grow long-haul this will be a gradual process that over years not months, so bmi's network will, to a large extent, continue as it is for some time.

It is business. Nothing to do with personal agendas etc.

As for the BMI guys, do you really want to be part of a dysfunctional airline that is racked with industrial relations problemsNo we don't, or at least I don't. Please vote NO to the proposals.

As for the BMI guys, do you really want to be part of a dysfunctional airline that is racked with industrial relations problems,

That's a bit of a sweeping statement and no doubt one that was designed to catch the attention of non BA employees.

It's hardly the airline that's racked with industrial problems, most groups, - pilots, baggage handlers, ground staff, office staff are trying to move with the times and are engaging with the company in a mature way - tough though that may be in the current climate.

The main "industrial relation problem" seems to be elements of one employee group that seem unable to move on from recent events ( precipitated by dire union leadership) and seem intent on blaming everybody else, from WW down, but especially the pilots, for their predicament.

Max,

No we don't, or at least I don't. Please vote NO to the proposals.

The last thing you want is for us to vote No. If BMI is run as a separate entity, I don't want to see what your contract will be like - and more especially your pay - ninety days after the take over at the end of the TUPE period. See what is happening in Madrid at the moment for guidance. :eek:

This is exactly what BA (and BMI) pilots are being given the opportunity to avoid.

Oh dear!

The Count can't help himself with his 'B_S'.

Count, if you want to wallow in misery after BASSA's catastrophic failures, then start a thread all of your own eh? Please don't troll and try and hijack a thread, that is being sensibly debated by others!!

Much is made of what BA pilots desire out of the acquisition of BMI by IAG. What do the BMI pilots want?

As for the BMI guys, do you really want to be part of a dysfunctional airline that is racked with industrial relations problems, and be the catalyst of a pernicious downward spiral of pay and conditions at BA?

Just to add a perspective, a very senior manager at BA told me that if BMI is a stand-alone opco at LHR, he fully expects IAG to wait 6 months, and offer slashed pay and T&C's as a take it or leave it. He believes IAG are happy to sit out any ensuing strike, and only then will they start the transfer across of routes and investment.

Either way we are all between a rock and a hard place:hmm:

Operating a standalone Company on a different AOC with separate crewing, ops departments and all the other paraphernalia surely cannot be successful.

Very successful actually, although poorly paid, its called B.A. Cityflyer. If one cuts cost to the bone it is not pretty but it can be used keep the BA group flag flying.

For the BMI guys and new entants to BA Lite (there will never be any further recruitment to BA Mainline, just stagnation)

Ref: BA Cityflyer.

The problem Wiggy that BA's cabin crew had were the decisions of two judges, who annulled ballots and granted BA injunctions, the first time because the judge was using arguments outside of her remit, and the second time the judge considered it so grave that BASSA had not informed the whole membership of 11 spoilt ballot papers.

It is something to consider amongst those who are calling for a NO vote now. BA will use every legal means to thwart strike action and overturn a democratic ballot via the 'Establishment'. Judges will never favour workers who wish to disrupt commerce. Today in every day parlance, this sort of managment action is now known as "British Airways tactics"

During the cabin crew dispute it was clear that sympathetic BALPA reps were prepared to marshall their members to act as strike breakers. Although other groups of BA workers followed suite, it was the authority and leadership of BA's pilots in being at the vanguard of undermining BASSA's plans, that encouraged the VCC programme. Now BA's flight crew are on the receiving end and in a terrible quandary.

BALPA will be placed in an invidious position if Walsh's deal is rejected. It naturally goes against the instincts of its members to 'kick over the traces', who thought by cosying up to Walsh they would garner a halo protection from a fellow aviator and ex-union negotiator. The treatment of BA's cabin crew in having their staff travel taken away, and many strikers dismissed including the Branch Secretary of BASSA, was a shop window for all BA employees of what sanctions would be meted out if they fall out of line.

Walsh has calculated that the BMI takeover is an opportunity not to be missed. I suggest that if anyone is in doubt where Walsh is going and why he was protected over the T5 opening debacle, you need to study his 'Triple A' plan. In this paper his concept of a global premium airline with a low cost base is spelt out.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tauF3oujGBYJ:www.thomaslawton.com/pdfs/PaperEMJ.pdf+triple+a+plan+using+turbulence+willie+walsh&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg4I7Ow7fnADHIVVDUl5uBUOiVa-xiUYLCcyBBuZZb6ySL3g_duY4k00NNMOO6we8HmhBj0YACiH-SAGwIMoPSIWMygXrCx_x7V_LEd-AROpYOco_o0qO8FDc_U-6cIaaJV0LeU&sig=AHIEtbQKUZFMzuCBX4Ft8y6UZoreZJkQMg

Now BA's flight crew are on the receiving end and in a terrible quandary

Oh Jeez. We're really not.

No one likes giving up any of their terms and conditions. Just ask anyone thinking about joining SHELL, the last FTSE 100 company to close its final salary pension scheme to new members. One wonders whether somewhere in a galaxy far far away there are a bunch of oil exploring hold poolers bemoaning the current workforce for neglecting the responsibilities of their "stewardship".

Some people around here need to get real. Aviation is a changing game, always has been and always will be. Is this deal perfect? No. What it does do though is ensure that all pilots will remain on a single seniority list. It ensures future opportunites for promotion and is infinitely better than the alternative, which would be to play a game of high stakes poker with a crap hand. You might win 10% of the time, but that is a risk the majority of us are unwilling to take.

So, to review. Does this mean you will earn slightly less over the course of a career? Yes. On balance, is BA still the best outfit to work for in the UK over the long term? Yes.

Like others on these forums have said, if you have a different opinion then head east and try your luck negotiating for better.

Count

There's actually a lot in your post I agree with, especially your comments with regard to the state of the law in the UK and BA's willingness to use it, but you spoilt it all by stating:

it was clear that sympathetic BALPA reps were prepared to marshall their members to act as strike breakers

No, it was not clear ..... and I suspect you know that.


One, singular, 1, BALPA Rep resigned his post to become a Volunteer Cabin Crew Member. Our Comms from the remaining Reps and the Company Council were adamant and consistent in stating that BALPA should remain neutral over the dispute (and with your apparent grasp of UK industrial legislation you will of course understand why BALPA had to be neutral in it's statements and more importantly it's actions.....) There was no attempt by either BALPA as an organisation or it's Reps, to marshall anyone as strike breakers.

Gentlemen. The significance of the analogy between a previous dispute at BA and Walsh's latest efforts, is that united we stand, divided we fall. The clever manipulation by Walsh to involve other employees to "save BA", has diluted trade unionism in the airline and fostered an 'I'm alright Jack' culture. There is always envy within groups of workers in a large organisation about what they consider their worth. Engineers at BA may consider themselves underpaid, and regard baggage handlers as overpaid for the training and skill required for their profession.

In British Airways it seemed everyone disliked the cabin crew..... but coveted their job. Hence the legions of VCC's from dreary dead end jobs in Waterside and Newcastle, who fancied this opportunity to fly as cabin crew. I can assure you that no cabin crew would ever volunteer to be baggage handlers.

BA flight crew are on a hiding to nothing if they consider industrial action, as the rank and file of BA will be turned against them in a blitz of propaganda and rhetoric from IAG in Madrid. They will be accused of shafting the belated efforts of BA management to turn shorthaul around into profitablility. And before you know it, the wrath of Walsh will unleash a holocaust of further attacks on the sacred Bidline, and whist he is at it, the final salary pension scheme will be terminated for current employees. You only have to witness what is going on at Unilever. The final salary pension scheme ended, not due to concerns of the financial viability of the company, but simply to increase shareholder value.


The greatest mistake that BA's pilots made was not to support their cabin crew colleagues. That decision has weakened trade unionism as a whole in BA, and has neutered the will of BA flight crew to fight for anything in the future. This is a defining moment and definitely not a time to roll over as it will only bring a temporary respite. Much worse is in the pipeline.

Not to mention that a strike breaker is someone who is part of a union yet breaks a strike by THEIR union. No pilot was a strike breaker (nor ground staff etc) as none of them are BASSA members.

Count N,

Hollow rhetoric again. You can make your grandiloquent statements about motivation all you like. It doesn't make it true. You purport, time and time again, to speak for the motivation of great swathes of people and to have an insight into their inner psychology, their jealousies and their desires. Not backed up by one simple fact.

So driven are you to lay the blame for the VCC programme at the feet of the pilots that you come out with such hogwash as us acting as vanguards and marshallers of the programme. I defy you to provide one single scrap of proof of this happening. To save you the bother, proof counts as some documentary evidence and not an e-mail from Admin.

Any chance you have of making a cogent, salient point appears to disappear under the weight of your badly disguised discontent with the flight crew community and it serves your argument poorly especially when laced with the narcissism quite often evident in BASSA statements.

BTW, apropos of one part of your statement. We are on a hiding to nothing if we consider industrial action. It's why we're not considering it. It's not an option in this case. As I've mentioned elsewhere to Studli, there isn't a nuclear button on this one - it's the choice of the least worst outcome. Difference is, as much as you'd like to allude to this being some form of divine retribution, one of the outcomes still has us all as the one and only pilot body in the BA OpCo. Not something that can be said of crew due to their union's insistence on going nuclear. Deny it all you will, and allude all you will to this situation being analogous to yours, but the fundamental difference is that right now "legacy" (dreadful word) cabin crew have no prospect of any numbers really swelling their ranks ever again. We're agitating hard to ensure that doesn't happen with us. BA/IAG recognise this is important to us and, unsurprisingly, they attach an opportunity cost to this important element.

That's what we're picking over, not whether or not "our time has come". Our time (and yours and everyone else's) will always have come in this industry. The wise individual and the wise collective recognise this and try to mitigate the effects for their own continued survival. I'd argue that whilst BASSA et al might have fought with a blaze of passion, they did not, ultimately, win for the long run. The retention of what you have got is all well and good but main crew will, to all intents and purposes always be main crew, pursers always pursers and the seniority will not move much around the numbers that are currently there. I know that's already gypping some individuals.

Bear in mind, BASSA by their actions and their words created a lot of VCCs. Piss enough people off and they'll bite you back and whilst the words of DH and his ilk might play well in the cabin crew community, a lot of people considered his demented rhetoric so insulting that they felt no discomfort when presented with the choice of believing the company in the "fight for survival" or BASSA and their continual lambasting and denigration of anyone they decided to turn their laptop against.

As for your insinuation that the judge ruled outside their competency. feel free to run that one past any appeals court you like. Think you'll win? By win, I mean on a solid legal point. Not, we didn't like the result so they must be in BA's back pocket which, let's be honest, is about all that BASSA et al have ever really been able to muster as an argument. Unfortunately for you the law doesn't revolve around your sense of righteous indignation. You failed on a point of law. It would behove you greatly to act in an adult fashion and work out a more watertight attempt next time rather than trying to make playground insinuations.

I've said this to you before and I rather think this time I'll stick to it but we're going round in circles here. You prefer the grandiose statements of "fact" backed up with ephemeral and cryptic references to the motivations of individuals and groups. I prefer dealing with the here and now and what I consider to be the pragmatic whys and wherefores. You will, naturally, disagree, and point to Wikipedia definitions of solidarity and unionism that do not play in the current legislative theatre.

And on that note, I'll leave it because this is so far off topic as to be virtually irrelevant.

A few points regarding attempts at post-event rationalisation/rewriting history:

1. Can we please drop the tasteless (and very familiar from a recent industrial dispute) references to a "holocost".

2. It is worth recalling that the VCC programme was only launched after BASSA announced 12 days of industrial action over the Christmas period. An act which completely squandered any support/benefit of the doubt for cabin crew. I would surmise that (and the fact that every other department was doing their bit to make savings), more than anything else, prompted support for the VCC programme, not envy of the cabin crew role, nor pilots. And I doubt anyone realistically thought that by volunteering as VCC they were gaining special protection or the right to call in a favour from the company.

3. The 12 days of industrial action was of course stopped by a court injunction. Aside from this being a blessing in disguise for all, the reason why BA obtained an injunction was because of the not insignificant errors of BASSA balloting circa 1,000 members who weren't eligible to vote, BASSA Chair Lizanne Malone giving incorrect advice on eligibility to vote, and BASSA going ahead and calling a strike even though it had been given warning of voting irregularities.

Most might say that the injunction against the 2nd ballot wasn't justified, but BA doesn't make the law and if it's advised that the industrial action can be stopped by an injunction, it has a fudiciariy responsibility to do so.

4. There is absolutely no doubt that at the time the company was facing very severe trading conditions with a very large fall in long haul premium traffic revenue and not tackling the cost base simply wasn't an option. Anyone who thinks that the company was pulling a stunt should look at BA's financial accounts for the year ended 31 March 2010. In that financial year the company had to contend with a fall in revenue of £1bn. In spite of this, to give management some credit, they managed to keep the operating loss broadly constant. This was thanks in part to a £600m fall in the fuel bill. If fuel had gone the other way, there was every possibility the company could have gone bust or lost the confidence of creditors and investors. And if the latter happens things can spiral out of control very quickly.

You need only look at the announcement Thomas Cook made to the markets late last year about the state of its finances and the effect that had to see how confidence in a travel business can easily be lost.

Now back to the bmi integration.

Count

you have several problems.

You don't seem able to understand the nature of this, or previous, industrial issues.

You are suffering from written "diarrhea". Just because one uses a lot of long words it doesn't necessarily mean they have relevance or purpose.

Try to accept that the cabin crew dispute didn't fail because of "strikebreakers", or judges, or 1 BA captain, or "the law" ,or other staff groups covetting the crew job, or that it was even Willie's fault. Stop telling and repeating lies.

Wrong issues, wrong timing, poor leadership!

For just 1 day engage an open mind , read some facts, and consider whether Bassa gave you accurate information and advice. And where is the money??

More and more crew seem to exercising the brains and their rights recently.
People like the Count are on the way out - or have already gone.

So that's a YES then. Done deal. Fait accompli.

Thank you. It has been an interesting debate.

Why don't you take your mind off it & go to the sales Luvvie !

The way I see it, there is a big analogy between a point in the BASSA negotiations with the company and where BALPA are now.

That point was about 6 months in from memory when BA offered to withdraw the threat of Mixed Fleet from the table. Unfortunately, with a total lack of imagination, any attempt at serious negotiation, or offsetting some of the frankly ludicrous legacy agreements that could have been signed away by cabin crew (Early report day?) BASSA decided to stick with the "Just say no" approach.

As a result my partner is now in a declining fleet, with little or no promotion prospects, a reducing destinations list, no ability to increase her part time contract.

The same thing applies to the pilots now.... We are in a position where we either decide to say no and wait for IAG to make the next move which would be BA Express at Heathrow, or try and integrate BMI pilots into the master seniority list, securing their future when frankly they were heading for redundancy. This secures not only BA's position at Heathrow but secures further expansion, while pay protecting BMI entrants under TUPE legislation.

As for Max Angle's quote:

No we don't, or at least I don't. Please vote NO to the proposals.

Please feel free to leave as frankly I don't want to give anything from MY T&C's to support people with your attitude. I like the current proposal about as much as you but we are left with little choice if we want to maintain a vibrant airline with career prospects. If you want to have a crack at working under IAG and see if you maintain your current working conditions, pay and pension under a new LoCo setup then you are most welcome to have a go. You would have no protection under TUPE, no job security etc. I admit your optimism but feel it is VERY misplaced...

Suggestions that saying NO to BA's shopping list of demands by the cabin crew union, would preclude the establishment of the Mixed Fleet is pure fantasy. Project Columbus had been floated for at least 18 months before the cabin crew dispute and the blueprint, like what is happening to Flight Crew now, is at QANTAS.

There is no way BA were going to be blown off course from their main objective to establish a new cabin crew fleet. And this is the point all of the posters here have missed, the cabin crew dispute was union busting pure and simple, hidden behind a facade that a negotiated settlement was possible.

Also it is naivety in the extreme to suggest that it was possible to reason with the current management regime. BA will not integrate Mixed Fleet even though it has proved to be a disastrous decision, and the fleet has had to be removed from AMS and ATL for reasons of customer service.

If BA want to start BA Express and that is their ultimate objective, feeding the crocodile by accepting the current deal will only ensure a more aggressive attack later by Walsh, as the will to fight is diluted by the assimilation of BMI flight crew.

Count, you have that the wrong way round.

Just saying no DIRECTLY led to the establishment of Mixed fleet, it didn't preclude it.

I also don't understand why you think the assimilation of BMI would reduce our will to fight? As it stands, if BMI don't get integrated their future is extremely uncertain in terms of the T&C's they would be on in the standalone company under IAG. They would have no protections and BA flight crew would legally be unable to support them if they decided to challenge the company on their new terms.

As it stands we will be one workforce. At the end of the day I am taking a pay cut and a drop in my terms and conditions so the BMI pilots can come into BA and maintain theirs.

Whether the proposals are accepted or rejected will have no real long term effect on whatever plans WW has for BA /bmi, the end result will still be the same, he will get his low cost operation for short haul, it may take a bit longer to happen if there is a no vote, but happen it will !. All this current "offer" is meant to do is to keep the troops quiet whist bmi is swallowed up, and when that is all done and dusted the low cost issue will reappear.

Make no mistake, this is a smokescreen designed to hide the ambush hiding down the road, it may well be better to put up a fight now than try and defend your position later when you will be holding a much weaker hand to play.

Lo-Cost from LHR? What is everyone smoking?

Lo-Cost from LHR? What is everyone smoking?


Ok, at a significantly lower cost base than the current operation, you work out where the cost savings will be made, I know what my money is on.

I am an easyJet pilot, but have watched this debate with some interest. Can someone in-the-know please tell me why any BA pilot would want a BMI pilot to be given full seniority when they join BA? It is inconceivable to me that the BA pilots would agree to anything that damages their members' interests - and who could blame them?

Meerkat, you obviously don't understand the situation Walsh has put the BA pilots in as an alternative do you? Are you kicking yourself for leaving BMI in the past?

please tell me why any BA pilot would want a BMI pilot to be given full seniority when they join BA?

Meerkat, who has said they do?

Seniority cannot be discussed by law (TUPE) until a ballot rules in favour of integration.

''VIRGIN seems to survive without a shorthaul network to feed its routes''.

Having once worked for them, I would say that Virgin has survived despite the lack of a shorthaul network. They have always commented that their business model is different and that they don't need one, but they are limiting themselves to a restricted market - and I'm convinced it has hurt them in the past. What they should have done may years ago is tied up with BMI to create a more flexible network - then they would have created a more credible threat to BA's market share. But the antipathy betwwen Branson and Bishop made that scenario an impossibility.

I now work for a regional airline in Asia which was bought five years ago by it's larger longhaul neighbour. What the longhaul operator got was a network of feeder route in a very lucrative market for it and it's One World partners, including BA. Recently, I flew the CEO of the group on the jumpseat. I asked him if they knew how much value the aquisition of our airline had added to the bottom line. He mentioned that due to the ticket structuring, the actual increase in revenue was nealry impossible to calculate accurately, but there was no doubt that the aquisition was very important, which is why they paid twice the market value for us. A company ignores feeding it's long haul routes at their peril.



Sorry for the thread drift. Good luck guys and gals.

At this point in time, TUPE doesn't matter a jot. BMI is being bought in total by IAG, it is not being merged, so no-one is changing their T&C's.

it is not being merged, so no-one is changing their T&C's.

But that's the whole point of our vote - if we vote Yes then BMI will be merged and our T's & C's will be changed. BMI crew will then be protected by TUPE and seniority will be discussed and a decision taken. All of this to be concluded by Jan 31st.........

Lo-Cost from LHR? What is everyone smoking?

I'm afraid it's only a matter of time. LHR must be the only major airport in Europe which DOESN'T have lo-co flights (But I'm prepared to be corrected on that if some are already sneaking in). Harps, Orange Tails, Air Berlin, German Wings and Vueling (owned by IAG) are everywhere else.

EZY has bases in CDG, ORY, FCO, MXP, MAD and SXF (soon to be THE Berlin airport); it will soon have one in LIS and it is always talking to CPH, ARN and AMS (where it already has a massive number of daily flights in and out). It should have one in BRU but the authorities there stubbornly insist on their high charges. Keep your eyes on MUC.

RYR mostly avoids major airports - for the moment.

Yes, it's only a matter of time.

BA's flight crew should be careful that once again, after their dreadful conduct during the cabin crew dispute, that they do not behave like a spooked herd.

It is deja-vu all over again as figures are pulled out of hats to prove a particular point, that suits someone's agenda to push through a YES vote. Like the concession BALPA made over the A380 and Airbus type ratings, accepting this deal is the thin end of the wedge.

What I am most surprised about is that the BA pilots did not see this coming. They thought after the assistance they gave to Walsh serving drinks in the cabins, that they were the special ones. Even BA's fraud policy on upgrading was re-written to accomodate them moving mates of mates via Fleetlist. No amount of intellectual and eloquent negotiations is going to get them out of this one. They may need to push the button.

What BA's flight crew should understand is that BA Express is not just about LHR. It will grow and there will be bases around Europe, possibly harmonising operations with its Spanish counterpart. It is the only way to fight Easy and RyanAir long term. Walsh is going to place his tanks on their front lawn.

If this gets through, then BA pilots may as well give up on BALPA and join the Air Transport section of UNITE, just for the legal cover.

Everyone please ignore "Count".

He is just looking to wind us up, and maybe even get someone into trouble by responding carelessly.

He (she) is talking rubbish.

... it may well be better to put up a fight now than try and defend your position later when you will be holding a much weaker hand to play.

If we put up a fight now, we have been told in no uncertain terms that BMI will not be integrated. That will give us a much weaker hand in the future when the separate company could be used to break a mainline strike (or vice versa).

That is why BA pilots want BMI pilots on the mainline seniority list.

Filled in your survey yet Count? Should make for some fairly balanced reading..:rolleyes:

Hi Blu,

I don't think you need to worry about advising people to ignore the "Count".

Max Angle, you asked that this proposal be voted against. Aside from some friction from the Cabin Crew, most of whom I have to say are lovely people, I would have thought that this would be a very good thing to happen to the chaps from BMI. I would be interested to know the reasoning behind your request.

One of the biggest assets BA has in my opinion, is the diverse backgrounds from which we have obtained our flight crew and I for one would look forward to working with any BMI people if that should be the way that this pans out. I have been on the receiving end of their hospitality on board on more than one occasion and was always grateful.

Whatever happens, I think most BA flight crew wish you all the best no matter what, and despite suggestions from other quarters, we realise that using you as leverage is not something that individual pilots should be held accountable for.

You do not need to be a master of The Telegraph cryptic crossword to decipher The Count's agenda. ;)

It is naked for all to see.

Ah yes ! Got it :ok:

"Conman Tzar Nite Run"

My personal view is that short haul will inevitably become lower cost over the coming years. Sure, you can´t do anything about the fees and costs of operating from Heathrow itself, but if easyJet can turn around a 320 in 40 minutes by removing the cleaners from the operation then why can´t anyone else? They are even about to trial allocated seating.

Its obvious where the savings will come from. Mixed fleet (already done), cleaners, turnaround times, one class of travel (aka more seats on board)..catering on the shorter sectors... the list goes on.

This is just the natural evolution of the aviation sector.

If this gets through, then BA pilots may as well give up on BALPA and join the Air Transport section of UNITE, just for the legal cover.

I enjoy Count's contributions, they clearly have no understanding of what actually happened in the cabin crew industrial action (beyond the BASSA version of events) and yet are still determined to use it as proof that BALPA is doomed.

I am curious to hear at one of the BAPLA briefings what the original offer was.

I certainly hope that this unpalatable offering (see Steve Rileys 4 bulletpoints) is significantly better than what was first offered by the company.

Otherwise what the hell have I been paying 40 quid a month for?

RE those bulletpoints:

*5% savings to be found within BLRs (sounds very fuzzy to me - but hey thats what the briefings are for I guess)
*Reduction from 30 days leave to 28 - any danger of meeting in the middle at 29?
*Waving the holiday pay claim - is it ok for BA to break the law now then? It is my understanding that it took an appeal court judge to clarify the situation - holiday pay is to be based on basic pay + lost allowances. End of story.
*Re the pay scale I see both sides of the arguement. It was never designed for people to spend 15 plus years on PP24. But also the companys pension scheme is now no longer a defined benefit type. The upshot being you need/desire 15 years at the top of the tree to squirrel away a decent amount of savings to make for a cushy retirement.

Re this final BP - I joined a few years back so will remain on the old payscale (at least until Willy comes back for 'seconds' yet again pleading poverty). Even so, I would be willing to accept a PP29 scale for all (personally foregoing 5 years at the top of the pile) - I think this would show an appreciation for the changing financial times whilst not leaving all newbies to shoulder the biggest burden.

I think after

1) Several successful attacks on pilot pay and productivity over the past few years
2) Introducing BFD whilst never explaining what it actually is / will become
3) Adjustments (always for the worse) to BLRs
4) Our assistance whilst many CC were being tools in 2010

We deserve more than this intransigence on the part of senior
management.

I looked at this thread expecting to read about the thread topic and find it has descended into the usual BASSAbashing by the usual suspects.

BASSA made mistakes as did we all but we achieved an honourable negotiated Settlement Agreement, recognising our Union and promising to abide by our industrial agreements.

Upholding that agreement and the new behaviours required of it is challenging for both sides but a recent joint message from both our CEO Keith Williams and the head of Unite Len McCluskey, addressed not only to BASSA members but our whole IFCE department including our managers, shows the commitment the Leadership Team have to making it a success.

Moving forward, our dispute exposed a dysfunctionality that goes deeper than just our Cabin Crew Union. The New Year is bringing new initiatives, including closer collaboration between Flight Ops and IFCE and Beyond the Flight Deck. The senior Cabin Crew have been invited to take part in a confidential survey to identify Flight Crew behaviours which would support our community and cement the foundations of the refreshing new relationship required of our Settlement Agreement.

The Cabin Crew dispute saw an anti Cabin Crew sentiment become accepted as the cultural norm by some but peace has restored dignity to our profession. We may not be as technically qualified or highly trained as other employees but our role is as important. Indeed innovative developments, such as equipping the Senior Cabin Crew with I Pads and the newly launched Flywell forum, are empowering and up-skilling us whilst making us more productive. Plans for CSDs to manage their own teams and harnessing our community’s knowledge and passion to improve the customer experience will reduce our departments overheads, as ground positions duplicating these functions can be cut from the business.

Back to the thread topic. If the merger goes ahead our new Flight Crew colleagues can expect to be welcomed to a Company that does not tolerate bullying and a Cabin Crew community ready to support them if should they be subjected to any.

Our Company is reportedly recruiting 800 Pilots over the next few years and the newly acquired short haul slots are predicted to be used for long haul flights. With new aircraft rolling out too, this is an exciting time of expansion and those Pilots who are junior now will benefit long term, with opportunities for promotion and fleet movement if they merge with BMI.

A ‘NO’ vote may not affect your terms and conditions in the short term but any future expansion will undoubtedly take place on the lower cost BMI fleet. My humble advice would be for the junior Flight Crew to persuade the senior Pilots to vote to accept the deal, to give themselves a future.

Instead of focusing on the Cabin Crew and obsessing about BASSA and rising to the bait offered by the Count, I recommend you all engage with your Association Reps to discuss how you will achieve the required productivity to seal the deal, as it has an expiration date.


The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions.

Well that's us told to behave - I think :confused: .....

My humble advice would be for the junior Flight Crew to persuade the senior Pilots to vote to accept the deal, to give themselves a future.


I'm perplexed by that strange comment and I wonder what you base it on?

What gives you the impression there's a senior/junior split?

I recommend you all engage with your Association Reps to discuss how you will achieve the required productivity to seal the deal, as it has an expiration date.



Err thanks - we already are ( still :confused:.)

BASSA made mistakes as did we all but we achieved an honourable negotiated Settlement Agreement, recognising our Union and promising to abide by our industrial agreements.

Having seen recent comms from "Admin" of Bassa, the promise mentioned above seems to have passed them by.

Now back to topic.

Nope - never worked for BMI or BA. My question stands, however - what possible reason would current BA pilots have to integrate the BMI pilots anywhere other than the bottom of their seniority list? It is a genuine question. Sure, let the current captains remain as captains on type as long as they do not change fleet, but what argument can there be to put anyone ahead of current BA pilots? If, for example, 50 pilots with 20+ years' seniority on the BMI list appear at that same point on the BA list, will they not all next year be claiming 747 and 777 commands? Why would the BA pilots do that to themselves?

Having left BMI (or BM as it was then ) in 1996 having joined in 87, I was wondering how that would possibly be the case too.
I admit to having very little understanding or interest in the TUPE rules having long ago forsaken the UK for pastures less brown (well, in most respects) but it seems to me BA/IAG whatever you want to call it, are buying Bish's Baby so I would have expected that being tagged on the end of a BA seniority list was a result for anyone from BMI.
I would be mightily p1ssed off had joined I BA in 87, & now found myself about to have a (ex) me slotted in ahead in seniority, having worked for BA for the square root of b*gger all days/years. Shome mishtake shurely ? ? or does it really work like this ?
If it does, it just goes to show, I should have stayed put in 96 :ugh:
This could become my second biggest career regret after failing to get into BCAL in 86 having failed to impress the Ozzie (?) bloke at the final interview :{

Nope - never worked for BMI or BA. My question stands, however - what possible reason would current BA pilots have to integrate the BMI pilots anywhere other than the bottom of their seniority list?

And how is it possible that, through no fault of their own, pilots who wind up having flown for an airline that has been turned into a train wreck by its management, have to suffer the loss of 20+ years seniority (in your example), just because their airline happens to be being bought by another?

Explain to me how that is fair?

Doctors must laugh at the lunacy of our industry...that we could ever allow that to happen.

But then, at EZY, its every man for himself isn't it?

:E

But I'm still having trouble realising how, if BA pilots vote "No", bmi can expand at their expense at a slot-constrained airport...unless the BA brand is to be sacrificed? If bmi is not going to be integrated, then are people really saying WW will grow bmi, or whatever the new entity will be called, at the expense of BA?

And at the point he tries to shuffle work in bmi's direction, the bmi pilots dig their heels in for BA T&C's - after all they're now doing "BA" work - isn't everyone a winner?

At that point you might as well merge the operation(s).

The difference between this and the J*/Qantas situation, is that the proposal is centred on a seriously slot-constrained airport. WW doesn't have the flexibility to "outsource" work to his new cheap airline via alternative hubs.

Maybe I'm missing something.

SR71, I subscribe to your sense of "fairness", but, regretably, the big bad world generally doesn't.
So, if you work for a company that is fecked, by association, you too. . .are fecked.
Unfortunately, for the hard working individual who made (with the benefit of hindsight :hmm: ) the "wrong" choice, that, as we (used to ) say is "how the cookie crumbles" :bored:

You have to see it from both points of view, had I not left BMI in 96 with 9 years service, well I guess you can see my political campaigning direction, had I joined BA in 87 ? I would probably wish to strangle the "other me", or more pertinently the BritishAirwaysLinePilotsAssociation for allowing it to happen.

Fairness is a painting, which (like most worthwhile paintings)what you see, may vary greatly depending on where it is viewed from.

Explain to me how that is fair?

This comment keeps cropping up all over the place in recent years, and I'm really struggling to understand what the **** its got to do with anything. Our politicians are hell bent on destroying the country in an attempt to make things more 'fair'. Why let some people get unfairly rich - why not make everyone poor - thats much fairer.

Since when was life supposed to be fair? It is what it is. There are many claims you can make in the british (and most other) legal systems. however "It ain't fair guv'nor" isn't one of them.

Bottom line is BMI is donald ducked. I supposed the 'fairest' option would be to let it go bust, put all the pilots in the job centre and let them apply for BA jobs along with everyone else, and let the slots go to the highest bidder. That option sounds very egalitarian to me
However I suspect the BMI pilots would like the 'unfair' option of being parachuted into BA mainline, with BA job security and benefits, albeit with a loss of seniority.
However as has been said before the seniority question only arises IF its is merged into BA. if it remains standalone, then it is irrelevent, as is TUPE as its not got anything to do with BA.

SR71 - At easyJet it is not 'every man for himself'. Indeed, compared to what is unfolding at BA/BMI, our takeovers of GB Airways ang Go were positively gentlemanly. Everyone kept their positions, including Training Captains. Many people at Go received massive payouts and the GB guys got varying degrees of compensation deals. On one hand the more senior GB captains ended up on a lower salary, but offsetting that numerous GB FOs are now captains who would not have been under their previous employer. Not having a seniority list proved a great blessing as it was one less thing to fight over. No takeover or merger is perfect, and ours were no exceptions, but in retrospect they went about as well as any of these events ever do.

There is no doubt that if you are a BMI pilot then the current situation seems both unfair and very depressing. It may indeed be the case that BMI management have created the effective destruction of their own company. Nonetheless, that is hardly the fault of BA pilots, who not unreasonably will take the view that is someone else's problem. Having been on the receiving end of a company bankruptcy with all the fears and anxieties that generates, I have nothing but sympathy for the BMI pilots. However, I also fully understand the reasons why the BA pilots will not budge an inch. I also have to observe that were the tables reversed, the BMI pilots would not budge an inch either. The bottom line is that if your company goes up the spout, your seniority, alas, counts for nothing - nor should it, if that would disadvantage the current employees of your new company.

Chief Brody has a number of valid points.

What you will find many BMI pilots consider fair is the fact that they integrated the BMed pilots on Date Of Joining. This was initially fround upon by the BMI pilots but were instructed by BALPA HQ that this was the most legal and fair way of dealing with this subject under TUPE.

It is for this reason that many BMI pilots will feel particualarly letdown by BALPA if BALPA then does a monumental U-turn in what it advocates as the legitimate formula for bringing two companies together. I am no legal expert but by my reckoning they would be seen as offering impartial and false advise if anything other than what they advised BMI staff were employed in this example. I'm not saying its right or wrong but BALPA can't say that combining seniority lists HAS to be done in a particular way because it's the law to one group and then spin a different line when the circumstances are repeated a couple of years later, unless the law has changed?

With regard to DanAir, CityFlyer etc, the same point applies. However, in these cases the TUPE law MAY have changed since that time, which may well be why what was deemed a solution then (bottom of the seniority list) may not be applicable now.

Notice that there are a number of MAYs in my posting. I am merely suggesting and hoping that someone who actually is current and familiar with TUPE law would shed some light on this subject. At this time there is so much rumour and conjecture, that it is difficult to see the wood from the trees.

As a final point and something that I have read about somewhere in one of these forums, why isn't BALPA playing a more active part? What have they negotiated in terms of the proposal? Is there not something that they can do whereby an agreement is reached between the two Company Councils that they will not allow workers from either Company to operate the others routes. If this were the case, BA/BMI pilots could both continue to exercise their rights to Industrial Action without fear of the other party operating their routes temporarily. I believe that BA BALPA has about a 98% membership and BMIs membership is well into the majority of pilots. With so few pilots in either airline not BALPA members, if the Union decread that it's members should not break any picket lines, I would expect that there would be insufficient resources to cover the majority of IA'ed company's flying programme.

Food for thought?!

I am having de ja vu. I seem to remember the exact same conversations happening 4 years ago. Funny thing is the employment lawyers then said there was only one viable solution that would stop the lawsuits
In their tracks. Guess what there was and still is some people who didn't like the result but it was as fair as it could be. People were disadvantaged some got lucky. That was an airline that was in its eleventh hour an fifty ninth minute. The administrators were in and the lights were out. Do you know? It worked out in the end. Btw we ended up with full integration because it was the best option out of some bad choices. Seems like we may have gone full circle IMHO.

Ah yes ! Got it http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

"Conman Tzar Nite Run"
And there was me thinking it was 'Rum, innocent Tarzan'! :E

The Count is nothing more than DH's alter ego. 'Ego' being the word! He can't bear being out of the 'game' and trolls here in an effort to stir things up. All the references to BA cabin crew make it so obvious ..... and so tiresome. A good ignoring will make him fume far more than any response to his drivel.

It's water under the bridge and can't be changed now, but the fact that VS did not win the bid still bugs me. BA would have had a closer competitive equal out of LHR with the BM-VS tie-up. I still cannot fathom why the BA holding company bid was not seen as anti-competitive considering BA's strong position at LHR... Oh well, no use living in the past.............

I still cannot fathom why the BA holding company bid was not seen as anti-competitive considering BA's strong position at LHR...

Compare Lufty's position at FRA and KLM at AMS, Air France at CDG and you will see that the new IAG will still hold fewer slots by % at LHR.

I still cannot fathom why the BA holding company bid was not seen as anti-competitive .....IAG's bid for BMI does still have to pass final regulatory approval. However, you can be reasonably sure that behind the scenes, even before the final takeover was announced, that IAG had made some preliminary enquiries to see if the purchase was likely to be approved.

...but if easyJet can turn around a 320 in 40 minutes by removing the cleaners from the operation then why can´t anyone else?

LHR has take-off and landing slots which do not automatically lend themselves to these short turnarounds. Adding BMI slots will help but it still won't give the flexibility to do this routinely.

40 mins? Try 25 mins!

But I'm still having trouble realising how, if BA pilots vote "No", bmi can expand at their expense at a slot-constrained airport...unless the BA brand is to be sacrificed? If bmi is not going to be integrated, then are people really saying WW will grow bmi, or whatever the new entity will be called, at the expense of BA?


SR71,

From past experience I believe it would play out something like this...

IAG call for internal tenders for some short haul routes from LHR.

BA Express (BMI), newly created AOC holder (part of BA Group) wins hands down and begins operating with slots owned by BA Group. Plan is to expand BA Express over eg 5 years to expand into BA shorthaul routes through the internal tendering process.

New recruits are given BA Express contracts to sign. Some eg 50% of Left Hand seats in BA Express are ring fenced with BALPA agreement to allow BA SFO's a route to command ( seconded ) before bidding for long haul ( a sweetner to prevent industrial action in the transition ). BA short haul commanders offered longhaul with the newly aquired slots.

BA shorthaul shrinks, BA Express expands.

Eventually as supply of secondees in BA Express dries up commands become available for BA Express FO's, but not able to bid for long haul as BA long haul now recruits seperately for experienced long haul talent.

BA Brand suffers a little in the transition but everything still looks the same on short haul to Jo Public , same uniform, same tail fins, but costs are 2/3 rds, and long haul retains its reputation and expands.

In the end IAG would be very pleased, crew of both companies would be happy but have a nagging sense that they had just been shafted.

Has the company confirmed that 'BA Express' would be LHR based?

A much more likely outcome to a no vote IMHO would be the creation of BA Express at LGW with terms and practices that allow it to compete with easyjet on bucket and spade routes - the company could then been seen to allow LGW pilots to 'choose' to move to LHR on mainline terms or stay but on BA Express terms.

Some people on this forum seem to think that a pilots salary alone can turn an airline from legacy to low - cost, a lot more needs to change at BA SH LHR than just pilot salaries and with the slots, capacity constraints, and BA's need to align connections at LHR I don't see that happening.

And the fact no low cost operater put a bid in for BMI means the industry can't see it as a viable option either.

The likely outcome is that BA pilots vote yes and bmi mainline at LHR is integrated into BA, simple as that folks.

Count - Good man! At last I've found someone here with their glass half-full.

1033 - Quote "What you will find many BMI pilots consider fair is the fact that they integrated the BMed pilots on Date Of Joining. This was initially fround upon by the BMI pilots but were instructed by BALPA HQ that this was the most legal and fair way of dealing with this subject under TUPE.

It is for this reason that many BMI pilots will feel particualarly letdown by BALPA if BALPA then does a monumental U-turn in what it advocates as the legitimate formula for bringing two companies together. I am no legal expert but by my reckoning they would be seen as offering impartial and false advise if anything other than what they advised BMI staff were employed in this example. I'm not saying its right or wrong but BALPA can't say that combining seniority lists HAS to be done in a particular way because it's the law to one group and then spin a different line when the circumstances are repeated a couple of years later, unless the law has changed?"


Sorry for the long post but an excellent point made by 1033. Yes, just what WOULD Balpa look like if they did a u-turn? Guess this would be an awkward time for them.

Quote from Studi - "Willy would be in deep shit if he would be fighting with pilots in LHR and MAD."

Well Studi, Willy has already proved he likes a scrap and won't be pushed around. Why do you think he heads up IAG now?

He has very cleverly gone to a lot of trouble to devise what is a difficult choice for the pilots themselves to make as he knows the havoc they could cause if they feel pushed around, so the choice is theirs alone. But it is clear what he wants and if said pilots make the wrong decision watch out for Plan B to be exercised and standby to receive the revenge dished up cold.

It is cleverly divisive as well as the BA seniors will truly believe it won't affect them the know it will. Again every man for himself I guess. It will be interesting to see the result, how lucky do you feel?

goerring....

Well written and I think if the 'NO's are successful that is a very likely outcome!

[QUOTE]and IF BA Express was created, to fight to get the T&C to BA levels thant to just give 24pp away for nothing./QUOTE]

If BA Express IS created (it will be if the NO voters win - it is all about unit costs) then the 24 pay points are given away completely anyway. Never mind 34 pay points. The BA Express T&Cs will be in line with Iberia Express - 35k (euro) basic with 3 pay points and 5 years between each one. And it will have plenty of applicants perfectly willing to settle for far less than we hope to secure with 34 pay points. How does anyone propose you fight to get back to where we are now from such a terrible starting position?! We could spend the rest of our careers on strike - it would make no difference. Just voting no and waiting to see what happens next is pretty much the same as pretending the world outside a legacy cockpit window isn't happening - it is, and we can either adapt and move with it or look the other way and hope for the best.

We can be the ones giving the ultimatum here. A separate airline is unacceptable, it does not mean we have to vote yes to the current deal proposed.

Where would a continuing (possibly re-named) BMI fit into this scenario?
No axe to grind - a genuine question.

What are the proposed bidline rule changes? The proposals are short on detail. How is the 5% productivity going to be achieved? - CAP increase, minimum day credit down from 4.30 hours. Loss of Wrap days? The devil is in the detail which will affect how one votes. If it tastes too bad then its off the menu?

Jockster

It has been stated by BALPA that minimum credit is not up for discussion.

General Questions
How many Aircraft and Pilots do BMI bring to BA in the event of integration?
25 Shorthaul Airbus 320 series aircraft and 2 Longhaul A330 Aircraft. BMI Mainline consists of just over 340 pilots and approximately 600 Cabin Crew.
What specific concessions are BA seeking in exchange for an agreement to integrate BMI into BA?
Pilots are being asked to agree concessions that equate to £10M of annualised savings delivered in full by 2015. These savings would be found by a number of measures which include LHR SH productivity, New Entrant Payscales, changes to leave entitlement and an agreement to remove future Holiday Pay liability.
Why is it necessary to secure agreement from BA Pilots before implementation can proceed?
Key elements of senior management within IAG favoured a standalone solution to the BMI purchase, seeing it as a once in a generation opportunity to create a separate “BA Express” operation at our main base. The BACC was able to influence decision makers within BA and IAG. The agreement of pilots to the changes being proposed will determine whether or not BMI is integrated into BA.
Will a YES vote guarantee integration of BMI into BA Mainline?
Should IAG go ahead with the purchase, after regulatory approval, we have a very clear undertaking from BA CEO Keith Williams that a vote in favour of this package will ensure integration into BA Pilots are the only specific work group being consulted on the changes. All other directorates in BA have accepted that they will either meet the cost targets IAG has approved as part of a proposed integration, or they will lose out on the new BMI work. The company has indicated to us that all ground handling and engineering functions could be carried out by third party contract as necessary. BMI cabin crew may or may not be integrated into Mixed Fleet, but at any rate unit costs will not be permitted to rise above BMI levels.
What stops IAG setting up a Low Cost Carrier anyway even after the BMI integration?
Principally the infrastructure constraints of LHR. There is no spare terminal or runway capacity at LHR and will not be so long as the 3rd runway remains off the table.
Had those within IAG pushing for a standalone option won the day, or should BA pilots reject these proposals, that would have inevitably led to the emergence of ‘BA Express’. Ultimately, key decision makers have been convinced that acceptable operational efficiencies can be found from BA as part of a turnaround plan for BMI and BA Shorthaul combined.
Following the proposed integration of BMI into BA, there will be no other carriers, UK based or otherwise, with sufficient slots and LHR operations to enable a LHR LCC to be set up in the foreseeable future.
What stops IAG transferring assets out of the combined BA/BMI Operation to set up a new Low Cost operation?
The obvious and easiest time to do that would be now, and we have been able to influence them otherwise. For the future the simple answer is SCOPE.
2
On reaching agreement for the merger with BA pilots the 27 BMI aircraft will become part of the BA fleet for the purposes of the Employment Security section (SCOPE clause) of Schedule K. As long as these aircraft are not expressly covered by SCOPE there is a very real risk of IAG seeking to deploy them in a manner highly detrimental to our interests. Once they are covered by the BA SCOPE agreement it would not be possible for IAG to do this without it being a clear breach of our Scope agreement. There have been no material breaches of our SCOPE clause by BA at any time in the past and we would expect the conditions to be honoured in the future.
What is the process that will follow a YES vote by BA Pilots?
BA must consult with BMI pilots about the detail of integration. This is required by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, known as TUPE. We will expand on a number of the specific issues on that point elsewhere in the document.
After the consultation is completed then a plan to implement will be put forward. At this stage it is not clear what the timeline of integration will be but we would expect to see the full integration done without delay given the timeline set for getting the new combined operation to breakeven by 2015.
In the meantime, once the regulatory approval allows the transaction to be completed, other departments will be enacting changes that bring the BMI work “in-house”.
Seniority
What will happen to BMI mainline pilots in the event that BA Pilots reject this package?
If BA pilots vote to reject the package, then BMI mainline pilots will not be integrated into BA Mainline. The BMI mainline aircraft will operate separately to BA Mainline, although they may do so as BA Branded aircraft, such as “BA Express”. The BACC believes that such an arrangement represents the greatest risk to BA Mainline pilots.
What will happen to BMI mainline Pilots in the event of a merger?
They will become British Airways pilots, however the MOU signed between BA and the BACC is very clear. The integration package is conditional on “Seniority arrangements on terms acceptable to BA pilots.”
The BACC position is explicit in its commitment that “No BA pilot will be disadvantaged by the proposed acquisition and integration of BMI”. What does this mean?
We cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation between BA and the BMI Company Council. However, the legal protections enjoyed by BMI mainline pilots under TUPE would not extend beyond the protection of their employment and their existing terms and conditions.
For example, TUPE would not confer on BMI mainline pilots any legal right to
(i) transfer onto other BA fleets or
(ii) be integrated into the BA seniority list. This is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer, which, as we understand it, they wouldn’t be.
3
What will happen to the Seniority lists of the two companies?
As in the previous answers the MOU condition and the BACC position will apply.
BA will be required to inform and consult with BMI mainline pilots under the TUPE Regulations. In addition, the employment and the current Terms & Conditions of BMI mainline pilots would be protected. This means the current BMI seniority arrangements (i.e. the seniority arrangements within the BMI pilot community) would be protected. However, TUPE would not confer on BMI mainline pilots the legal right to join the BA seniority list.
Again, this is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer (which they wouldn’t be). There is, therefore, no legal requirement to merge the BMI and BA seniority lists even in the event that BMI is integrated.
Will BMI pilots displace any existing BA pilot from their current position and seniority?
For the reasons already outlined, we cannot foresee any situation in which an existing BA pilot will be displaced from his current seniority position and status by a BMI pilot. The BACC’s overriding aim is to ensure that no BA pilot is disadvantaged by the integration of BMI mainline.
Will the BMI Integration affect the current (2012) PRIAM result?
No, course allocations and results for 2012 will not be affected in any way. Normal operational issues such as fleet size/network/training resources etc may still result in changes to the course allocation but none of these factors will be down to the integration of BMI.
Will the BMI integration affect future opportunities in the subsequent years’ PRIAM bids?
The Integration of the BMI operation will result in some changes to the shape of BA and its fleets. BMI pilots will be protected under TUPE (as outlined above) and BA pilots will not be disadvantaged as a consequence of the merger. It is difficult to see any outcome therefore whereby a BA pilot PRIAM bid in future years would be adversely affected.
As the operational integration is completed, and BA begins to make full use of the opportunities afforded by this purchase, it is anticipated that more slots will be used for LH services, creating more aspirational opportunities.
Productivity Changes
Why are we being asked to agree to further productivity changes?
IAG have the option to integrate BMI into BA or to run BMI as a separate, stand alone carrier, “BA Express”. IAG and BA have allowed the BACC to determine this critical decision.
IAG is taking a clinical approach to its analysis of individual business units. Each must, in addition to any symbiotic benefit it has (i.e. SH feeding LH), make a profitable contribution in its own right.
When considering our request to integrate BMI, IAG has analysed the turnaround plan for BMI, the effect of integration into a SH business that is not making a profit, and set a cost saving target for BA as a whole to address. Flight Operations proportion of this cost is £10M.
4
Why do the changes fall on Shorthaul alone?
They don’t. Approximately half of the £10M target comes by making improvements to the combined LHR SH productivity, equivalent to 5% of LHR SH unit costs. The balance of the target comes from the other measures such as leave days and addressing the Holiday Pay issue from 2014 onwards.
Why can’t all pilots make a smaller concession to reach the target?
Concessions from all pilots will meet nearly half the target. The 5% of SH productivity from the combined SH business is a condition set by BA. In our assessment it represents the absolute maximum that can realistically be achieved whilst not having a disproportionately detrimental effect on SH lifestyle.
If Flight Operations were to allow “cross-subsidy” of the target, (i.e. spread the target equally across all fleets) IAG would inevitably return to the performance of LHR SH elements of the BA business and, as Stephen Riley’s letter clearly states, would still demand that steps are taken to address our overall LHR SH cost base relative to our direct competitors in the London market.
In other words, if we all give up the equivalent of £10M, (2% of the overall Flight Ops budget) IAG is ultimately still going to demand that SH unit costs are addressed. Therefore, we risk paying twice. We will seek rule changes that minimise the impact on LHR SH lifestyle.
Why don’t we know the specific detail of the rule changes before being asked to vote on the package?
It will take several months to finalise rule changes, while decisions on integration or not need to take place at the end of January 2012. Changes will be phased in from January 2013.
BA needs to integrate the BMI SH aircraft into our current fleet. Network planning will optimise the schedules, removing cross-over, exploring new markets and finally optimising frequencies to make the best possible use of the new assets.
Agreeing specific rule changes in advance of that process being completed means that a change made today may not deliver either the full value that we expect or worse, has a disproportionately negative effect on LHR SH lifestyle.
The requirement under the agreement is to deliver, in full by 2015, the equivalent of 5% of the current LHR SH pilot costs towards this agreement. Once full visibility is achieved on the new Network, we can optimise the rule changes to make the smallest possible impact on lifestyle for the greatest value.
Will LHR SH pilots be given a choice in what rule changes are to be made?
All BA pilots are being asked to commit to the £10M overall target which will contain productivity changes of the order of 5% of LHR SH productivity. At the point that rule changes themselves are agreed, it is anticipated that, if more than one option is available a consultation would take place to establish the preferences from the community for which changes would be made.
5
Any such consultation would not have the option to reject the proposed changes as we would be committed from a YES vote in this ballot to delivering the required cost savings for integration to occur.
Shorthaul lifestyle will have to suffer disproportionately to allow this agreement?
We will work to minimise detrimental impact. In the same way that we were able to meet the BP targets previously without substantial impacts on SH lifestyle, we believe that, given the efficiencies to be found in the new network, well targeted rule changes can deliver the efficiencies required.
BA pilots are being asked to bear all the pain while BMI pilots gain from this integration?
Every BA pilot gains by this integration. By removing the risk of BA having an IAG owned competitor on its doorstep, we end up with greater job security and the LH growth anticipated from this deal should positively impact all BA pilots in the future.
BMI has two main issues. Firstly, it doesn’t make enough revenue because of its inability to feed in to a LH network at its home base. Secondly, its network drives relatively low productivity, with flying hours below 650 hours a year.
A sizeable part of the LHR SH Productivity increase will come from the network efficiencies found in LHR SH that will enable the BMI pilots to get nearer to the 700 hour average that BA pilots currently achieve.
How many more flying hours will SH fly because of this agreement?
Given the current average of around 700hrs achieved on LHR SH we anticipate that the overall increase in flying will be of the order of 30-35 hours per annum. If this is achieved under the present rules, it would equate to less than 8 additional days a year at work. Some suggestion, that we would agree concessions, like the old regional agreement that allowed rosters with as few as legal minimum days off, are way off the mark and not based on the reality of what is being asked for in these proposals.
So will there be extra days at work for SH pilots if we accept this agreement?
All pilots will give up one leave day per season. The LHR SH productivity changes will inevitably mean more days at work, but our aim is to minimise the additional days at work, as pilot feedback is absolutely clear on this objective.
How are LGW members affected by the £10m package?
LGW members would obviously be affected by any “all-fleet” measures such as new entrant pay scales and holiday pay offset and as such LGW members will therefore be included in the BMI integration ballot.
How does this fit in with the separate LGW SH fleet renewal negotiations that are currently taking place?
LGW members have a separate target to meet in order to justify the renewal of the ageing 737 fleet. An additional consultation exercise will take place at LGW in Feb or March. However any savings made by LGW pilots in the measures proposed in the BMI deal will be attributed to any LGW targets raised in the LGW talks.
6
Will BA or IAG be back after this agreement for further concessions in LH or SH?
The aviation industry has been through a period of immense uncertainty since 9/11 and the reality is that we have been forced to respond to a number of challenges provided by external events.
Throughout this period we have delivered employment security on some of the best T&Cs in the industry for BA pilots. We will continue to do that.
Any LHR SH rule changes will address SH unit costs. It is envisaged that 735 hrs a year is approaching the absolute maximum that can be flown by a networked SH airline given the constraints of LHR.
It has been stressed to Keith Williams that pilots are in need of period of stability. However, it would be foolhardy to believe that this agreement offers permanent guarantees, as clearly an external shock or sudden downturn would be looked at on its merits. Nonetheless, BA accepts that these measures address the known competitive SH threat. LH is efficient and cost effective within its market.
34 Point Pay Structure
What are the details of the new entrant 34 Point basic pay structure?
The new entrant basic pay structure will have the same starting and finishing points as the current 24 structure, but it will have a larger number of pay points to reach top of scale. The annual increment is therefore lower than the current 24 point increment.
The progression up the new pay scale is linear, based on one pay point for each year of service in exactly the same way as the current 24 point scale works.
Why 34 Pay Points?
The changes reflect the different career lengths arising from the change to the Age Regulations in 2006. It was for us an essential point of principle that the starting and finishing points for pilots were maintained in these new pay arrangements. The 10 year increase in retirement age is reflected in the extra 10 pay points to reach the top pay point.
What effect does this have on Pensionable pay scales for New Entrant pilots?
NONE. New entrants will be on the current pensionable pay arrangements for existing BA pilots in the BARP scheme. They will achieve PP24 for pensionable pay purposes after 23 years service in exactly the same way as current BARP pilots.
Does this mean that pilots on the current PP24 structure will be forced onto the new 34 Point structure?
NO. BA accepts that a contractual promise exists to pilots on the current structure and only after consultation could they amend the pay arrangements for current pilots. BALPA has no interest in making such a change. The company does, however, control future contract promises that it may issue and it has been a long held desire of BA to address the effects of the Age Legislation changes that afford pilots a potential of 10 extra years at top of pay scale.
Is there a risk to having more than one pay structure in BA. Will it result in pressure in the future to amend the pay point 24 structure?
7
We already have 3 separate pension arrangements in BA and while we would prefer all pilots to enjoy exactly the same terms and conditions, the reality is that market forces and external factors have resulted in changes from APS to NAPS and subsequently from a defined benefit scheme to a defined contribution scheme.
The BACC has been very mindful of how the new basic pay structure is determined, to ensure that it most closely reflects the pay arrangements of the existing BA pilot workforce. The changes are purely in basic pay increments to reflect longer career lengths. All evidence in BA since 2006 is that pilots choose to exercise the right to remain in employment to age 60 and beyond.
Our terms and conditions would be under greater pressure as a result of a NO vote to integration. That would only place even greater pressures on our terms & conditions in future than any in-house payscale differential between pilots on the 24 point structure and the proposed 34 point structure for new entrants. A stand-alone IAG company would have a far more radical solution to pay structures and therefore be the future growth vehicle for IAG in the UK.
Holiday Pay
What does “An agreed mechanism to remove any future liability with respect to the holiday pay ruling” mean?
In September 2011 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) finally ruled in our favour and determined that BA should base pilots' holiday pay on “normal remuneration” or overall earnings and not just on basic pay. We are now waiting for the UK Supreme Court to determine how this ruling will be applied in practice. A hearing at the Supreme Court is expected to take place between April and July 2012.
BA is therefore faced with a retrospective claim back to 2006 which is NOT covered by the agreement you are being asked to vote on. As part of the ongoing legal process, BALPA is therefore still pursuing a claim for retrospective holiday pay going back to 2006.
As part of the £10M in concessions being sought by BA for the BMI agreement, BALPA believes a measure that mitigates any future liability from 2014 onwards is a preferred way to help meet this financial target. Any monies accrued up to that point are not covered by the proposed BMI agreement and will continue to be claimed by BALPA. It remains our clear intention to make sure that all BA members receive the retrospective holiday pay they are owed by BA as soon as possible and certainly before 2014.
Subject to this ballot being approved BALPA will negotiate a mechanism that effectively deals with Pilots reduced pay whilst on Annual Leave. It would most likely be an amendment to the Variable Pay structure that means a pilot is not worse off in months when on leave than in months that contain no leave.
Will I be getting my retrospective Holiday Pay or has this been given up?
As indicated above, BALPA is continuing to claim retrospective holiday pay on your behalf (back to 2006) and will do everything it can to ensure that you receive the money you are owed as soon as possible. This will be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing which we expect to take place later this year. The time period of the claim will be from January 2006 to the date on which we implement the agreed mechanism for removing any future liability (probably 1 January 2014).
8
We have not waived our right to retrospective payments, given up our claim to such pay, or conceded any rights in this agreement. None of the agreement being voted on here prejudices the legal victory on Holiday Pay entitlement.
When will BA pay the Holiday Pay Claim or can they be forced to pay it by us agreeing the mechanism in this agreement?
BA has indicated that it wants to wait and see what the final Supreme Court ruling is on the issue as this will determine their exact liability. The amount credited under the agreement represents a best estimate on the value of the claim, based on the ECJ ruling last year. It represents approximately 25% of the £10M target set by BA.
However until the exact liability is known BA will almost certainly wait to make payment. In the meantime Holiday Pay entitlement continues to accrue from the date of the first submission.
Will I will be worse off than I am now under this agreement?
We intend to make sure that you receive, subject to the conclusion of the legal process, Holiday Pay in accordance with our claim. Until we reach agreement on the mechanism with BA you will continue to accrue entitlement. Under this agreement we will see the following benefits rather than BA seeking to simply recover the monies in some other manner.
Firstly we meet a significant proportion of our cost target, almost a quarter in fact, by reaching agreement on a payment that we have so far not received.
Secondly, we intend to use this opportunity to address some of the large variability in pay between months where leave is taken and those where a full month is worked. For most pilots having greater certainty of earnings is of benefit.
Can BA use our agreement here as the basis to challenge the ECJ ruling?
NO. We have categorically not waived our entitlement to Holiday Pay under this agreement.
The Ballot Process
What will happen next?
The BACC will be holding General Members Meetings on Tuesday 10th, Wednesday 11th , Thursday 12th and Tuesday 17th at Heathrow. There is also a GMM at Gatwick on Monday 16th January. Full details have been sent separately about these.
On, or immediately after January 13th the BACC will be issuing a unique Voter ID to either the email address that we hold on file for you or, for those members who choose to receive paper communications only from BALPA to their home address.
The ballot will be conducted electronically. Full details of the voting process will be contained within this communication.
Why is the ballot being conducted electronically and not by post?
A postal ballot would require a minimum of 21 days to complete and given that full details of the proposed package were only sent on January 4th members will need sufficient time to attend the GMM’s and then vote. IAG have been clear that a decision from pilots, that will determine whether integration occurs, cannot be allowed to delay the process of seeking
9
regulatory approval. To ensure the longest possible briefing period while meeting this requirement we will use a widely accepted ballot tool to conduct this ballot.
Is this ballot binding in the same way as a postal ballot?
The ballot result is binding in exactly the same way that the BACC would consider the result of a consultative postal ballot. The software being used is recognised and used by a number of other unions as being very effective for consulting with members. It is software that BALPA has used in other CC’s to conduct both survey and ballot processes.
When will the ballot close?
Full details will be contained within the ballot briefing package.
When will the result be published?
Immediately after the closure and the results have been collated.

Err, would you mind formatting that a bit. I'm sure it's all very interesting, but it's more than my tired brain can take.

Just a quick question to somebody that might know; it's probably splitting hairs, but I am interested to know if it is clearly spelled out in the terms of the vote.

Is my understanding correct thinking that a 'Yes' vote by the BA pilots says that they agree to various concessions regarding productivity, etc. in order to allow bmi to be integrated?
If so, following a 'Yes' vote are BA compelled to go ahead with the integration? - or, could WW, having tested the water & through the vote currently underway with the pilot community having "shown their hand"- decide that, after all he still prefers the idea of a standalone operation, unless the pilots agree to give up 'xyz', etc. etc.
I only mention it having seen the results of discussions between pilots & mgmt where all the i's & t's weren't completely dotted & crossed; only to find that the airline's lawyers have discovered a little chink in the pilots' armour & have ruthlessly exploited it.

Edit: in the time it's taken to post this I think the above post covers it!

Whilst I have appreciated and commented on the support and positive attitude of nearly all the BA pilots on here and in person, I cant help but read an underlying negative possible hostile attitude towards BMI pilots in the BACC document kindly posted by buzz boy.

Very disappointing :hmm:

Buzz boy,

Thank you for sharing this Q&A with us!

Regards

Doesn't that document also say that anyone unable to spell "disappointing" is barred from becoming a BA pilot? :rolleyes:

Does the document also mention anything with regards online idiots who spend all their time trying to cause petty disputes on pprune that distract from the real issue?

Whats up Blu, are you missing the count, billym, plus anyone else you can start an argument with?

Grow up! :ugh:

Calm down, girls.

As someone who most likely will join the line sometime in 2014, I hope to join BA mainline rather than another subsidiary carrier.

I prefer not to stray from the thread, and I realise the words 'most likely' were used; however I have an inkling that the integration of just over 340 pilots into BA spells sh1t news for potential DEPs and members of the FPP. PP34 may be a far off dream if such services are no longer required.

For the benefit of SayAgainSlowly, (and my own) I have taken the liberty attempting some formatting of Buzz Boy's very interesting and informative post. I hope it makes it easier to read, knowing the difficulties sometimes encountered in sending posts from down route. I apologise if I have ^%£$* anything up. I clearly have too much time on my hands.

D.

[quote]General Questions

Q. How many Aircraft and Pilots do BMI bring to BA in the event of integration?
A. 25 Shorthaul Airbus 320 series aircraft and 2 Longhaul A330 Aircraft.
BMI Mainline consists of just over 340 pilots and approximately 600 Cabin Crew.

Q.What specific concessions are BA seeking in exchange for an agreement to integrate BMI into BA?
A. Pilots are being asked to agree concessions that equate to £10M of annualised savings delivered in full by 2015. These savings would be found by a number of measures which include LHR SH productivity, New Entrant Payscales, changes to leave entitlement and an agreement to remove future Holiday Pay liability.

Q.Why is it necessary to secure agreement from BA Pilots before implementation can proceed?
A.Key elements of senior management within IAG favoured a standalone solution to the BMI purchase, seeing it as a once in a generation opportunity to create a separate “BA Express” operation at our main base. The BACC was able to influence decision makers within BA and IAG. The agreement of pilots to the changes being proposed will determine whether or not BMI is integrated into BA.

Q.Will a YES vote guarantee integration of BMI into BA Mainline?
A.Should IAG go ahead with the purchase, after regulatory approval, we have a very clear undertaking from BA CEO Keith Williams that a vote in favour of this package will ensure integration into BA Pilots are the only specific work group being consulted on the changes. All other directorates in BA have accepted that they will either meet the cost targets IAG has approved as part of a proposed integration, or they will lose out on the new BMI work. The company has indicated to us that all ground handling and engineering functions could be carried out by third party contract as necessary. BMI cabin crew may or may not be integrated into Mixed Fleet, but at any rate unit costs will not be permitted to rise above BMI levels.

Q.What stops IAG setting up a Low Cost Carrier anyway even after the BMI integration?
A.Principally the infrastructure constraints of LHR. There is no spare terminal or runway capacity at LHR and will not be so long as the 3rd runway remains off the table.
Had those within IAG pushing for a standalone option won the day, or should BA pilots reject these proposals, that would have inevitably led to the emergence of ‘BA Express’. Ultimately, key decision makers have been convinced that acceptable operational efficiencies can be found from BA as part of a turnaround plan for BMI and BA Shorthaul combined.
Following the proposed integration of BMI into BA, there will be no other carriers, UK based or otherwise, with sufficient slots and LHR operations to enable a LHR LCC to be set up in the foreseeable future.

Q.What stops IAG transferring assets out of the combined BA/BMI Operation to set up a new Low Cost operation?
A.The obvious and easiest time to do that would be now, and we have been able to influence them otherwise. For the future the simple answer is SCOPE.

2
On reaching agreement for the merger with BA pilots the 27 BMI aircraft will become part of the BA fleet for the purposes of the Employment Security section (SCOPE clause) of Schedule K. As long as these aircraft are not expressly covered by SCOPE there is a very real risk of IAG seeking to deploy them in a manner highly detrimental to our interests. Once they are covered by the BA SCOPE agreement it would not be possible for IAG to do this without it being a clear breach of our Scope agreement. There have been no material breaches of our SCOPE clause by BA at any time in the past and we would expect the conditions to be honoured in the future.

Q.What is the process that will follow a YES vote by BA Pilots?
A.BA must consult with BMI pilots about the detail of integration. This is required by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, known as TUPE. We will expand on a number of the specific issues on that point elsewhere in the document.
After the consultation is completed then a plan to implement will be put forward. At this stage it is not clear what the timeline of integration will be but we would expect to see the full integration done without delay given the timeline set for getting the new combined operation to breakeven by 2015.
In the meantime, once the regulatory approval allows the transaction to be completed, other departments will be enacting changes that bring the BMI work “in-house”.

Seniority

Q.What will happen to BMI mainline pilots in the event that BA Pilots reject this package?
A.If BA pilots vote to reject the package, then BMI mainline pilots will not be integrated into BA Mainline. The BMI mainline aircraft will operate separately to BA Mainline, although they may do so as BA Branded aircraft, such as “BA Express”. The BACC believes that such an arrangement represents the greatest risk to BA Mainline pilots.

Q.What will happen to BMI mainline Pilots in the event of a merger?
A.They will become British Airways pilots, however the MOU signed between BA and the BACC is very clear. The integration package is conditional on “Seniority arrangements on terms acceptable to BA pilots.”
The BACC position is explicit in its commitment that “No BA pilot will be disadvantaged by the proposed acquisition and integration of BMI”. What does this mean?
We cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation between BA and the BMI Company Council. However, the legal protections enjoyed by BMI mainline pilots under TUPE would not extend beyond the protection of their employment and their existing terms and conditions.
For example, TUPE would not confer on BMI mainline pilots any legal right to
(i) transfer onto other BA fleets or
(ii) be integrated into the BA seniority list. This is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer, which, as we understand it, they wouldn’t be.

3
Q.What will happen to the Seniority lists of the two companies?
A.As in the previous answers the MOU condition and the BACC position will apply.
BA will be required to inform and consult with BMI mainline pilots under the TUPE Regulations. In addition, the employment and the current Terms & Conditions of BMI mainline pilots would be protected. This means the current BMI seniority arrangements (i.e. the seniority arrangements within the BMI pilot community) would be protected. However, TUPE would not confer on BMI mainline pilots the legal right to join the BA seniority list.
Again, this is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer (which they wouldn’t be). There is, therefore, no legal requirement to merge the BMI and BA seniority lists even in the event that BMI is integrated.
Will BMI pilots displace any existing BA pilot from their current position and seniority?
For the reasons already outlined, we cannot foresee any situation in which an existing BA pilot will be displaced from his current seniority position and status by a BMI pilot. The BACC’s overriding aim is to ensure that no BA pilot is disadvantaged by the integration of BMI mainline.

Q.Will the BMI Integration affect the current (2012) PRIAM result?
A.No, course allocations and results for 2012 will not be affected in any way. Normal operational issues such as fleet size/network/training resources etc may still result in changes to the course allocation but none of these factors will be down to the integration of BMI.

Q.Will the BMI integration affect future opportunities in the subsequent years’ PRIAM bids?
A,The Integration of the BMI operation will result in some changes to the shape of BA and its fleets. BMI pilots will be protected under TUPE (as outlined above) and BA pilots will not be disadvantaged as a consequence of the merger. It is difficult to see any outcome therefore whereby a BA pilot PRIAM bid in future years would be adversely affected.
As the operational integration is completed, and BA begins to make full use of the opportunities afforded by this purchase, it is anticipated that more slots will be used for LH services, creating more aspirational opportunities.

Productivity Changes

Q.Why are we being asked to agree to further productivity changes?
A.IAG have the option to integrate BMI into BA or to run BMI as a separate, stand alone carrier, “BA Express”. IAG and BA have allowed the BACC to determine this critical decision.
IAG is taking a clinical approach to its analysis of individual business units. Each must, in addition to any symbiotic benefit it has (i.e. SH feeding LH), make a profitable contribution in its own right.
When considering our request to integrate BMI, IAG has analysed the turnaround plan for BMI, the effect of integration into a SH business that is not making a profit, and set a cost saving target for BA as a whole to address. Flight Operations proportion of this cost is £10M.

4

Q.Why do the changes fall on Shorthaul alone?
A.They don’t. Approximately half of the £10M target comes by making improvements to the combined LHR SH productivity, equivalent to 5% of LHR SH unit costs. The balance of the target comes from the other measures such as leave days and addressing the Holiday Pay issue from 2014 onwards.

Q.Why can’t all pilots make a smaller concession to reach the target?
A.Concessions from all pilots will meet nearly half the target. The 5% of SH productivity from the combined SH business is a condition set by BA. In our assessment it represents the absolute maximum that can realistically be achieved whilst not having a disproportionately detrimental effect on SH lifestyle.
If Flight Operations were to allow “cross-subsidy” of the target, (i.e. spread the target equally across all fleets) IAG would inevitably return to the performance of LHR SH elements of the BA business and, as Stephen Riley’s letter clearly states, would still demand that steps are taken to address our overall LHR SH cost base relative to our direct competitors in the London market.
In other words, if we all give up the equivalent of £10M, (2% of the overall Flight Ops budget) IAG is ultimately still going to demand that SH unit costs are addressed. Therefore, we risk paying twice. We will seek rule changes that minimise the impact on LHR SH lifestyle.

Q.Why don’t we know the specific detail of the rule changes before being asked to vote on the package?
A.It will take several months to finalise rule changes, while decisions on integration or not need to take place at the end of January 2012. Changes will be phased in from January 2013.
BA needs to integrate the BMI SH aircraft into our current fleet. Network planning will optimise the schedules, removing cross-over, exploring new markets and finally optimising frequencies to make the best possible use of the new assets.
Agreeing specific rule changes in advance of that process being completed means that a change made today may not deliver either the full value that we expect or worse, has a disproportionately negative effect on LHR SH lifestyle.
The requirement under the agreement is to deliver, in full by 2015, the equivalent of 5% of the current LHR SH pilot costs towards this agreement. Once full visibility is achieved on the new Network, we can optimise the rule changes to make the smallest possible impact on lifestyle for the greatest value.

Q.Will LHR SH pilots be given a choice in what rule changes are to be made?
A.All BA pilots are being asked to commit to the £10M overall target which will contain productivity changes of the order of 5% of LHR SH productivity. At the point that rule changes themselves are agreed, it is anticipated that, if more than one option is available a consultation would take place to establish the preferences from the community for which changes would be made.

5

Any such consultation would not have the option to reject the proposed changes as we would be committed from a YES vote in this ballot to delivering the required cost savings for integration to occur.

Q.Shorthaul lifestyle will have to suffer disproportionately to allow this agreement?
A.We will work to minimise detrimental impact. In the same way that we were able to meet the BP targets previously without substantial impacts on SH lifestyle, we believe that, given the efficiencies to be found in the new network, well targeted rule changes can deliver the efficiencies required.

Q.BA pilots are being asked to bear all the pain while BMI pilots gain from this integration?
A.Every BA pilot gains by this integration. By removing the risk of BA having an IAG owned competitor on its doorstep, we end up with greater job security and the LH growth anticipated from this deal should positively impact all BA pilots in the future.
BMI has two main issues. Firstly, it doesn’t make enough revenue because of its inability to feed in to a LH network at its home base. Secondly, its network drives relatively low productivity, with flying hours below 650 hours a year.
A sizeable part of the LHR SH Productivity increase will come from the network efficiencies found in LHR SH that will enable the BMI pilots to get nearer to the 700 hour average that BA pilots currently achieve.

Q.How many more flying hours will SH fly because of this agreement?
A.Given the current average of around 700hrs achieved on LHR SH we anticipate that the overall increase in flying will be of the order of 30-35 hours per annum. If this is achieved under the present rules, it would equate to less than 8 additional days a year at work. Some suggestion, that we would agree concessions, like the old regional agreement that allowed rosters with as few as legal minimum days off, are way off the mark and not based on the reality of what is being asked for in these proposals.

Q.So will there be extra days at work for SH pilots if we accept this agreement?
A.All pilots will give up one leave day per season. The LHR SH productivity changes will inevitably mean more days at work, but our aim is to minimise the additional days at work, as pilot feedback is absolutely clear on this objective.

Q.How are LGW members affected by the £10m package?
A. LGW members would obviously be affected by any “all-fleet” measures such as new entrant pay scales and holiday pay offset and as such LGW members will therefore be included in the BMI integration ballot.

Q.How does this fit in with the separate LGW SH fleet renewal negotiations that are currently taking place?
A.LGW members have a separate target to meet in order to justify the renewal of the ageing 737 fleet. An additional consultation exercise will take place at LGW in Feb or March. However any savings made by LGW pilots in the measures proposed in the BMI deal will be attributed to any LGW targets raised in the LGW talks.

6

Q.Will BA or IAG be back after this agreement for further concessions in LH or SH?
A.The aviation industry has been through a period of immense uncertainty since 9/11 and the reality is that we have been forced to respond to a number of challenges provided by external events.
Throughout this period we have delivered employment security on some of the best T&Cs in the industry for BA pilots. We will continue to do that.
Any LHR SH rule changes will address SH unit costs. It is envisaged that 735 hrs a year is approaching the absolute maximum that can be flown by a networked SH airline given the constraints of LHR.
It has been stressed to Keith Williams that pilots are in need of period of stability. However, it would be foolhardy to believe that this agreement offers permanent guarantees, as clearly an external shock or sudden downturn would be looked at on its merits. Nonetheless, BA accepts that these measures address the known competitive SH threat. LH is efficient and cost effective within its market.

34 Point Pay Structure

Q.What are the details of the new entrant 34 Point basic pay structure?
A.The new entrant basic pay structure will have the same starting and finishing points as the current 24 structure, but it will have a larger number of pay points to reach top of scale. The annual increment is therefore lower than the current 24 point increment.
The progression up the new pay scale is linear, based on one pay point for each year of service in exactly the same way as the current 24 point scale works.

Q.Why 34 Pay Points?
A.The changes reflect the different career lengths arising from the change to the Age Regulations in 2006. It was for us an essential point of principle that the starting and finishing points for pilots were maintained in these new pay arrangements. The 10 year increase in retirement age is reflected in the extra 10 pay points to reach the top pay point.

Q.What effect does this have on Pensionable pay scales for New Entrant pilots?
A. NONE. New entrants will be on the current pensionable pay arrangements for existing BA pilots in the BARP scheme. They will achieve PP24 for pensionable pay purposes after 23 years service in exactly the same way as current BARP pilots.

Q. Does this mean that pilots on the current PP24 structure will be forced onto the new 34 Point structure?
A. NO. BA accepts that a contractual promise exists to pilots on the current structure and only after consultation could they amend the pay arrangements for current pilots. BALPA has no interest in making such a change. The company does, however, control future contract promises that it may issue and it has been a long held desire of BA to address the effects of the Age Legislation changes that afford pilots a potential of 10 extra years at top of pay scale.

Q. Is there a risk to having more than one pay structure in BA. Will it result in pressure in the future to amend the pay point 24 structure?

7

We already have 3 separate pension arrangements in BA and while we would prefer all pilots to enjoy exactly the same terms and conditions, the reality is that market forces and external factors have resulted in changes from APS to NAPS and subsequently from a defined benefit scheme to a defined contribution scheme.
The BACC has been very mindful of how the new basic pay structure is determined, to ensure that it most closely reflects the pay arrangements of the existing BA pilot workforce. The changes are purely in basic pay increments to reflect longer career lengths. All evidence in BA since 2006 is that pilots choose to exercise the right to remain in employment to age 60 and beyond.
Our terms and conditions would be under greater pressure as a result of a NO vote to integration. That would only place even greater pressures on our terms & conditions in future than any in-house payscale differential between pilots on the 24 point structure and the proposed 34 point structure for new entrants. A stand-alone IAG company would have a far more radical solution to pay structures and therefore be the future growth vehicle for IAG in the UK.

Holiday Pay

Q .What does “An agreed mechanism to remove any future liability with respect to the holiday pay ruling” mean?
A. In September 2011 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) finally ruled in our favour and determined that BA should base pilots' holiday pay on “normal remuneration” or overall earnings and not just on basic pay. We are now waiting for the UK Supreme Court to determine how this ruling will be applied in practice. A hearing at the Supreme Court is expected to take place between April and July 2012.
BA is therefore faced with a retrospective claim back to 2006 which is NOT covered by the agreement you are being asked to vote on. As part of the ongoing legal process, BALPA is therefore still pursuing a claim for retrospective holiday pay going back to 2006.
As part of the £10M in concessions being sought by BA for the BMI agreement, BALPA believes a measure that mitigates any future liability from 2014 onwards is a preferred way to help meet this financial target. Any monies accrued up to that point are not covered by the proposed BMI agreement and will continue to be claimed by BALPA. It remains our clear intention to make sure that all BA members receive the retrospective holiday pay they are owed by BA as soon as possible and certainly before 2014.
Subject to this ballot being approved BALPA will negotiate a mechanism that effectively deals with Pilots reduced pay whilst on Annual Leave. It would most likely be an amendment to the Variable Pay structure that means a pilot is not worse off in months when on leave than in months that contain no leave.

Q.Will I be getting my retrospective Holiday Pay or has this been given up?
A. As indicated above, BALPA is continuing to claim retrospective holiday pay on your behalf (back to 2006) and will do everything it can to ensure that you receive the money you are owed as soon as possible. This will be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing which we expect to take place later this year. The time period of the claim will be from January 2006 to the date on which we implement the agreed mechanism for removing any future liability (probably 1 January 2014).

8

We have not waived our right to retrospective payments, given up our claim to such pay, or conceded any rights in this agreement. None of the agreement being voted on here prejudices the legal victory on Holiday Pay entitlement.
When will BA pay the Holiday Pay Claim or can they be forced to pay it by us agreeing the mechanism in this agreement?
BA has indicated that it wants to wait and see what the final Supreme Court ruling is on the issue as this will determine their exact liability. The amount credited under the agreement represents a best estimate on the value of the claim, based on the ECJ ruling last year. It represents approximately 25% of the £10M target set by BA.
However until the exact liability is known BA will almost certainly wait to make payment. In the meantime Holiday Pay entitlement continues to accrue from the date of the first submission.

Q. Will I will be worse off than I am now under this agreement?
A. We intend to make sure that you receive, subject to the conclusion of the legal process, Holiday Pay in accordance with our claim. Until we reach agreement on the mechanism with BA you will continue to accrue entitlement. Under this agreement we will see the following benefits rather than BA seeking to simply recover the monies in some other manner.
Firstly we meet a significant proportion of our cost target, almost a quarter in fact, by reaching agreement on a payment that we have so far not received.
Secondly, we intend to use this opportunity to address some of the large variability in pay between months where leave is taken and those where a full month is worked. For most pilots having greater certainty of earnings is of benefit.

Q.Can BA use our agreement here as the basis to challenge the ECJ ruling?
A. NO. We have categorically not waived our entitlement to Holiday Pay under this agreement.

The Ballot Process

Q.What will happen next?
A. The BACC will be holding General Members Meetings on Tuesday 10th, Wednesday 11th , Thursday 12th and Tuesday 17th at Heathrow. There is also a GMM at Gatwick on Monday 16th January. Full details have been sent separately about these.
On, or immediately after January 13th the BACC will be issuing a unique Voter ID to either the email address that we hold on file for you or, for those members who choose to receive paper communications only from BALPA to their home address.
The ballot will be conducted electronically. Full details of the voting process will be contained within this communication.

Q.Why is the ballot being conducted electronically and not by post?
A. A postal ballot would require a minimum of 21 days to complete and given that full details of the proposed package were only sent on January 4th members will need sufficient time to attend the GMM’s and then vote. IAG have been clear that a decision from pilots, that will determine whether integration occurs, cannot be allowed to delay the process of seeking regulatory approval. To ensure the longest possible briefing period while meeting this requirement we will use a widely accepted ballot tool to conduct this ballot.

Q.Is this ballot binding in the same way as a postal ballot?
A.The ballot result is binding in exactly the same way that the BACC would consider the result of a consultative postal ballot. The software being used is recognised and used by a number of other unions as being very effective for consulting with members. It is software that BALPA has used in other CC’s to conduct both survey and ballot processes.

Q.When will the ballot close?
A.Full details will be contained within the ballot briefing package.

Q.When will the result be published?
A.Immediately after the closure and the results have been collated.

At the risk of upsetting some of the more sensitive BA pilots, it would be worthwhile everyone reviewing the DanAir take-over in 1992 which seems to have many similarities and followed a 'less-than popular' BCal take-over with list merging..

Severe restrictions on pilots from non-BA bases/non-737CFM a/c types - they were 'fired' with minimum severance. 120 pilots 'retained' and lines drawn across the lists at 60 of each seat, again 'sacking' (aka not 'retaining') those below the line (no seat changing). Initially the remaining 13 737 3/400 aircraft and 40 routes were to remain 'separate' at LGW but to fly in BA colours.

DanAir seniority etc retained.

It became apparent that the grand plan was to expand the operation to displace the existing 737-200 mainline operation at LGW and who knows where else.

Threats of industrial action by mainline pilots.

Eventual 'resolution (not properly formally agreed by DanAir PLC as far as can be established) was for DA pilots to join mainline seniority list in DA order BELOW the most junior BA entrant at the time. IE 25 year senior Captains 'junior' to latest Prestwick cadet, able to bid out of LGW onto other fleets with loss of 'grandfather' seats,.staff travel protected and pensions manipulated to compensate. This 'opened' commands at LGW on the 'new DA' T&C to very junior BA F/Os (mostly OK with the odd exception) and cause the odd CRM issue, thus 'freezing' command prospects for DA F/Os. Eventually the existing T&C caused the flow of bidders from BA to dry up, 'DA' F/O's accordingly achieved command (from 1996) and T&C were 'improved' for all and now (well up to 2004 when I retired) the only main difference was in T&C for things like Hotac and bidding.

It has all the hallmarks of going the same way.

this is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer (which they wouldn’t be)

For the reasons already outlined, we cannot foresee any situation in which an existing BA pilot will be displaced from his current seniority position and status by a BMI pilot. The BACC’s overriding aim is to ensure that no BA pilot is disadvantaged by the integration of BMI mainline

Are these two statements compatible? For example would the most senior BMI First Officer have to wait until after B.A. recruit who joined the day before the merger/takeover is promoted to be eligible for command?

Whilst I have appreciated and commented on the support and positive attitude of nearly all the BA pilots on here and in person, I cant help but read an underlying negative possible hostile attitude towards BMI pilots in the BACC document kindly posted by buzz boy.err - that document is from the BACC not the BMICC - the BACC are there to represent the interests and requests of BA pilots only. The BMIcc will be fighting their corner and most probably are right now talking with the BACC and balpa behind the scenes. I know its no fault of the BMI employees - but before anyone throws their toys out remember BA (management and staff) have a choice here, BMI do not. The most likely alternative to not being taken over is redundancy and slot / asset stripping
Also remember the TUPE ONLY APPLIES IF THEY ARE INTEGRATED. so if the BA pilots vote no, or BMICC refuse to sign up to whatever they are requested then BMI becomes a part of IAG, not BA, probably gets rebranded as BA express and there is no TUPE, no seniority, no protection, no-nothing.
I have no idea what BMI are being asked to bring to the table, but given the concessions that BA are being asked to provide to have an integration rather than a takeover I assume that BMICC are being asked to provide some concessions too. If joining the BA list at the bottom is what they are being asked to do, in order to guarantee all the other benfits then that seems like a reasonable request to me.
I've got some good mates in BMI and I don't wish to see anyone's job or career harmed due to no fault of their own, and a wrong place wrong time deal, but thats the way the cookie crumbles.

BOAC

At the risk of boring everyone to death there is more than 1 interpretation of how things went at LGW in the late nineties.

In particular, the phrase "mostly OK with the odd exception".

I'd rather not go over old ground, as I was fed up hearing about it when sitting in the RHS.
The Dan guys were great (see quote above), as were the BA guys.
What strikes me about it is the CRM issue, of which there were, shall we say, occasional difficulties.
You are never going to keep everyone happy, but I hope that both CC will come up with something that satisfies the aspirations of the vast majority of both sets of pilots.

You are never going to keep everyone happy, but I hope that both CC will come up with something that satisfies the aspirations of the vast majority of both sets of pilots. And despite all the moaning on here, largely from people who are not involved, I suspect that is exactly what will heppen. Both CC's will get the best they can out of the bad hand thats been dealt. We can't change the dealer, we can't change the cards.

Quote:
this is subject to the caveat that the BMI Mainline pilots’ promotion prospects and other benefits are no less favourable than they were prior to the transfer (which they wouldn’t be) Quote:
For the reasons already outlined, we cannot foresee any situation in which an existing BA pilot will be displaced from his current seniority position and status by a BMI pilot. The BACC’s overriding aim is to ensure that no BA pilot is disadvantaged by the integration of BMI mainline Are these two statements compatible? For example would the most senior BMI First Officer have to wait until after B.A. recruit who joined the day before the merger/takeover is promoted to be eligible for command?what promotion prospects do you think BMI FO's currently have? I'm not being sarcastic - just asking the question. I'd guess that even at the bottom of the BA list, almost all of them would have better promotion and career prospects than they currently do.

Re: BMI promotion opportunities

Am I right in thinking that BMI pilots feel that they are bringing something quite substantial to the table ie airbus aircraft and SLOTS?
Slots that we intend to expand our longhaul fleet with.

Therefore they probably feel that they are entitled to be able to share in that expansion. They will of course, but the big questions are

(1) When
(2) Where exactly will they slip into the 747/777/787/380 fleet list

And that 2nd point is probably crucial, as we know how much our lifestyle can be determined by our position on the fleet list.

757 driver - there is often a lot of nonsense said about TUPE and you are spouting some of it, sadly seemingly as an attempt to rattle the resolve of BMI pilots.

If IAG continue to use the BMI assets (inc people) in any way the same as BMI did (ie short haul ex LHR) - however they choose to brand it - then TUPE does apply (ceteris paribus). Moreover, if I were in BMI and they merge with BA, I would push hard, in the courts if need be, to have BMI seniority carried over (DOJ). The Cityflyer precedent wasnt supporting of this, but seniority has such a huge influence over working conditions at BA that I think it would be wrong for ex-BMI pilots to experince a huge detriment over similar length of service BA pilots, following the transfer. It would be worth another try in the courts IMO.

And if IAG didn't purchase BMI then they'd be out of business this time next year probably so it's definitely the lesser of two evils.

interpretation of how things went at LGW in interpretation of how things went at LGW in the late nineties - not sure when you came along, (actually looking your details you would have 'missed' all the excitement) but I should point out that by "interpretation of how things went at LGW in the late nineties" things had pretty much settled own - it was the 'early nineties' where the issues arose and we had some rather bizarre behaviour from a few of the BA 'secondees' which to the credit of the DA F/Os we were able to handle.

The lessons for BMI are:

BMICC - do your best against overwhelming odds. Assuming you have no 'redundancies' (see above) during the process it is roughly 340:3000

Pilots - things will almost certainly improve as you 'rise up the list' and you are able to bid onto other fleets with a reasonable seniority. The problems largely arise for those with less time to retirement where either a fleet/seat change is blocked or not financially viable.

BOAC

Early '95 for me. I did not miss all the excitement.
I flew with all the DA guys and BA guys. Virtually all excellent chaps.
Eventually the DA FOs got their opportunity too.

And my recollection of who was causing the difficulties is different.
I think the BA guys did a splendid job managing certain situations.
Best leave it at that, as it has little bearing on our thread.

But it does illustrate that there can be potential Notech consequences when either side of the cockpit has a different idea of fairness.
And as we've illustrated, these ideas can exist years later!

I sincerely hope we don't repeat some of those difficulties. Which I might add were isolated, and not representative of the other 98%.

I would be extremely peeved if they were not frozen for a period as long as myself and other new joiners. I.e. none of them should be getting on a triple or 747 before any of the new joiners.

Heard that said a lot recently and I have a lot of sympathy with your POV. That's the reason why I was bemused by Dingbaticus's peculiar comment a day or two back that:

My humble advice would be for the junior Flight Crew to persuade the senior Pilots to vote to accept the deal, to give themselves a future.

confirmation Bias
Your observations about cutting costs are correct; indeed at bmi we've been doing that for sometime now, along with s/e taxi-out'which has saved 6 figure sums p/a. on our relatively small fleet, but, as was mentioned on a thread in another place, the savings mentioned above don't seem to be included in the deal; it's thrust seems purely to cut employee costs. I don't doubt that attempts to include such savings will be made in the future, but that's for another day.

I find it sad that IAG are probally using the money saved by the changes to the BA pilot pension schemes to probally fund the buyout of BMI which in turn is being used to reduce the T and C's of the current BA pilot workforce.

Studi, please re read the long Q and A statement. The answers to your questions are answered quite comprehensively in there.

In brief though. Integration brings all the pilot workforce under the SCOPE agreement and hence work done on all aircraft with over 100 seats will be kept in BA mainline. The chance of a LoCo start up outwith SCOPE as a standalone is almost impossible due to the lack of space/slots at LHR. Without integration the basic building blocks for that new airline are already in place.

If there is no integration there is no need for IAG to maintain the BMI terms and conditions when the a initial period which TUPE applies is over. The new airline can re employ on whatever conditions it wants...not a great place to be.

This is not a merger. IAG is buying BMI and can do with it as it wishes, with the workforce on side or not. That is what this is about. Do we want to be in the negotiations arguing for the best we can expect or looking on as our futures are decided entirely by the bean counters?

As for where BMI FO's fit into seniority lists and fairness. Maybe being at the bottom of the list in and expanding airline is better than having your job conditions dictated to you after a new paint job is put on your aircraft. For those of us that have moved through different companies we understand seniority is not transferable. In some airlines seniority means nothing, in others it is everything. BA is the latter. Why should those that chose to move to BA from other jobs prior to this be disadvantaged by being pushed down the list by those that did not choose to take that decision?

We all make career choices some lucky others not, some considered others through necessity. That is part of this industry.

I enjoy reading your postings playing devils advocate. However you do seem to advocate a non conciliatory approach which in this situation does not exist as a genuine option. This is a bad job, we are trying to make the best of it.

I look forward to flying with colleagues from all backgrounds. The future BMI pilots will be warmly welcomed and all our job security fought for from within. That will not happen so easily if there is discontent about their integration with regard to current BA pilots CHOSEN lifestyle/career prospects. I can only empathise with the current angst amongst BMI pilots. Unlike many of my past colleagues at least they are not staring at redundancy, the desperate search for any job going and all that entails for family and lifestyle. This could be very different.

Jazzy

studi - you seem to be rabble rousing on an issue that not only has nothing to do with you, but is conducted in a different country, under a different legal system.

However
I read the document very thorough, but I still don't see why the current scope clause will prevent IAG from setting up BA Express as a new start up company, when this scope clause does not prevent IAG from rebranding BMI into BA Express.

There is no space and no slots at heathrow. That is the bottom line. Sure IAG could set up BA express, despite what happens in the next few weeks, but it won't be at heathrow.

I'm sure the seniority system will be sorted by sensible discussion from both sides, but those advocating that BMI pilots play hard-ass should remember that BMI almost certainly will not exist in 12 months. BA could just sit at the sidelines and then dive in with everyone else to pick up the pieces after lufty eventually fold it up. I'm 100% sure that BMICC are well aware of this fact and will negotiate accordingly.

I am very surpised that there is no talk of co-ordinated action with Iberia flight crew, who coincidentally happen to be in dispute with Willie over similar issues, rather than being picked off over the BMI takeover. Don't any of the BALPA members here not realise that BA and Iberia Express might one day be merged?

As the occasional dictator has found in the past, it is not easy to fight a war on two fronts.....

I am very surprised that there is no talk of co-ordinated action with Iberia flight crew...

You mean apart from it being illegal ....? :ugh:

I would imagine that a lot of BMI FO's will be hoping this fails.

After all, if the soon to be BA EXPRESS comes along, expands as every BA pilot thinks it will, then their Commands are going to be a lot quicker in the new outfit than they could ever be in mainline.

The quick Command pay will possibly outweigh a 15 year stint in the RHS, on a 34 pay point scale.

Either way, it's not pretty.

757 Driver,

This comment keeps cropping up all over the place in recent years, and I'm really struggling to understand what the **** its got to do with anything. Our politicians are hell bent on destroying the country in an attempt to make things more 'fair'. Why let some people get unfairly rich - why not make everyone poor - thats much fairer.

Since when was life supposed to be fair? It is what it is. There are many claims you can make in the british (and most other) legal systems. however "It ain't fair guv'nor" isn't one of them.

Remember that when your daughter is run over by a bus, driven by a maniac.

Sure, "unfair" things happen, but that does not mean we should not seek to mitigate the consequences of those "unfair" events, if it is within our power to do so.

Whilst some BA pilots seem to think this is their battle, studi is right to point out the wider ramifications. What happens at BA affects the UK market - the argument has always been that they exert the upward pressure on airline T&C's here in the UK - and one imagines the MartinAir guys might have one eye on what happens here, for instance?

In this instance, I'm sure UK pilots outside BA are wondering whether capitulation will mean downward pressure on their T&C's in the "nearer than expected" future.

Thats why they might be adding their $0.02.

are the BMI pilots not being asked for their "vote" on this?

TBH this gets my goat AGAIN, not so much the BA pilots but BALPA, when the Openskies pilots were made redundant and NOT offered mainline just a poor excuse of an "interview" BALPA did sweet FA, now they are working flat out on this, Jim and his team YET AGAIN dont look after the small fry, only interested in the big issues (airlines?). Double standards and i have a real problem with it.

I hope the BMI pilots and BA pilots can work TOGETHER to bring about a happy marriage here and i honestly hope it all works out for the best, but i suspect BA CC will dictate the terms and BMI will have to take whatever crumbs they are offered.

Guys,

Surely you would all want BA Cityflyer to be tagged onto this merger too?

They have to be planning to expand due to being on half the T&Cs that BA mainline do?

Gettingn the support of everyone would be much more beneficial?

And if IAG didn't purchase BMI then they'd be out of business this time next year probably so it's definitely the lesser of two evils.

What utter tosh. Please confirm what factual basis you have to back this up and please don't tell me that it is some journo such as that plum working for the FT.

As a bmi employee we were actually shown a Powerpoint presentation from the management documenting Lufthansa's objectives for the Company. The first objective was to sell bmi. That wasn't to sell it to BA/IAG it was to sell it to the most beneficial bidder. That doesn't necessarily mean the highest. So if/were IAG to for whatever reason pull out of the sale, Lufthansa would simply move on to the next bidder. This could be Virgin, Etihad or any other player who submitted a proposal that Lufthansa considered suitable. If the options were not acceptable then Lufthansa would go with option number 2.

This was to invest in bmi to turn it around. Sure there would be further pain and suffering for some and undoubtedly further slots would be sold to help fund this strategy but a plan was a foot. The question was asked whether Lufthansa would simply wind the bmi up and it was explicitly said that this would not be an option. By winding bmi up they stood to lose everything.

My guess is that they wanted to turn bmi around with the least amount of spending required. When they realised that this could not be achieved they have had to dig deep and come up with alternatives. They could turn bmi around but it would need to be brought down to a more manageable size to stop the costs required to do this from spiralling out of control.

So for anyone who thinks that bmi staff should be lucky to have a job, yes you are right, who isn't lucky to have a job at this time but if you think that this was the 11th hour for bmi, guess again. bmi staff could have been wearing a red uniform, a sandy brown one or even a Germanic looking one. We really are a happy bunch who get the job done. Berating bmi staff as being lucky to have a job is a long way from the truth and quite insulting. Had we gone to an opposition, especially a Gulf carrier, things would not be looking so rosy as they do at the moment with the grand lonhaul expansion plans.

For those asking what sacrifices bmi are making, why not let us have a go at operating the standalone Company. Sure there may/will be some erosions eventually in terms and conditions but we would not be type frozen, not be at the bottom of a massive seniority list, probably flying new wide bodied aircraft and for our SFOs and FOs, potentially seeing career progression at an accelerated rate far quicker than they could dream about within BA.

I'd be extremely proud to wear a BA uniform and operating with high calibre professions as I have done throughout my career but please do not belittle us with comments regarding how lucky we are to be at the bottom of the MSL, how we can continue with our BMI salaries without incremental pay until sometime in the distant future when we may be lucky enough to finally make it on to the pp34 list. We are not fools. The talk that is going on here is merely just the minimum required by TUPE law. Nothing more, nothing less. Lets not beat about the bush, trying to jazz it up as anything other than the bare minimum. I for one am prepared to make concessions, lord knows we've all made some along the windy roads of our aviation careers but lets just try and stick to facts rather than beat each other up with hearsay and speculation.

My rant is not meant to deride or aggravate, merely to open people’s eyes so that they can make a more informed conclusion of the events. We recently were flying BMed's aircraft with their Business class cabins to destinations close to China from LHR (tech stopping naturally along the way). We were taking other narrowbody business class cabins down to Sierra Leone. We have interesting routes to many of the worlds "Axis of Evils". Until a couple of years ago, we were flying 330s to Caribbean destinations, Las Vegas and other longhaul destinations. Many on here may recognise us as a flying on domestic routes but we are far more than that.

I totally empathise with those that have been absorbed by BA over the years and found themselves at the bottom of the MSL seniority list. If the present legislation was available during those periods, perhaps you may not have been handled in the same way as you have been. This is the other feature that some people have not understood. The law has changed over the last few years. I am sure that many people are pouring over the TUPE wordings as I type but the bottom line is, that as is often the case, areas are not clear black and white. This means that it is down to the judge on the day. It may go one way or it may go the other. Hopefully though neither of the two CCs will wish to see this go to the wire, as potentially it could sink the whole concept of seniority and we'd all be left clutching the flotsam from the wreck that was what we considered a stable career path. It is as we know an emotive subject, the merging of Companies and what everyone has to be careful of is one side winding up the other side to the extent that they feel that all they can do is throw out their toys out the pram and thus create a situation far greater than the original problem.....

1033,

BMI are losing in xs of £250m pa. Bmi have no assets apart from the slots and one A320; the rest are leased. The pension scheme is 80% invested in equities and is a total basket case (in fact worse than BA's NAPs scheme). They were v.close to being insolvent when Bishop exercised his Put option to sell it to Lufthy in 2008(?). That's why he had to accept less than he was due under the original deal he struck with Lufthy/Scandinavian (the company had to be solvent to exercise the option). They are bust!

BOAC,

There are indeed many similarities between the Dan and BMI take-overs, the main one being that both companies were/are on the verge of insolvency.

Studi
The second thing I fail to understand is why BMI pilots current collective agreements become worthless due to transfership of ownership of BMI. Can you sell a company to a new owner without also transfering to the new owner the obligations towards the employees? Is this possible in the UK? Sounds weird to me, it's like inheriting money from someone who had huge depts and died, but without the depts.
In the UK there is 'TUPE' legislation (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment). This guarantees the terms of employment are carried over from the previous employer so as not to disadvantage the employee upon transfer.
It has been said that this legislation will protect the bmi employees where it is triggered throughout this transfer. It is not concerned with future scenarios such as career progression, seniority, etc.
This is not the only problem with the bmi transfer.
Most people's (pilots included) aspirations concern 1) Salary 2) career progression.
Given that BA has just introduced its new 34 point scale and has indicated that the bmi workforce will join at the bottom, most, if not all the bmi pilots will see TUPE 'kicking in' to protect them.
A 5 year F/O would have to wait a further 6 years before he would see an increase in salary, a 5 year Capt.-12 years, a 10 year Capt.- 16 years, & a 15 year Capt.- 20 years. As far as I am aware, the legislation does not compel any further increases in salary until the 'catch up' is complete. So we have Captains with 15-20 years to go before retirement with about, er.. 15-20 years before they can expect a salary increase. Nice, eh? Oh, and I don't think that the law compels the employer to match our (pathetic) subsistence allowance with the pilots of the new parent company.
As far as I am aware the present state of affairs regarding seniority are that we will be added to the bottom. There have been (and still are) 'discussions' going on on other forums about that; The BA pilots' argument is that they have been assured that no-one will be disadvantaged, so I can understand their concerns about integration.
The most common theme from our side is the BMED integration 3 years ago where Date Of Joining was used across both workforces, under advice from BALPA, the same union representing both sets of pilots here. There will have to be robust negotiations over all of these items.
The bmi pilots cite the fact that we are bringing a large number of slots (more than a fifth) of the size of the BA portfolio across; unlike previous mergers into BA, along with aircraft & qualified Crews; unlike previous mergers into BA.
The BA pilots state (quite correctly) that in its present form bmi would not be around in a year's time & therefore we should be glad of anything that's offered. Well, in order to get the books signed off in the latter part of 2010, WPS (our CEO) had to have a plan B if any sale did not follow through. It involved cutting it loose from the hub style of operation of the past, it would involve more LH & MH flying & would be a 'blank sheet of paper' approach. This, and a possible offer from Virgin or the Middle East were options.
Bmi has posted significant losses over the last few years. We have been run to lose money since the tie-up with DLH & SAS back in 1999, where losses would be covered in part by DLH & SAS. Anything of value was stripped systematically from under the noses of DLH, our main external shareholder. I am led to believe that our Cargo company was owned separately by our Main Shareholder who benefitted hugely. Aircraft were leased & sub leased through a company owned by our Main Shareholder at extortionate rates. We are still paying for leases on buildings that have remained unoccupied for years, some in countries we no longer fly to. When BMED was integrated, there was supposed to be a sum set aside for re-liverying their aircraft; this was not carried out until last year after the Main Shareholder had forced the sale onto DLH. (paid for by the loss making airline)
The last 10 years saw advertising disasters, on-board product cock-ups of monumental proportions,etc.
DLH gave the impression of being serious about turning it around, but with no serious investment in aircraft that could use the slots, it was never going to work. following restructuring, and with several hundred job losses, bmi's admin. costs ballooned. That's right - they went UP! (could this be an efficient way of writing down tax just before the disposal?)
It was obvious that DLH had no intention of turning bmi around in the last couple of years; after acquiring the 20% of shares from SAS there was a clause whereby if they sold bmi before Sept 2010,SAS would get a cut. Guess what? within days of that expiring, we were put up for sale.
The staff have all made sacrifices to try to keep the old ship that was bmi afloat, while its owners had started to cut that ship up for scrap while it was still at sea.
Those that transfer to BA will, at least have a job; but there is a feeling of unease out there that we're in for more of the same.

There you go Studi, I bet you wish you had never asked!!!!!;););)

BMI guys – sorry to have to tell you this, but when you come up against the BA CC all that stuff about being “United in the Interests of British Airline Pilots” goes out the window, and the BA CC will use its weight within BALPA to trample all your hopes and aspirations into the dust - you will be on your own - you are only as strong as your own membership group/CC.

What you will be offered is one of two options:
1/ The bottom of the BA seniority list – with all that that implies for your prospects.
2/ A separate seniority list where you will end up in a situation similar to the GSS guys – BA FOs taking your command slots and so blocking your access to command, or even (in the event of downsizing) you tenure in your job, while they retain their golden parachute back to mainline.

For the baby and regional guys its even worse – you can expect to be ‘sold down the river’ to the highest bidder (or more accurately the outfit that will accept the least to take you away) just like the BA Connect guys were. I say again you are only as strong as your own membership group/CC.

Notwithstanding the above, should an issue arise that negatively affects BA pilots (eg Openskies) you will be expected to support the BA campaign and have your subs used to finance any legal action.

DLH didn't seem too bothered what happened to BMI when it was in their stable? Neither did VC.

Seems the same goes for the T's & C's of Lufthansa Italia? Are they on the same benefits and pay package as DLH? Nope, didn't think so.

Studi advocates the type of IA that saw the death of Alitalia, another case of 'who would buy that???'. Intense IA saw that company, in a country reknowned for its vicious use of IA to ensure untenable wages, deliberately recind its AOC, declare itself bankrupt and re-issue a joint Alitalia/Air One AOC with new contracts. All those that wanted a job and were wanted by the company (exclude Union officials and anyone vocal against the company) had to sign a new contract. Alitalia Air One reborn. Another victory for the 'they would never take us on' brigade. I also seem to remember, taxying through Vienna one morning, thinking that no-one in their right mind would by such a diverse fleet as Austrian Arrows, saddled as they were with a massive debt. Up popped LH , bought them and stripped the fleets.

Germany has the dubious, lucky honour of being the financial driver behind Europe. It does have a good export economy that drives a high standard of living. It hasn't had a useless Chancellor who has raped personal, private pensions over the past decade forcing companies into massive corporate debt due to over taxed pension funds being driven into the red. Unfair, over riding taxes levied against Airlines under a very flimsy 'green' umbrella has seen UK LH traffic driven over to the continent, into the arms of DLH, AF, KLM as savvy passengers, especially premium, avoid extortionate APD.

The scenario in the UK is different to that of Germany of that there is no doubt, but to advocate another Union into pushing for IA under the guise of looking to protect your own ass into the future is a little rich. Look at the T's & C's in Lufthansa Italia and Austrian Arrows and see if they meet your exacting standards before trying to throw other pilots to the wolves.

We see this from different perspectives. DLH has done well to keep themselves where they are but the economics behind DLH and BA are wildly different. IAG has the ability to transfer slots between subsiduarys. If BA Express were to get a grounding then they have the startup slots and terminal capacity to get going. If they are brought onto the Master seniority list under BA then, and only then, does our Scope agreement apply. The ability to 'start up' BA Express in any other for is then severly curtailed by lack of Terminal Space, lack of route structure and lack of Slots. Whilst not impossible it would make starting up another subsiduary company very difficult and costly.

This is NOT about IA, striking etc. This is about how best to integarte BMI into BA and adhere to TUPE to ensure that neither BMI or BA pilots are disadvantaged. Always remeber that TUPE applies to both companies.

As to the bullet point Q&A from the BACC being 'one sided' what do you expect? They are there to answer the queries and worries from BA pilots, not BMI pilots. I would be very surprised if the BMICC hasn't produced something very similar for their members. The 90 day consultation period for TUPE only begins once it has been agreed that BMI is to be integrated. Therefore the decision rests purely with the BA pilots as to whether they are prepared to accept productivity changes to achieve this as the company is demanding.
Once that agreement is in (5-1 in favour as a rough straw poll) then the TUPE chanllenges rear their heads. At the moment the junior pilots who would be most affexted by the nature of the merger, especially with repect to seniority, are being asked to vote on something that they, and the CC, have no firm ideas on. Only speculation. In this respect it is a leap into the dark and therefore takes alot of discussion.

Personally I think the integration can only be a good thing in the long run. Both for BA and for the future securities of the BMI pilots. BA has alot of cash for future fleets and, with time and space, the future growth could bring the possibilty of a return of terms and conditions. Hopeful? Possibly but at least we will be there to try it and not withering on a dying SH vine.

BMI are losing in xs of £250m pa. Bmi have no assets apart from the slots and one A320; the rest are leased. The pension scheme is 80% invested in equities and is a total basket case (in fact worse than BA's NAPs scheme). They were v.close to being insolvent when Bishop exercised his Put option to sell it to Lufthy in 2008(?). That's why he had to accept less than he was due under the original deal he struck with Lufthy/Scandinavian (the company had to be solvent to exercise the option). They are bust!

Well that's wrong for a start.

bmi owns a lot more than one A320. It also has other assets too such as a fairly hefty share in NATS.

Lufty were forced to buy bmi for a reduced price and that lack of desire has really hurt bmi recently with no clear direction for company being disseminated by Lufty.

bmi are trading at a loss and have been for a while, which is of course unsustainable, but with a clear strategy from IAG and access to their coffers, then there is no reason why it couldn't return to profit in the future. It would take a lot of work and would need the backing of IAG to do it, but if the IAG strategy is to keep the company as a seperate entity and they invest in that, then bmi can get back to being a profitable organisation.

If anyone here says they know what the IAG strategy for bmi is, then they must be senior IAG management, as no-one and I am including the most senior people at bmi in this, know what the plan is going to be.

So everything that has been posted on here is just conjecture coloured with each poster's individual prejudices or beliefs. There is no fact here at all.

Well that's wrong for a start.

bmi owns a lot more than one A320. It also has other assets too such as a fairly hefty share in NATS.

ACAS lists the mainline fleet as being entirely leased (chiefly ILFC, BOC, Macquarie, AerCap) with the exception of... one owned A320 (G-MIDT). Now the Regional fleet is another story - it's mostly owned - but the sale value of small Embraers these days is not enormous.

Hi Studi, Not sure why you are getting so incensed by all of this, which is still mostly hypothetical, especially when you have "no skin in the game". Whatever the result, it is the BA pilots that will have to live the consequences of what happens and surely a weakened BA would be in the interests of DLH so why the constant and vociferous postings from an entrenched position? I could understand a BMI or BA pilot or even a hold-pooler getting exercised about this issue I just do not understand where your are coming from. Please do not take this a criticism, I am just trying to understand why you are adamant about this issue?

Cyrano, I work for bmi. I can assure you that ACAS is wrong on that. I have the fleet list open in front of me now.

As far as I know Alitalia is still trading. The problem of Alitalia have not been pilots, but overall outdated work practices plus being an unfortunate mid-size network carrier. They followed the same path as similar airlines in Europe like Swiss, Austrian, Brussels, etc by going under the umbrella of one of the big three. But they did not sell out themselves on the way to it.



Not quite correct. Alitalia is trading under a joint AOC held by Air One. Not the same as trading as 'Alitalia' as all contracts were torn up on one day and reissued to all staff on the next stating their new terms and conditions.

in a row, and we went into mediation after one day. Officially we could not strike for LHI due to IA laws, so we requested other things to be negotiated away later on in exchange for SCOPE. We would not just give in without a new scope agreement. The situation was very different as it was hard to justify to apply a German contract to an Italian company. So at the end we got no influence on the contract, but at least a new very clear scope agreement plus the duty for the company to apply the same standards for LHI in selection and training.

Whilst not another country (again IA laws differ) it is not possible to take IA to prevent a company from forming another company with a different AOC under an unbrella holding company. The only option would be to allow said company to form and THEN take IA if the future trading conditions of your company are threatened. It cannot be do on a future premise. By integrating BMI into BA, even with the associated costs involved, it is a ratification of the Scope clause. It will at least give BA pilots a moderately assured (as assured as pilots can get in this industry) future as well as bring some forward stability to BMI crews. The Scope clause only covers BA aircraft operated by BA, not aircraft operated by a subsiduary. IAG has the ability, now, to startup wherever it wishes and we need to be in strong position to prevent that. Allowing BA Express and then retrospectively trying to fight it would be, IMHO, a disaster.

You enhance your own career by new longhaul slots at the cost of BMI pilots who have to join the line behind you. You roll over to Willy without getting anything in return in terms of new scope clause.

As averse to DLH who wouldn't push investment into something they were 'verpflichtet' to purchase and have been trying to offload since the were required to buy it. TUPE must cover both sets of employees and this initial decision is there to decide which way they will go. If BMI isn't integrated there might be no reason why IAG don't lease out the slots for later use and grind BMI into obscurity, they may run BMI as BA Express and rape the Terms and Conditions. Whichever way they jump I'm sure that the working practices will not be for the better, looking at the past BMI performance, led by an inadequate management, they have to improve.

Integrating BMI will give job stability, it will give future employment protection through TUPE and SCOPE. It will allow for continued career progression and bring benefits from roster stability and choice. The method of integration will then be discussed under the 90 day Tupe consultation. I fail to see what 'new scope' clause you elude to? All IAG aircraft to be flown out of LHR by BA Mainline???? Pie in the Sky.

Once concessions have been granted, when the company and the economic circumstances are on the increase, as a cohesive group of BA and former BMI pilots operating the majority of slots out of LHR, then, only then can we push to recover ground. Now is not the time for BASSA style 'all or nothing' suicide action.

Cyrano, I work for bmi. I can assure you that ACAS is wrong on that. I have the fleet list open in front of me now.

Fair cop, guv - your information is definitely better than mine then! I humbly concede my error.

Not sure why the ACAS info is wrong - perhaps if they are finance leases, or used as security against commercial mortgages, the bank/lessor shows up as the owner even though they are in reality bmi assets?

That is often the case.

I'm not going to go into detail about that, but if you look at it just as leased Vs owned, then bmi owns more than 1 A320!

All BMI pilots will join at the bottom of the seniority list in their respective seats - this ensures that no BA pilot is disadvantaged.
All BMI First Officers will have first access to vacated commands from ex BMI captains retiring or moving fleets - this ensures that no BMI pilot is disadvantaged.

Note - if ex BMI first officer moves fleet (I.e. goes to long haul for a bit) then their right to a former BMI command is void. So you will have to stay short-haul or lose your 'early' command opportunity but that is / was the current situation in BMI now so again your are not disadvantaged either. Seems fair to me?

I believe that I am right in saying nobody knows how BA are going to manage both pilot bodies until the TUPE consultations next month. That assumes that BA pilots vote Yes to the BA takeover.
This endless speculation doesn't really help anybody.

True and one thing we can all be sure of is that if there's any merging of seniority lists it won't be next month! Maybe next year, so if you're joining this year then it shouldn't affect you.

Spare a thought for the other 3000 plus people at BMI. The TUPE talks will mean more to them in actually keeping a job rather than a seniority list position.

For crying out loud.

Repeat after me.

IAG (not BA) is buying 100% of the shares in bmi. This means no TUPE is needed as nothing is being merged.

What happens in the future is nothing more than a guess, but if bmi is kept as a standalone company (like BA and Iberia) then there will never need to be a merging of anything and TUPE will not apply.

Clear?

What happens in the future is nothing more than a guess

But it's not a guess is it.

If the BA pilots vote for integration then BMI will be merged into the BAOpco. IAG have stated it's entirely in the pilots hands. From the Balpa forum I'm 99% certain the vote will be passed.

Hence 99% certain Tupe will apply.

So let me get this right. The future of bmi as a company is entirely in the hands of the BA pilots?

Link please.

No link required. That's the way it is

Yes, that is the way it is. IAG want BMI integrated into BA. BA want BMI integrated, but due to SCOPE, BA pilots have to agree.

That is exactly the dilemma we face at the moment. If we vote Yes, then BMI is integrated in BA short haul, with all the problems that will entail. We (BA pilots) have been told we have to help finance it by reducing our T&C's.
Alternatively, we vote No and IAG buy BMI and set up BA Express with reduced T&C's and use it as a wedge to reduce BA's salary bill at LHR.

:rolleyes: Hi am all new to P Prune so forgive me if am asking the wrong question or the wrong question at this moment in time?

BUT having an avid interest in all the pilots forums re TUPE, BALPA, etc, etc, what about the laymen within bmi who currently operate at EMA? Some from the Engineering site and more from their HQ in Donington Hall? And not being a Pilot, our interest is of a different nature. So what will the Walsher do? Will he sell the Hall and turn it into the BA Spa complete with heli pad or will he keep it on as some other regional BA HQ? What about the loss making bmibaby and regional?

No one knows or no one is bothered . . . . it is not all about pilots and crew you know. We have voices too. However, I think the majority are resigned to the fact that LHR will rule and if you want to go to LHR, you go assuming there is a position there for you and if not, it is bye byeeeeee! Thank you for your time ladies and gents and be interested in any posts to a novice on p prune.

:p

I love this. No proof and this is not how we at bmi understand it and by we I'm not just talking about pilots, I'm talking about the top level management, who really and truly have no idea of what plans IAG have for the company.

So the fact you lot are saying it's a certainty is making me remember how much utter rubbish is spouted as fact on this site.

Show exactly where you are getting your info from and then I might take it seriously, until then, it's just assumption and conjecture with no fact to back it up.

Extract from our Chief Pilot

"The nub of the choice you face is a decision about maintaining control of your future. In the
coming weeks you will be given the opportunity to vote collectively on these proposals.
They represent hard changes to your agreements and you will be voting to accept the
package as a whole. If you believe these changes represent a fair and proportionate
response to making our business competitive, secure in the knowledge that we will have
significantly more capacity to grow our business, you should vote yes. If you do not accept
the case for change and choose to vote no, the shorthaul competitive challenge will remain
and both IAG and British Airways have made clear that under such circumstances, the
conditions would not be met for IAG to approve the merger of the bmi business into British
Airways. While this scenario would avoid accepting the change proposals, it would come at
a significant cost in terms of denying British Airways pilots the confidence of owning their
own growth within a career structure they recognize and benefit from"

Extract from BALPA

Will a YES vote guarantee integration of BMI into BA Mainline?

Should IAG go ahead with the purchase, after regulatory approval, we have a very clear
undertaking from BA CEO Keith Williams that a vote in favour of this package will ensure
integration into. BA Pilots are the only specific work group being consulted on the changes. All other directorates in BA have accepted that they will either meet the cost targets IAG has
approved as part of a proposed integration, or they will lose out on the new BMI work. The
company has indicated to us that all ground handling and engineering functions could be
carried out by third party contract as necessary. BMI cabin crew may or may not be integrated
into Mixed Fleet, but at any rate unit costs will not be permitted to rise above BMI levels.

Say again slowly..... With respect, I would suggest that you get onto your Balpa company council and management and start demanding some answers. Your future is going to be decided one way or another by a Yes or No vote by the BA pilots in 2 weeks.
At the moment it would seem to be a forgone conclusion that you will be part of BA. (my opinion only)
If I were you, I'd want to know exactly what that is going to mean for me and my future career in BMI/BA.

I think I can fairly safely say that I probably know more about what's going on than our BALPA CC do...

Unfortunately!

Eventually, I do believe that we'll end up as part of BA. However, at this moment in time that is not certain and there's a lot of rumour and conjecture flying about on here that doesn't tally with what I know to be fact at this point in time.

I cannot go into any more detail than that. I could, but I won't as I'm not authorised to do so.

Say Again S l o w l y,

Is there anything that you can say that would be pertinent to the BA pilots' vote?

Until the results of that vote are known, nothing else can be predicted with any certainty. That said Shaka Zulu's copies of quotes from both BA and the BACC are accurate. Does anything you know contradict them?

There has also been a lot of speculation about how the integration, should it come about, be dealt with. It seems sometimes that the assumption is that it will be a scrap between the BACC and the BMICC. I mention this because sometimes it seems that it has been forgotten that ultimately BA/IAG are in charge. Maybe it's just me.

On that subject, in the Flt Ops directors letter he points out that, integrate or not, there will still be pressure on Short Haul costs. I suspect BA would be looking for concessions from SH, even if BMI pilots were not integrated.

Touching on that, there would appear to be an amount of disgruntlement on the BA recruitment thread about the introduction of the 34 pay points. I can completely understand people being upset by that, but the whole subject of "incremental drift" is one that BA pilots will have heard for some time as nearly every manager mentions that something has to be done about it at any given opportunity. I suspect that they have been biding their time and fell over themselves to attach it to this vote. After the Openskies affair it was only too obvious that BA pilots were keen to keep as many people flying BA aeroplanes on the same seniority list as possible. Even if the vote is "no" to integration, PP34 will not go away.

To the BMI chaps, if it were me, I would also expect to be wearing a BA uniform sooner rather than later, but speculating on where you might be in the grand order of things may be a little premature. Lets wait and see where we are in a couple of weeks time. You guys seem to have been messed around, had hopes built up, sacrificed things only to be disappointed time and again. I hope that this will be better, but I think we should await the outcome of the vote first and then let our CCs get together. It's been said already, but the BACC are a very decent bunch of chaps.

I think I can fairly safely say that I probably know more about what's going on than our BALPA CC do...


pretty much comes under the:

However, at this moment in time that is not certain and there's a lot of rumour and conjecture flying about on here that doesn't tally with what I know to be fact at this point in time.


As no-one knows what is going to happen. Not even IAG as they have given a commitment based upon the result of the Pilots ballot.

Speculatively it looks like integration, at which point the 90 day consultation for TUPE can begin. Not before! Hence any 'fact' based upon TUPE regulations is automatically speculation and rumour.

If the BA Pilots think BMI isn't worth 2 days holidays and a productivity increase then BMI continues on its merry, loss making, way. No TUPE, no integration , nothing. Be sure as eggs are eggs though that the T's & C's within BMI would be slashed. Say 'no' and the slots get leased until IAG need them and BMI goes under.

As much as anyone moans about integration it seems to be the lesser of two evils at the moment.

All rumour and conjecture of course as I, although I keep myself very well informed, cannot, for certain, forsee the outcome of the ballot or the TUPE discussion if relevant.

Look. I'm not getting into an argument about this. I have the current fleet list on my desk and it covers all of this and a whole lot more.

There are numerous things wrong with that list you've put up.

Doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things how many Airbii you own, all that really matters to anyone in BMI (IMHO of course) is how the BA pilots compare two different shades of brown.
I think for anyone in BMI, much the same, all said & done, except your part in the decision Re your future, is probably a bit more passive.

Dawdler, in post #87 you refer to recent BASSA communications which are not in the spirit of the Settlement Agreement. I wholeheartedly agree that BASSA need to be more professional and sophisticated in their comms and I have fed this back to them as have others.

Unfortunately, after such a prolonged battle there are still many challenges ahead, not least the threat to the success of the Settlement Agreement caused by factions opposed to peace.

It may surprise you but I would not recommend you take a course of action that would lead to industrial dispute. It really is the nuclear option and the damaging fall out is unpleasant and long lasting.

I would not underestimate Willie Walsh, this ‘offer’ was not just pulled out of a Mixed Fleet hat. Consultants and lawyers will have spent time studying the options.

I also would not be over confident of a landslide ‘Yes’ vote, I may not have access to the BALPA forum but I do have access to Pilots in a social setting. Perhaps it’s my ‘militant’ aura that brings out the inner socialist in others but I am not hearing a lot of love for the ‘Yes’ vote. It may be the beer talking but I will be interested to see how the vote swings.

Finally, in the spirit of One Team I would like to assure you that having been passionate about our dispute, I am passionate about ensuring both sides abide by our Settlement Agreement. Lizanne Malone, the BASSA Chairman, had indicated she would step down from the role at this years BASSA elections. I wrote to her suggesting she stands again as I believe her new found collaborative relationship with the leadership Team is the steady hand on the tiller required to steer us through the stormy post dispute waters.

I do ask the Moderators indulgence in allowing me to share the reassuring news that after discussing it with her family, they agreed she had ‘unfinished business’ and she will be standing again. A relief to all who want to build on the foundations of peace laid so far.

The postings made by Dingbaticus are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions.

Right, that's my decision to never pay another penny for BASSA membership and "representation" confirmed.


My posts do not represent the views of my employer, they are no more than an expression of my desperation for adequate, accountable, and adult representation in my work place. Sadly it seems the dream will not come true and the nightmare will continue.

It may surprise you but I would not recommend you take a course of action that would lead to industrial dispute.

Thanks...Given the style of your posts may I ask if you are making that recommendation as an official of a union, an elected representative of the same, or as a member of BA management?

I may not have access to the BALPA forum but I do have access to Pilots in a social setting.

A bar somewhere downroute or coffee bar in Crew Report Centre :E ?

Perhaps it’s my ‘militant’ aura that brings out the inner socialist in others but I am not hearing a lot of love for the ‘Yes’ vote.

Ah but if you'd listened more carefully you'd have realised there's even less love of the possible or probable consequences of voting 'No', so I humbly suggest you overestimate the power of your "aura", militant or otherwise. The whole situation is probably best described as being "between a rock and a hard place", or "darned if you do, darned if you don't" ;).

As an aside I wonder how many of the workforce at BA will find the "reassuring news" you refer to at all "reassuring" or a "relief"? I suppose that's an argument for our cabin crew colleagues and will no doubt be hotly debated on another part of Pprune ( Two years down the road I'm still banned from that particular forum.....I wear that sanction with pride.....:ok:)

As an aside I wonder how many of the workforce at BA will find the "reassuring news" you refer to at all "reassuring" or a "relief"? I suppose that's an argument for our cabin crew colleagues and will no doubt be hotly debated on another part of Pprune ( Two years down the road I'm still banned from that particular forum.....I wear that sanction with pride.....)
14th Jan 2012 11:36

a prowling passenger stops by to appreciate an amusing aside.....:D

I do ask the Moderators indulgence in allowing me to share the reassuring news that after discussing it with her family, they agreed she had ‘unfinished business’ and she will be standing again. A relief to all who want to build on the foundations of peace laid so far.

I wonder to whom this announcement is intended to be "reassuring"?

Perhaps any further discussion of this matter is better placed on the cabin crew forum.

Lizanne Malone, the BASSA Chairman, had indicated she would step down from the role at this years BASSA elections. I wrote to her suggesting she stands again as I believe her new found collaborative relationship with the leadership Team is the steady hand on the tiller required to steer us through the stormy post dispute waters.So it's all your fault if Bassa continue with their incompetent leaderhip. :D

Tell me, does she get her tickets and accommodation paid by Bassa (she commutes from LA) AS RUMOUR HAS IT? Perhaps I should be a Bassa rep too.

"A steady hand" , an absolute classic.........................:ugh:

Crazy that you could think she was responsible for the "peace" and had nothing to do with causing the "war"!:ugh:

Looks like the 'usual suspects', having lost all right to any say at all in the possible merger because of their behaviour in the last few years are trying to influence things via this place. That's not been a bad thing because at least now the BMI pilots have hopefully got a tiny bit more insight into the mindset of certain people in BA.

Perhaps it's time for the pilots and BA and BMI to resume the debate?

Perhaps it’s my ‘militant’ aura that brings out the inner socialist in others but I am not hearing a lot of love for the ‘Yes’ vote. Maybe you are not listening to the right vibes, or looking at the big picture? Of course there is no love for the YES vote. I have no desire to vote for a reduction in the t's and c's of my chosen career, when, through no fault of my own or my colleagues we find ourselves working in an industry that not only recieves zero support from our own government and the unelected quango government of the continent we live in, but actully has those governments actively sabotaging any attempt at recovery of our industry and the economy at large.
Given any choice at all there is no way I would vote for something that is obviously going to significantly reduce my earnings and increase my work over my career.
HOWEVER, I do not have a choice. The alternative is 100% gauranteed to be worse. I have no guarantee that BA express won't happen in the future anyway, I have no guarantee that all the other bad things won't happen in the future, but if I vote NO, I guarantee they happen now.
We are sliding down the hill fast, the only aim of the game now is to dig the anchors in and reduce the rate of descent. Hopefully at some point in the future there will be a means to climb the hill again, but despite all the militancy on here from certain people, such an opportuninty DOES NOT EXIST right now.
As I see it the choices are:
vote 'yes' - stay in the game, play defence, hopefully get our own 'powerplay' opportunity in the future.
Vote 'no' - leave the game entirely, have no say in the future outcome, apart from as spectators. And just like all spectators, we can splutter and swear and shout and be full of rightious indignation, but actually have zero ability to influence the outcome of the game.

hmmm, seems to me WW is playing a blinder here! If 757 Driver is typical of a BA pilot then you are all running scared and willing to almost give away anything due to the fear of the unknown.

Fact is BALPA has scope agreements and a large membership etc and IF BA express were to be introduced then the scope clauses would kick in. Any expansion of BMI (BA express) beyond the existing 27 ish aircraft could be easily blocked, any transfer of slots / aircraft towards BMI would i am sure be vigourously fought. In a word BA express would fail. Dont cave in to this obvious sabre rattling.

IF BA express were to be introduced then the scope clauses would kick in. Any expansion of BMI (BA express) beyond the existing 27 ish aircraft could be easily blocked, any transfer of slots / aircraft towards BMI would i am sure be vigourously fought. In a word BA express would fail. Dont cave in to this obvious sabre rattling.Yes, of course its that simple, :rolleyes: thats why we are in this position. Get your head out of european legal books and come and join the real world in the UK. Employment law is different, the legal system is different. Life isn't that simple.
There's no point in explaining it if you can't be bothered to read the previous pages, but suffice to say all the answers as to why what you said is 100% incorrect are contained somewhere in this thread.
I really don't know why I bother to contribute or read anything on this gutter site as 99% of people don't have a scooby doo what they are talking about, and have no interest in teh issues they are debating either. Signing off now for the sake of my blood pressure. I shal continue to debate this subject with my colleagues who A) are more aware of all the issues involved and B) have a stake in the game.
Its easy to be argumentative when its someone elses stake you are playing with.

Crickey... This is getting even more repetitive!

757 Driver is completely correct, there is nothing to add to his synopsis of the situation we are faced with.

Anyone thinking that some type of IA will leave us in a better position is dreaming. Bluepilot, SCOPE does not hold any protection for aircraft outwith the BA...not IAG umbrella, hence our desire to integrate the BMI pilot/slot/aircraft combination.

I wish this was different, and you are correct in saying Willie has played a blinder. He has realised the future threat and holds it over us. That is business, that is his job. He does however realise that allowing us the choice to vote for integration even with the reduction in terms allows him to keep a workforce more onside than if he imposed a new OpCo on the BA pilot workforce, and we all know he is not a man for idle threats with a fear of imposition!

Those without the ability to vote on this are welcome to dream their dreams of IA and holding fast to current working terms and conditions. If you do you are clearly not party to the information that we are being furnished with (much of which has been copied to this forum) or have no concept that the threats being held over us are immediate and far from idle.

As 757 has said, in the game or out. Those are our choices, there is no hypothetical middle, negotiated ground.

Jazzy

757 Driver. Please.............your aggressive tone is not warranted.

As it happens i have a fair amount of experience in this field, have seen and been involved with it before. Believe me when i say you are being fed the best lines to impose change, that line is FEAR. Others here that may not be BA pilots have a wealth of experience and perhaps DO know what they are talking about.....perhaps in fact know a great deal more that YOU.

By restricting your "discussions" to only those involved etc is i would argue putting your own head in the sand.

Incremental drift pay has long been in the gunsights of BA management.

What has amazed me is that BALPA has long held the belief that BA wouldn't change it.

BALPA has long held the belief that BA wouldn't change it.

And your evidence for that statement/assersion is?

The integration of bmi and / or any susequent "BA Express"type lower cost set up that might arise in the future is no more than a convenient smokescreen to get the T & Cs changes pushed through quickly and quietly on the cheap.

Does anyone really believe that if BA can increase their profits costs by setting up a new lower cost operation for the short haul network they will think twice about doing so ?.

The bmi buyout has come just at the right time to force through these T & Cs cost cuts, once they have been changed for the worse the excuses will be rolled out as to why it is still neccessary to set up a "BA Express".

agreed 100%, well written and sound argument.

The fact that BMI pilots are not being invited to vote on this also speaks volumes in my opinion.

Not many Turkeys will ever to vote for Christmas IMV, especially Willie`s version !! bah Humbug !!

Studi

I agree totally with your philosophy. I firmly believe that if the majority voted "no", WW would still have to integrate bmi in order to minimise the losses. Without using BA as a vehicle to do this, he would simply amortalise the losses that Lufthansa have had to endure, for a considerable time in the future at IAG's expense.

Remoulding the shell of a company that is currently bmi, would cost too much and IAG shareholders would not be best pleased that vast sums of money were required to be pumped in to a standalone company in order to turn bmi around with new crewing, operations, premises etc.

Therefore I can not see it happening in a month of Sundays. Voting "Yes" may seem like you are protecting your position but in actual fact, it is more like firing a cannon at IAG from below your own waterline. From here, the ship can only go down:ugh:

The fact that BMI pilots are not being invited to vote on this also speaks volumes in my opinion.

They are not in a position to have a vote on a BALPA/BA agreement (scope).

Studi, this is a load of cobblers!

exactly! That is why it is absolutely wrong to say yes!

BA pilots don't get anything in return for integrating BMI except the "promise" from hardball Willy that no new company will be set up. Anyone with the slightest realistic view of the world and industrial relations will see that this "promise" is worthless. Without a new scope agreement (that reflects the emergence of IAG) you are just giving Willy a few gifts for free:

1. pp34 for new joiners (very bad to sell out the new guys)
2. higher work hours
3. less off days

And the worst:
4. You actually help Willy to turn around BMI by helping him to dispose the BMI employees into BA at NO cost for him. This gives him much more management capacity to actually set up BA Express if he wishes so or to create other things to put you guys under pressure, as you just cleaned out his biggest problem and you even paid for it!


If only because with bmi absorbed into BA there are no slots available to "set up BA Express"

If only because IAG is spending hundreds of millions to buy and absorb bmi (BA pilots are not being asked to supply hundreds of millions, only £10m)

There are no "less off days", we still will get the same number of days off, we simply have to finance the agreed difference!

The "promise" from Willy is the improved career structure and prospects that will come in time from changing the slots that bmi brings into use for longhaul expansion.

I don't think you have the faintest understanding of what is going on here!

'BA pilots are not being asked to supply hundreds of millions, only £10m'

I'm not sure £3000 each is insignificant and what career structure is on the table thats better than the one that's already in place ?

The vote opens at 13.00 today. Closes on 31st at 12.00.

Just want to let you know we're all counting on you ;-)

BALPA members have been sent a link (via their personal email account ) to access the online voting sysytem. If you haven't received this yet check with BALPA HQ to see that they have a current address for you.......

Allowing BA's pilots to vote for their own destruction, is merely a psychological exercise by Willie. Once the BMI pilots are assimilated amongst the ranks of BA's legacy flight crew, the will to fight any further changes will be diluted.

It seems that this reversal for fortunes suffered by BA pilots, has caused a reassessment of what the cabin crew faced. According to a couple of CSD friends of mine, they are being everso nice to the cabin crew all of a sudden, as it dawns on them that whilst serving drinks in the cabins, Willie was sharpening his knife for them.

Voting YES to this deal is a short term fix for what lays ahead. BA flight crew should demonstrate a bit more perspicacity and see that a NO vote buys more time, and places the ball back in Willies court. The previous policy of appeasement has run aground like an Italian cruise liner. BA's cabin crew were right to sock it between the eyes to Willie, with a call for a 12 day strike over Christmas. That is the language Willie understands. If it had come off, rather than a Judge using tenuous legal arguments to overturn a democratic ballot, then it would have been all over.

A YES vote will cause disunity and mistrust, exactly what Willie wants. A NO vote could unite a majority against the common cause. Better to be hung for a sheep than a lamb perhaps?

Count, you really are a cad. It is so amusing to read your posts - thank you. Please keep it 'Flowin' buddy, you're a treasure to behold. :ok:

Boom.

You Doomsday experts are forgetting one thing:



B R A N D

Count

I love your take on things. So warped, but delightfully so.

I'd rather have Sarah Palin with her finger on the nuclear button, than listen to advice from you on how to vote.

Now, get back to your pot noodle in your room dear chap.

Once the BMI pilots are assimilated amongst the ranks of BA's legacy flight crew, the will to fight any further changes will be diluted.


Why? Are you saying the bmi pilots have no balls?

BA's cabin crew were right to sock it between the eyes to Willie, with a call for a 12 day strike over Christmas.

Ha ha ha ha ha oohh stoppittt! OOOHHH hee hee :D :\

Reality hasn't arrived in your world yet, has it?

Better to be hung for a sheep than a lamb perhaps?

So how did it feel, being hung?

I suspect that it is the Cabin Crew who have changed their behaviour, not the Flight Crew.

No matter how much they wish it, this has no similarities with their disagreement. But then again, we will always have Cabin Crew who compare themselves to pilots. No one knows why.

I think we're back to ignoring the Count.

Anybody got anything to add before I vote?

Ignoring the Count`s ramblings, there is still the unpalatable truth which is : if IAG see the business case for setting up a "BA lite" operation sometime in the future then they will regardless of any assurance given to the contrary

Is it worth accepting worse terms and conditions to help IAG not BA finance the bmi deal ?

How will IAG be able to set up "BA Express" with no slots at LHR?

How will IAG be able to set up "BA Express" with no slots at LHR?

Why do you think they are buying bmi, or have you fallen for the " we will use all the bmi slots for long haul" story ? and do you think all the current BA short haul slots are not up for re allocation if IAG think it appropriate ?

I meant if BMI are integrated into BA. I understand that they don't have to use all the slots for LH but if all slots are transfered to BA, as would surely happen with the integration, then those slots are all now BA's. Therefore cannot be used to set up new airline (that's how I understand SCOPE). I'm just trying to understand it as this question doesn't seem to have been answered by those saying that IAG can still set up a new carrier in the future.

The slots may only be "leased" to BA and still "owned" by IAG until they (IAG) decide the time is right to set up the BA lite operation. There have been no assurances that if bmi is intergrated the bmi slots would become BA`s permanently.

My apologies. I made a typographical error in my last post.

Please read any reference to BMI as "BA Express".

In case no one has noticed here, if Lufthansa do not find a buyer for BMI Baby by 31/3/12, IAG inherit that outfit as well.

Where will these pilots be slotted in?

British Airways/IAG with bmi looks to re-establish world leadership – and long term survival | CAPA (http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/british-airwaysiag-with-bmi-looks-to-re-establish-world-leadership---and-long-term-survival-65790)

In case no one has noticed here, if Lufthansa do not find a buyer for BMI Baby by 31/3/12, IAG inherit that outfit as well.

Hardly news. It is part of the deal that if Baby is not sold, the price for the deal goes down.

It doesn't take the brains of a rocket scientist to imagine what will happen if IAG is forced to take on Baby as well.

The slots may only be "leased" to BA and still "owned" by IAG until they (IAG) decide the time is right to set up the BA lite operation. There have been no assurances that if bmi is intergrated the bmi slots would become BA`s permanently.
*


No. All slots will be taken by BA and become part of scope. The BACC had spotted that one.

Until you get that in writing I would be sceptical of any "assurances" in that area.

Take a look at the link the Count posted, the inference is quite clear, BA will eventually have a lower cost short haul operation, sooner rather than later if the outcome of the vote is a yes in my humble opinion !

Until you get that in writing I would be sceptical of any "assurances" in that area.

It is in writing in the agreement between BA and BALPA. The BA members have read and digested that which probably explains why nobody in BA is getting overexcited.

If I was the count I'd me more concerned about the 20m IFCE have agreed to save without consulting the union.

The slots will be transferred to BA ownership as well as the airframes thereby placing them under the legally ratified Scope clause as part of the MOA. This has been agreed by IAG as part of the deal to integrate. After that point it would be very tricky for IAG, given the lack of slot availability and the competition authority's approval, for IAG to expand its slot portfolio at LHR.

Cost reductions for SH have been on the cards for years. A short term snapshot of 5% productivity and some leave days (to be replaced by wrap around working days off giving a reduction of 2 credit hours per day or 4 credit hours per year) are irrelevant when looking at the long term ability to grow LH.

BMI, under the NO vote, would cease to exsist. Their AOC would be annulled and a new AOC instigated. What happens to the contracts at that point? There is no 'integration', no 'takeover' and certainly no TUPE. Think of the position of all of the BMI crews be it flight, cabin or ground staff at that point. When you are presented with a 'take it or leave it' scenario.

As for the Count, most in the cabin, bar of course the rampant militant BASSA members who wanted the company to fold anyway, are breathing a collective sigh of relief that the BASSA lunacy is behind us. Is the CC union a sheep or a lamb? The fact that IFCE, along with ALL other departments, are having to submit their annual cost savings and have entered their proposals to the board without even bothering to consult with the almighty BASSA might go someway to prove that the Union has become more akin to a turkey than even a lamb.

£20 M from IFCE? When/where was that announced? Is that their contribution to integration of BMI?

BASSA not consulted either? That will initiate a few hissy fits :D

As an external observer with an interest in the outcome of the vote, I'm glad to see that those who actually have a say appear to be coherent and understanding. It's also nice to see that the laughable, militant views imparted by some (who generally show a complete lack of understanding) are indeed being laughed at.

4015

£20 M from IFCE? When/where was that announced? Is that their contribution to integration of BMI?


It is indeed. Whilst many like to think that only the Flight Crew have an input on this they are incorrect. Whilst IAG has allowed BALPA to be a major deciding partner, all other departments have also been consulted/told that they will have to achieve cost parity/savings in order to play a part in the merger. Some departments have had savings levied in line with reducing the BMI debt and other departments, with contractual obligations, have been asked to tender new contracts.

This is a business wide event. Not just for us Flight Crew to decide.

I think that the majority who have a say in this have a very coherent view of what's at stake. As for the rest, interesting as some of the comments are, they do show a lack of understanding IMHO, but are worth listening to.

Aside, of course, from those who have yet to move on and are deliberately playing the agent provocateur. They are unlikely to get around the credibility issue though.

This is a business wide event. Not just for us Flight Crew to decide.

It is indeed. BA want savings of over 100m company wide. All departments have agreed to the savings (the management that is). Any department not making the savings will see the work outsourced. Flight ops is no different except that we're the only ones getting a vote on it. Other depts will have to take or leave any changes.

Other depts will have to take or leave any changes

To be strictly accurate they can only "take it"............

Or leave..... Bye Count...:ok:

If the vote to not integrate bmi happens, then a number of things will start to occur as I see it.
BA Lite will have the bmi slots which in time will become a long/mid haul enterprise. All new folk joining BA will join Lite and bit by bit it will become the new BA, lower cost, new lower contracts and new aircraft. It won't happen straight away, but it will happen, thus ruining the current BA Mainline machine.
It won't be good for the bmi staff but also it won't be good for BA staff in time to come.
I don't understand why there is a reluctance to merge bmi pilots. There will only be about 250 people any way, doubt if you folks at BA Mainline will even notice they have turned up.
True there will be some that might go ahead in seniority, but if you consider the amount of expansion that will occur because of the slots etc, it will be much better in the long run for every body.
The other thing is that not everyone at bmi will want to go long or mid haul. Many will simply stay doing what they do with the life style they currently enjoy. There will be little or no impact at all on the current Mainline pilots.
If you vote not to integrate bmi pilots, you may live to regret you decision.:hmm:

Only a lunatic would suggest that "rampant militant BASSA members who wanted the company to fold anyway". Here once again is the justification for BA's pilots to serve drinks in the cabins, and their policy of appeasing Willie.

As BMI pilots will find out, the self-preservation of the elitist cabal who are now deciding their destiny, will take precedence over any concerns for the careers of their future "colleagues".

Wowsers. Talk about having a chip on both shoulders.

You must be fun on a CRM course...

Ah 'Count' how short the memory must be getting.

Have a good look at some of the rubbish flowing from the Bassa Secretary during the dispute to see the real rhetoric of the lunatic fringe. I'm certain you know where to find them.

Unless you actually can vote and thus have any influence your ramblings are, as usual, meaningless.

Here once again is the justification for BA's pilots to serve drinks in the cabins

I forgot, this is a convinient point to remind everyone that the Pilot VCC's were outnumbered almost 3:1 by members of other Unite sub branches so strong they were behind their poor downtrodden BASSA brothers. Ouch, that must have hurt Red Len!!!!

The change in T's & C's for BMI during the re-branding excercise would be catastrophic. At least with a merger they will get to consult on TUPE. Something that wouldn't be available unless BA pilots give up cost savings in order to bring them into the fold. Self preservation indeed.

Oh stop it Count. No really. Woo haw ha ha, no please, ha ha ha, pleas...woh ha ha, stop it, you're killing me.

Bottle it, and flog it Count, woo ha ha, Bedfont needs ya baby.

You only a missing 'o' away from being the latest entry in Roger's Profanisaurus. Ooh wah ha ha ha, stop it Count. Really.

Flow Wedge I am very surprised you making light of such a serious situation. All those two ringers who volunteered to be VCC's are the ones most affected by the takeover.

Those commands are receding into the distant future like their hairlines, as the influx of BMI pilots combined with senior captains who choose to fly well into their 60's, take its toll on promotion.

Willie knows you will never strike, so he will just keep coming back for more. BA Express will be your Mixed Fleet and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Err, Count. I'm not a pilot.

You are entitled to peddle your views. We live in a democracy.

Bon Nuit.

Edited to add: Good luck to all during the next few months, including you Count. Time will out live us all.......

..and therin lies the beauty of this Rumour Network Count. You can say what you like, within the rules of course. But none of is really knows who each other are, except for the clever guys who collect the internet address data from numerous psyeudonyms to figure out the likely 'Hoods'.

I suspect you, Count, are a BA employee from a particular section, you may even be a proxy for someone else (no prizes), I don't care and you can post what you like, but, I am sure you have not been privy to the sophistications of the Board level machinations of IAG. Similarly, I suspect you have no detailed knowledge of the complexities of the negotiations between the BA/Union flight ops protaganists. Your reliance on, and interpration of historical industrial relations is the basis point for your assertions but, IMHO, you are comparing incompetent passion fruits with far more calculating minds; indeed, minds which are 'mindful' of the role of the IAG Board, to wit: make money in the harshest of economic blizzards. Therefore, again IMHO, much of what you assert is baseless, with the odd nugget, at best, flimsy.

That all said, I would defend, to the nth degree, you right to espouse your beliefs. It's what makes Pprune so compelling.

All those two ringers who volunteered to be VCC's are the ones most affected by the takeover.But you conveniently fail to mention, as always, the three-times-as-many Unite colleagues from other BA departments who became VCC. Tell me, what happens to them in any BA/BMI integration? The truth is you don't know, Count, do you? You don't know and you don't care, because the poison in your veins is that you detest pilots.

Your single-agenda ramblings really are not germane to the discussion here. Perhaps you could conduct your mutterings on a forum where your militant cabin crew comrades will happily believe you?

Flow Wedge I am very surprised you making light of such a serious situation. All those two ringers who volunteered to be VCC's are the ones most affected by the takeover.

Those commands are receding into the distant future like their hairlines, as the influx of BMI pilots combined with senior captains who choose to fly well into their 60's, take its toll on promotion.


And loaders, and baggage handlers, and engineers.

Good to know you have seen into the future and know, already, the outcome of both the ballot and TUPE. Brilliant, pity you couldn't figure out the results of your own doomed strategy. Seems a touch 'rum' to coach others on theirs no?

Have you drunk your champagne you had so on ice for a resounding victory? Nope thought not.

Think about your adding up? 27 Aircraft with crews delivered, SH crewed at 5 crews per aircraft and LH crewed at 9/10 crews per aircraft. Duplicated routes traded to LH and an increase in the number of commands available to all.

Bubble burst again???

Flew to Las Vegas a couple of weeks with a TRM who had been VCC so add them to your list as well.

Wirblesturm
It gets better I believe the number is closer to 4.3 sh and 7.1 Lh full time equivalent. We have a lot of part timers :-)
Regards

Count,

Just watching shutter island and it got me thinking...you referred to yourself as a BA 747 co pilot in a previous post...is that true?

Everything ok?

Willie knows you will never strike, so he will just keep coming back for more.

Instead you must follow the sterling work of BASSA.

You too could have most of your reps fired for various acts during an illegal strike.

Brother Len will be proud of you if you do!

Ham Phisted. TRM's at BA are currently in fear of losing their jobs. In fact most employee groups in BA who were VCC's could see their jobs outsourced in the future. There won't be any tears shed by BASSA members. The VCC's proved during the dispute they were surplus to requirements. Their departments were still making their targets whilst they were serving drinks.

What I find remarkable at the moment is the lack of vision by BALPA and posters here, who cannot see beyond the end of their noses. The BMI takeover is the begininng of an avalanche of change. Do BA's pilots seriously believe that Walsh will not start a JetStar type operation as well, when he gets access to enough slots? In fact it was only talks between QANTAS and BA being exposed on Crikey.com back in 2008, which generated the predictable Ozzie backlash, that kiboshed the merger. JetStar is now expanding into Japan with BA and QANTAS interests overlapping. Walsh wants a bit more action in that region as well via JAL.

BA's flight crew scoff at the cabin crew dispute, as if the setting up of Mixed Fleet was a defeat. What is conveniently overlooked is that BA's assault on the UK's largest union branch was simply union busting. At no time before the dispute were there friendly relations between Walsh and BASSA's leadership. No doubt the feeling was mutual, as the cabin crew were well aware why Walsh had been brought into the company, and protected from taking responsibility for the T5 opening shambles. Two long serving directors carried the can for that, and have since never talked about their humiliation.

There is nothing BALPA or its members can do to prevent BA starting a low cost operation, all that is left is to adopt a 'Laager' type defence and protect as best you can, the T&C's of legacy crew until they eventually leave. Wirblesturm may point out all he likes how the legacy cabin crew will "wither on the vine", but that is exactly where the pilots are now.

It is kind of Walsh to give the pilots the impression, that the way they vote will make any difference where he intends to go with them. It is purely a psychological exercise to appeal to their sense of hubris. The truth is that BALPA and its BA members are on the back foot now, and there are many of us who are quite enjoying the spectacle.

The setting up of MF was a defeat for UNITE and BASSA. If union busting was WW's aim then BASSA not only colluded, they threw themselves wholeheartedly in with WW's plan. BASSA have been marginalised, MF is here and there is an agreement in place that means that the current discussions that BASSA has about recruiting on MF are irrelevant, as they cannot represent MF in discussions with the company. BASSA have been emasculated, they know that the only weapon in their arsenal, the strike, is now a busted flush. The faithful will no longer rush to walk out knowing that all it will do is speed the demise of Legacy Fleet, lose ST for them, cost them money that they will never recoup and they will not achieve their aims by it. I find it incredibly self serving and not a little ironic to hear claims go a lack of foresight from a BASSA supporter. The R of TDODAR is not being used with any critical thinking in the world of BASSA.

So come on BA pilots, lets take the advice of a BASSA and reject the deal, we can follow BASSA into irrelevance too!

Count,

As I haven't got anything better to do and it's obviously a slack day in University land for you, I'll reply.

Quite simply there is nothing, absoloutley nothing BALPA can do about IAG setting up BA Express. Not now, not in the future. The Openskies dispute proved, in a court of law, that, by using the Viking Case Study, it was illegal for workers from one company preventing the formation of another company. As the courts put it 'the ability to supress free enterprise by the projected future threats of jobs and earnings for current employees is not sustainable'.

There you go, IAG can, as with Iberia, set up a new airline wherever and whenever they wish.

Obviously we have buried our heads in the sand over this, stuck our fingers in our ears and shouted 'La La La we're not listening we're going on strike over something nebulous and untenable'. Sound familiar?

Why should we not negotiate over something that we have been talking about and discussing for the past 10 years? I.e. The simple fact that SH is not profitable in the current economic and trading environment. Unlike certain other groups we are well aware of the trading conditions, well up to speed with the financial projections of the company and, personally, very understanding of the business plan of the airline and its remit to return both profitability and, if possible, dividends to the shareholders. This is Willie Walshs job and contract. I refuse to be pulled into the BASSA 'it's personal' Quagmire. I've met Willie a couple of times and he is, primarily, the CEO of one of the worlds largest airline groups with the business accumen and responsibilities that go with it. The BASSA dispute was never 'Union Bashing' BASSA were given the chance to negotiate with everyone else. They just chose not to and then used the 'Union Bashing' moniker to cover up their mistakes and inability to protect their members future interests. It was the path of least unionistic resistance with the hope that Unite would have the clout to push through a untenable argument.

So, as with the BASSA refusal to negotiate anything why should we make it easy for IAG to set up BA Express? BASSA had the chance to nip Mixed Fleet in the bud but, as everyone from the Union decried 'oh but Project Columbus has been on paperwork for years' BASSA decided they had no chance and therefore went on a huff IA route. BA were willing to pull Mixed Fleet in return for working concessions. Those concessions didn't arrive therefore Mixed Fleet did. Why should BALPA do the same?

Should we really 'gift' IAG with BMI to transform instantly into BA Express with 30 aircraft and crews? Nope. When BMI is integrated then we have a stronger position to prevent BA from starting up its 'BA Express' as the Scope clause covers the airframes and the crews and they cannot transfer the airframes back.

Unlike with the ill informed BASSA members it is very difficult to get a full company up and running with the adequate training and standards structure that will be required for CAA approval within a short time frame. Therefore the current aircraft orders of 787's, 380's and 777-300's, all of which have been allocated, legally after the Openskies dispute, to BA mainline, cannot be 'gifted' to BA Express.

So to sum up, yes, we are aware that IAG could do what they want with a new company. We are aware that failing to bring BMI into the fold would hasten the formation of said company. We are aware that the company requires cost savings and that the spectre of BA Express won't go away and we are aware that it is the companies responsibility to look at all future options.

We are also aware that BA/BMI combined will leave little/no room at Heathrow for a start up. We are aware that the combined company BA having >50% of the slots at LHR will make for a strengthened bargaining position when the time is right and we are aware that Len McClusky presided over the biggest Union defeat of the 1990's and is probably not the best person to take advice from.

Finally Count, you claim hubris, I would suggest that, by trying to preserve and increase the slots/routes available to BA mainline crews, not just pilots, we are trying to maintain the work into the future for the whole airline and all the CC as well. Unlike BASSA who sold their members down the river by allowing the rapid formation of Mixed Fleet. Hubris? Perhaps from BASSA.

Unfortunately Wirblsturm, you are not qualified to comment on the reason for the BA dispute with its cabin crew . However for your convenience, I have provided a link where you can avail yourself of the correct information, instead of peddling the usual "BASSA refused to negotiate" propaganda. For a mere £30 a man of your financial resources can acquaint himself with the facts, instead of living in a bubble of fiction.

Fighting Back: Resisting Union Busting and Strike Breaking in the BA Dispute: Amazon.co.uk: Keith D. Ewing: 9781906703141: Books

Keith Ewing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ewing)


BA's flight crew as I have already alluded to, would be far better off entrenching into longhaul to preserve their legacy pay and conditions. Shorthaul is finished as a career other than for hour building by junior jets.

BA's pilots should look to QANTAS to see what Willie has in store for them. Already BA's flight crew have seen the threat posed by Walsh, who cut costs by only allowing Airbus type rated pilots on the initial batch of A380's. Geoff Dixon the previous boss of QANTAS, threatened his pilots with JetStar flight crew flying the super jumbo. At the moment replacement CEO Alan Joyce is doing his best to remove the T&C's of QANTAS "brand" (aka legacy) pilots.

A win-win Qantas resolution? | Ben Sandilands | Commentary | Business Spectator (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Qantas-union-grounding-dispute-FWA-pilots-engineer-pd20111219-PP5N6?opendocument&src=idp&emcontent_leaders_management)

So the future is not so bright on the other side of the flight deck door. Whilst the two ringers were preoccupied serving drinks during the cabin crew dispute, they really should have kept their eye on the ball with the goings-ons at QANTAS.

Count, while casting aspirations as to Wirbelsturm's qualifications to comment on the reasons for BASSA's dispute and abject defeat by BA during their dispute, you fail to list your qualifications to comment upon the current situation. Could you please list your qualifications and experience so that we may judge your fitness and perspicacity on this issue.

Studi

From Wirbelsturm

Should we really 'gift' IAG with BMI to transform instantly into BA Express with 30 aircraft and crews? Nope. When BMI is integrated then we have a stronger position to prevent BA from starting up its 'BA Express' as the Scope clause covers the airframes and the crews and they cannot transfer the airframes back.

The scope clause covers hulls not slots, so it is always possible to transfer slots to BA lite whichever way the vote goes. By integrating BMI, the BMI hulls would be covered by scope, IAG would have made enough savings to satisfy them for the moment, but would also make it much more difficult for them to set up a BA lite in the future, as they would not have the ready made airline complete with a useful portfolio of slots that they have with BMI.

What are the alternatives? Vote no and gamble that it's a big bluff and that IAG will integrate anyway? Or encourage the BMI guys with all their new joiners to go on strike from the sidelines for BA terms and conditions, whilst knowing that not only would it be illegal for us to assist by secondary action, but that also we would probably be rostered to cover some of their work.

Contrary to the Count's assertions, I would not be comfortable with being so selfish.

On that, the senior guys in BA LHS long haul, by voting yes to this, have the least IMO to gain. They will still have long haul commands until they retire, albeit with diminishing choice of destinations, but most will be gone before that bites so will be giving up two days leave for the benefit of short haul and yet every one that I have spoken to is willing to do that for the greater good.

Count

BA's flight crew scoff at the cabin crew dispute, as if the setting up of Mixed Fleet was a defeat. What is conveniently overlooked is that BA's assault on the UK's largest union branch was simply union busting.

It was a defeat, no ifs.
It wasn't union busting, BASSA busted themselves.

Only a lunatic would suggest that "rampant militant BASSA members who wanted the company to fold anyway".

Many Cabin Crew I flew with stated that they would prefer the company to fold than negotiate with Willie. Pretty unequivocal. Were they lunatics for saying it or was I for listening?

Wirbelsturm

You have set out an arguement that strongly supports the reasons why BA flightcrew should vote 'yes' to the merger.

I have probably missed it somewhere in the previous pages but please clarify this: what is to stop Walsh announcing that on 1 Jan 2013, IAG will create a new airline BA Express plc, or whatever, that will begin operations with 20 x A320 acquired/leased from British Airways and recruitment for the aforementioned airline begins on 1 June 2012 Aircrew affected by the withdrawal of the A320s from the BA fleet will be given the opportunity to apply for positions in the new airline?

Count, sorry .... Duncan, so what makes you think you are qualified to comment on this subject? Talk about a chip on the shoulder! Its a whole potato field in Germany that you have there. Please, your blathering is not welcome because this really isn't your strong subject, and your 'arguments' are founded on deeply flawed concepts. Your twisted view of the world just doesn't exist where everybody else is standing. :rolleyes:

I have probably missed it somewhere in the previous pages but please clarify this: what is to stop Walsh announcing that on 1 Jan 2013, IAG will create a new airline BA Express plc, or whatever, that will begin operations with 20 x A320 acquired/leased from British Airways and recruitment for the aforementioned airline begins on 1 June 2012 Aircrew affected by the withdrawal of the A320s from the BA fleet will be given the opportunity to apply for positions in the new airline?

Legally there is nothing to stop IAG doing just this.

However, the record of concilliation from BALPA and its members is, over the past years, exemplary. The pilot cost base has changed constantly to bring it into line with modern standards as a relatively fixed accountable asset. Whilst it remains a well paid job the ability to attract the right people has cost savings attached in the form of lower training costs and higher retention.

IAG would have to judge very closely what the potential savings of a 'BA Express' formed against the backdrop of inevitable industrial action taken against seeing the terms and conditions of current BA employees losing hulls and routes would be.

The agreement to take BMI into BA makes it far more difficult for IAG to form BA Express in any other form. The lack of space at Heathrow, the lack of crews and the lack of slots would make it a very costly excercise. As a direct contributor to the terms of Mainline BA IAG could not 'lease' BA owned aircraft to BA Express, they would have to be flown by Mainline pilots iaw Scope. The direct impact on the future prospects of BA and the recently merged BMI crews (all crew members) would be directly affected by the formation of BA Express and there, I personally think, you would see an end to goodwill if IAG were so hell bent on renaging on previous dealings.

If this were to pass then IAG would need to consider the costs of the BA fleet being grounded. Through the auspices of BAPLA the BA pilot community has continued to accept the need for change, productivity and rationalisation. This has been done on a basis of continued negotiation and a very close working relationship. From the GMM that I attended I came away with a very clear impression that both IAG and BA want the integration (if they didn't why offer it?), they want a cohesive product to offer the public and they are critically aware that going back on these agreements will, in the eyes of the Pilots, the Law and the public, leave them in a difficult position.

So, in short, there is nothing to stop IAG forming BA Express, however, if they do, it could potentially be a very expensive startup as it would have a direct impact on the future earnings potential of mainline after we have given so much to help the company survive.

We have patience and a clear understanding of the business. But concilliation only goes so far and must be a two way excercise.

'IAG would have to judge very closely what the potential savings of a 'BA Express' formed against the backdrop of inevitable industrial action taken against seeing the terms and conditions of current BA employees losing hulls and routes would be'

and do you seriously see WW worrying about that ?

Yes, I think he would.

Whilst it is fairly easy to justify losses attributed to strike action from an employee group who have consistently resisted change it is quite a bit more difficult for a CEO to justify losses attributed to an employee group who have consistently backed the company through difficult times.

The gulf between Iberia and their savings requirements was huge, thus Iberia Express happened. IAG are asking for a 5% short haul productivity increase in order for SH to break even. That is achievable.

To deliberately provoke IA from BAPLA would be difficult do defend to both the board and the shareholders.

IAG would have to judge very closely what the potential savings of a 'BA Express' formed against the backdrop of inevitable industrial action taken against seeing the terms and conditions of current BA employees losing hulls and routes would be.


You are kidding aren't you? You would damage the airline financially just to selfishly pursue your own agenda? There would be no legitimacy at all for this type of industrial action, and besides the pilot community is split and haven't got the stomach for it anyway.

Best to stick with appeasement.

You are kidding aren't you? You would damage the airline financially just to selfishly pursue your own agenda? There would be no legitimacy at all for this type of industrial action, and besides the pilot community is split and haven't got the stomach for it anyway.

Best to stick with appeasement.

Of course, otherwise it's called knowing when and where to pick your battles.

There would be no legitimacy at all for this type of industrial action

Really? I fail to see where you get that from? Transferring of assets away from the main company to a lo-cost starter at the Mainline base after productivity changes have been agreed? Reduction of perceived terms and conditions irrespective of changes given for profitability? No legitimacy? There would be no legitimacy in forecasting a future threat, when it is actually occuring then there is legitimacy. What is that course teaching you 'Count'?


I'm sure you'll be at the head of the VP queue.

Best leave a bit of time off for the 18 month qualification course though and good luck with the ATPL exams.

:ugh:

I think you'll find the 'Count' failed to get into Hamble in the 1970's. Still bitter, he had to settle for being a steward...

Edited so as not to sink to a common level!

Quite correct Fate Hunter, thank you. :E