Don't want to scaremonger - but just heard that all BMI bases other than LHR to close. Included in this is Belfast - I believe the pilots based there are mainline crew, but they too have been given notice!

Is this true?

If so, a very sad day for all involved. Fingers crossed my source has it wrong. Good luck to all in BMI wherever you are. Been there myself a long time ago, but still gives me a shiver thinking about it. I really hope this all pans out for everyone.

Jox,

Nope, not a troll - just been confirmed on our union forum.

You'll note that I've not posted on PPRUNE for a few years, as I can't stand the claptrap that frequently spouts forth from various self-serving parties - I have no interest in this other than being a concerned effective bystander.

As I said, I hoped it wasn't true, but sadly it appears to be so. The BMI guys (and gals?) at Belfast have been given 90 days notice - including Flight Crew.

Best wishes to all.....

Thinking of all at Bmi . Good luck

I've not heard confirmation but this seems to be the future for all regional bases.

Good luck to all those affected. Given the recent announcements about LGW it seems the anti is being upped by BA/IAG. I hope some sensible arrangement can be made to save as many jobs as possible.

Jazzy

Jazzy,

Sadly, you are right; just seen that it's MAN & EDI too!

Our thoughts are with all those in BMI. Still don't know what's happening wrt Baby and Regional though. Fingers crossed for all concerned.

Yes, bad news ref LGW, these people too should be in our thoughts.

I know it is not home, but the middle east is still craving for pilots and cabin crew, if you don't mind a little heat and sand.

Good luck!
CR

Used to be at BACON in a ground job so can speak with some experience on what BA will be doing.

BA sold off BA Connect to Flybe in March 2007, stating that point-to-point regional operations were no longer part of their business model. I doubt this has changed. The only internal flights they want to do in the UK are Shuttle flights from LHR and LGW to Scotland, Newcastle, Manchester etc which will feed punters into their worldwide and European network. So any regionally based part of BMI is a dead duck.

The national media are reporting figures of 1,200 jobs to go and 1,500 to remain ? (or is it 1,200 to go out of 1,500 ?). All they are interested in are the slots BMI have at LHR. As for they rest of it, they would quite happily sack the entire workforce and scrap / sell off the aircraft - why acquire something that they already have plenty of ?

They will have absolutely no interest in Regional and Baby and are stating that if Lufthansa are saying they are part of the deal, they will want BMI for £1.

Fairest thing Lufthansa could do is get what they can for BMI mainline, and if they are going to bail out of the rest of it they run it down at a steady pace and give a decent payoff to those losing their jobs rather that waste money gifting an airline to a competitor by paying up the pension scheme and aircraft leases, and paying a pittance to those losing their jobs (twice the statutory redundancy rate was all BA paid).

I am not grinding any old axes here - was very happy to finish with BA and the job I have done since is better by a factor of 10 - much better pay, no shift work etc, and they certainly did us a favour by doing all this before the Depression hit in 2008. But I do think it would be wise for people to be aware of what will be happening and what BA's motives are.

Sorry to say that BMI has joined the long list of decent airlines in the UK buried by BA (BCal, DanAir, Manx, Brymon, etc, etc, etc).

Would suggest that any others face the same fate if they are not owned by an individual (Branson and Bishop being good examples here).

Best move the CAA could make is the not allow landing slots to be sold with an airline. That would finish off mergers at a stroke. BALPA could also help by realising that the bulk of their members do not actually work for BA (although I may not be correct in stating this for much longer !).

G-Rich,

BA will pay substantially more for BMI than a quid if Lufthansa don't sell off BMI baby etc. Don't know where your figures are from but they are twaddle.
To say that BA are burying a decent airline is a bit rich. BA have bought an airline that was bust. 2700 people would be out of work if BA hadn't stepped in. They bought them for their own, profit making, reasons but that is the situation. As it was with Dan Air too!!!!

zzz

Sorry to say that BMI has joined the long list of decent airlines in the UK buried by BA
Whilst zzz has already answered this, I am not going to let it pass without another riposte. As comments go, that quoted above is on a par with some of the worst manure that comes out of the Daily Mail. BA buys a chunk of a collapsing airline, and you blame BA for it? What planet are you on? :rolleyes:

BA buys a chunk of a collapsing airline

as well as merging with a Spanish collapsing airline..?

Only the Irish...............:}

Ah, but have you seen what he is doing to that Spanish airline? Kicking it's arse in to the middle of next year! And there is kicking for BA too, I fear, some time in the not too distant future.

Yes, starting with the LGW BA ground staff..!

Good luck one and all - not easy being in the UK at present.

This twaddle was from The Daily Mail, so it must be true. Do mean to imply that I could be reading a paper that reports things that are not true and accurate ? It was tucked away in the business pages, obviously by some pro BA hack, the stooge ! BA will not save many jobs, nowhere near the 2,000 plus fantasy figures mentioned here. They want the Heathrow slots so I doubt that they actually want to "save" any at all.

At least these broke independant airlines were built up from nothing and had a go without government help. Under the same rules BA would have been dead and buried a long while ago.


Whatever BA's history of government assistance, it has no bearing on this discussion.

What is of more pertinence is how this news will affect how the BMIcc react and engage with BA management over the coming weeks.

Why would Lufthansa want to pay BA to take it off their hands though ?

Better for them to get rid of it in one fell swoop I expect.

Its a grim day when BMI were absorbed by BA but through this forum I'd like to thank BD staff for making domestic flights flying so much more of a pleasure. I fondly recall flying out of LHR to GLA and EDI with the DC9's and B733. Thanks to one and all; good luck

So a Capt who was been with Bmi for 20 years at a regional base gets axed but a 3 year Capt at LHR doesn't?

Seniority counts for nothing at bmi.

actually there are pilots at lhr who have been there for weeks! who will retain their jobs.

Seniority has never protected anyone from a base closure.

A good union can engage with an employer to try to mitigate this sort of thing.

To all in BMI that I offended with my original post asking for confirmation of this terrible news. It has been pointed out to me that the way in which I sought confirmation or otherwise was somewhat insensitive to all those affected.

I can now see, and accept, that my original post could be construed as 'Trolling', and indeed was received by many as being insensitive at this difficult time.

I would like to put on record my humble apologies for any and all offence I caused to those caught up in this terrible state of affairs. It was not my intention to cause offence, but I have obviously done so to many. I'm sorry.

Please all, accept my humble apologies.

BA takes over BMI and all employees. As I understand it BMI's bases are not independent companies, therefore how can BA cherry pick who it keeps on using the bases as criteria? if you are at LHR you are hired, if you are in the the sticks you are not. Surely time of service has some influence on the calculation and whatever seniority redundancy agreements BMI had in place? If said pilot dos not wish to relocate from EDI to LHR that is one thing, but surely the senior guys need to be given a choice? And is not BALPA represented in both camps. Allowing senior guys to be thrown to the wolves in favour of juniors is not a good advert for the organisation.
If BMI was bust and BA rescues it, that would be one thing, but just buying out a competitor surely BA should respect the internal structure of their purchase.

You may want to refer back a few years when BA was looking to make some pilots redundant (2009). BA Management went to great pains to point out that Last In First Out was NOT a valid way of determining who gets to stay. This is backed up by a court decision between Rolls Royce and Unite Union. The outcome of that was that although 'seniority' / 'time in the company' could be used as a factor for choosing redundancies it does NOT have to be the only or even main variable when deciding. BA at the time maintained that each fleet could be viewed as a different entity and pilots could be made redundant off each fleet independently of the other fleets if that fleet was being downsized with seniority only counted when it came down to picking between two pilots on the same fleet and in the same rank.

So unfortunately when it comes to BMI all BA need to do is make geographical location the main factor when deciding who to let go. Legally they are quite entitled to do this, it may not sit well but they can do it. :{

So you are correct, seniority does not help in this situation.

If BMI was bust and BA rescues it, that would be one thing, but just buying out a competitor surely BA should respect the internal structure of their purchase.

To all intents and purposes bmi is bust and there'll be little, if any, of it's internal structure left after BA have finished with it. As Ollie said, seniority has very little legal strength. If BA were halving the LHR operation there might be scope to use seniority as a factor in the redundancy matrix, but as they are closing bases in their entirety then there is no requirement for a matrix to choose between staff as they are all going. Unfortunately I think we are seeing the first steps towards a new paradigm in airline management in the UK in which seniority counts for little. This is the way it's going to be from now on.

Bmi outstations today, BA LGW pilots or the B767 fleet pilots next time around. Should the BACC add some industrial might to this issue? Just because it is legal it doesn't mean it is the only legal solution available. From a policy perspective BALPA should fight this from every possible angle. If the 2 CCs can work together on this point of common interest maybe their relationship will blossom just in time to deal with more thorny issues over the coming weeks.

There was a brief period for the combined CC's to influence IAG through BA before the dismantling of BMI commenced. Regretably it didn't work out.

The axe is now being wielded pre BA integration so the BACC now have no say in what is going on and are not even party to the discussions.

It's down to the BMICC to see what they can salvage.

Ollie Onion:
how can BA cherry pick who it keeps on using the bases as criteria?

I would be very careful making assumptions like that! I am not at all sure what, if any, BA's involvement in these strategic decisions is? Are you?

This deal does not complete for another week. At that point IAG will become the owners of BMI. At some point in the following 5 months BMI will die and become part of BA.

My point is IAG are the buyers here, NOT BA!

IAG are NOT an airline, and if you want to see how they operate, take a look at the Iberia Express or Iberia Strike threads!!

look you:

There already was an eagerness on the part of the BACC to engage with the BMICC on the issue of integration, but for reasons with which I have some sympathy, it was not possible to reach common ground at that time.

The BACC are no longer 'officially' able to contribute to the current consultations. Though I suspect we can be confident we will not be disappointed with activities behind the scenes?

I am probably missing something (wouldn't be the first time) but why are IAG or BA even being mentioned in this. As of the present, they are as far as I am aware not the owners of BMI, Lufthansa are.

With this in mind, talk of how BA or IAG manage things should apply post approximately 20th April. Until this time, Lufthansa and BMI management are the ones officially making this cull and I would expect it to be dealt with under the current AFS for BMI pilots.

As I say, perhaps I'm missing something but it would appear to me that either these redunadncies are handled and decided upon internally by Lufthansa/BMI management prior to the takeover or by IAG/BA after the over. If it is the latter then TUPE would apply. If it is the former, I would expect that WPS should stand by his loyal outstation staff and say "not on my watch" to any pressure by future owners. In previous communiques, the line has been that the management would try and minimise job losses rather than to consider pulling the plug on the business.

As positions will be needed by the future employer, surely this is contrary to that stance.

Thick E:

I stand to be corrected, but I believe TUPE only applies once BA own BMI. That is to say, NOT when LH own it, but also NOT when IAG own it either.

As positions will be needed by the future employer, surely this is contrary to that stance.

Approximately 25% of the slot portfolio is required to be relinquished by BA as part of the deal. (Branson claims to have a plan for them!:confused:)) Significant productivity savings by both BA and BMI Airbus pilots will also dramatically decrease the manpower requirements of the new entity.

One way or another there was always going to be a surplus of pilots to be dealt with?:(

That seems to be a triumph of hope over expectation. Lufthansa want out of the bmi business so much they are going to pay IAG to take it off them. There'll be no "not on my watch" coming out of the Fatherland. Once again, people need to have a good look at what TUPE does and not not confer. The idea that TUPE makes people redundancy-proofed is incorrect I'm afraid. What you expect Lufthansa and bmi to do now isn't really that relevant as by next Friday it'll be IAG in charge and they'll do it their way.

People are getting way too hopeful as to what UK employment law will give them. The reality is that the law favours the deep-pocketed employer over the employees, and once the employer has decided to shed staff it's impossible to force them to revisit the decision. Courts and Employment Tribunals can only issue un-enforceable reinstatement orders and award limited compensation. The best hope for those facing redundancy now are the company councils influencing BA to find a cost neutral way to keep everyone on board (and it will need to be cost neutral, as IAG won't allow any department to grow it's way out of losses). Can the bmi CC come to their senses and start looking to save jobs rather than waste their time pursuing seniority?

I'm sure there is enough resource out there to work on avoiding redundancies and pursuing BALPA's preferred method of dealing with any that can't be avoided. Eggs and baskets, belt and braces call it what you like. Do you have something personal against the bmiCC? You always seem to be well versed in their activities and always disapproving!

The sacking of ' outstation ' crew irrespective of seniority is not a new phenomenon . I , and many others , were the victims of exactly this practice when BA took over Dan Air in 92 .
There must be an SOP manual they dig out when they need it .

To clarify, no pilot has been made redundant but positions have been put at risk and the holders of these positions have been informed. Out station pilots, some trainers and managers. Why? Because these roles will not continue so the employees must be consulted with. That is what is now happening and it is likely new positions will be offered to those affected. Seniority is not a legally sound system and because these are base closures or management posts being lost Last in first out cannot be used and the company agreements don't apply in a merger. When Glasgow closed those pilots were put at risk and then offered roles at LHR. Not all pilots were put at risk just those posts affected. This way is legally sound. All bmi pilots will support resolutions to ensure these pilots get new posts.

look you - I've nothing against the bmi CC per se, I simply think they've been either naive or negligent in their handling of the present situation. Having been briefed on the way it was going to be by arguably the most experienced negotiating team in the UK when it comes to dealing with BA, they decided they knew better and would do their own thing. You've only got to look at their communique in which they waxed lyrical about how they'd made sacrifices since 2011, how Lufthansa had promised them more long haul flying, how they weren't really a short haul airline, how they'd 'negotiate' with BA. Cloud cuckoo land! One can only hope that this rather rude wake up call will prompt them to reappraise their position and take a more sensible approach to events. Don't pin your hopes on Big BALPA changing things. The only influence they have on BA is through the BACC and their position has been clear for some time.

Why would they piss money up the wall on a case they can't win? Merging the Bmi pilots with the BA MSL would be a gift be are under no legal obligation to offer. They can run the Bmi pilots as a separate fleet within the requirements of the law. What would you sue BA for? Complying with the law and TUPE?

Let's not drag this thread back to the same old integration of lists debate, yawn. This is about redundancy and method being used for 'selecting' the unfortunate ones.

This is a fundamental issue for all uk pilots. If your airline has pilots at more than one base you should be afraid!

The law says who must? BALPA are not the employer. BALPA may suggest but they cannot compel. If BMI merged the list with BMed it's because BMI felt they had to. A union cannot force an employer to do something against their will. The law says sweet FA about pilots seniority lists. BA employ lots of people doing the same jobs on different contracts. BA can legally run the BMI pilots on a seperate, standalone fleet, with different T&Cs and no access to the master seniority list or the Postings and Promotions process and be fully compliant with TUPE. Once you understand that you are half way to recognising the reality. It matters not what BALPA say. All that matters is what IAG/BA can do.

You certainly live up to your username Hand Solo!

Please, can we keep this thread on topic. It is about bmi pilots being made redundant because of where they are based. Next time around it might be your airline facing the problem. BALPA policy, as I understand it, is last in-first out across a global pool of pilots. This is not a legal discussion, it is a matter of industrial relations and how British pilots react, especially those employed within the group (including BA pilots). If it is meekly accepted this time, it will become the norm. VS pilots fought off redundancy by fleet post 9/11, bmi pilots kept broadly DoJ 2 years ago when the company wanted to dismiss Captains. Do we want to spend the rest of our careers worrying that the next base or fleet or type change that we take could put us at risk of redundancy and reset our careers to day one?

Hand Solo - Balpa pissing money away???? How much did they waste on obtaining your precious holiday pay?

How much did they waste on obtaining your precious holiday pay

1) I believe nothing has been wasted, as the legal case has suceeded!
2) I stand to be corrected, but I believe the case fought by BALPA will benefit most of us, in most airlines???

This thread is about redundancies! If we could all pretend we are on the same side for a second, perhaps we could ALL stop looking like a bunch of 'spoilt brats'??:rolleyes:

Is the BMi fleet size and mix part of the equation? If there are any leased airframes to go back to lessors then QED one needs fewer crew.

I don't know the numbers but hopefully someone will be along to spell it out.

Sad to say I never got to travel with them and judging by comments here, I'm the worse for that.

Good luck to all.

Adams & Others v British Airways 1996 CA

Thomson Airways made pilots redundant a couple of years ago.. LIFO on its own wasn't deemed a "safe" enough way of doing it.
It was done using a redundancy matrix but was so heavily weighted to LIFO over things like poor performance and sickness that you would have to had been on the verge of being fired for poor performance anyway before it had any effect.
Redundancy by base was tried a bit later but was avoided by allowing pilots affected to transfer (at there own cost) to a proximate base.
BALPA has all of this experience within its ranks which I'm sure they'll be calling upon. Especially if BA has a current recruitment requirement.

Hi

In any other industry if a business carried out its functions in a multiple of locations, be it car production or whatever, and it decided to close its plants at sites 2, 3 and 4 but leave site 1 open, would it not be completely unfair / illegal to sack (or make redundant) a worker at site 1 in order to transfer someone in from one of the other sites just because he had worked for the company for less time?

My thoughts are with those with those facing an uncertain future in these difficult times. I hope that the 90 day notices are a worst case and that as things shake out the future will look a lot brighter.

Litebulbs,

The case you quote is only applicable with a merger. If BMI is kept separate and transfers to BA are offered on an individual basis then people can decide to accept or reject whatever is offered. I suspect many would accept a full BA offer even if this meant going to the bottom of the MSL. BMI would then quickly shrivel to a small rump and could then not be described as a a major airline with its facilities, aircraft, routes and workforce.regards

binsleepin _ I appreciate your comparison but it still would not work because company B has bought Company A with plants at 1, 2 and 3 - it is then company B - ( the new owner of all plants) which has decided that it is to close plants 1 and 2. Not Company A which no longer exists.

The closure decision is with the new owners

Since the age discrimination act of 2006 people cannot be forced to retire at 55, the reverse of the coin is seniority and LIFO are questionable in terms of legality because it discriminates against younger workers. What is not questionable is employment law. If a position is made redundant at plant A and a worker at plant B is made redundant to allow the employee from plant A to relocate to plant B that is illegal because it is the position that is made redundant not the person (I know in reality it's all about the people). The worker who was made redundant was done so to make room for the other worker. The position is not redundant and that is illegal. If BA/IAG/BMI want to close a base they have to give at risk to the affected people and enter consultation. The consultation process is very likely to discuss options in new roles (eg another base) or for some who may want, a redundancy package. I really believe that all will be ok. As for seniority well it's not going to last, easy, Ryanair, Emirates all have got rid of it. What's the solution to the new system for say bids on holiday leave ect? Random computer program? Points awarded due to time worked / productivity maybe.

Sir George Cayley
If there are any leased airframes to go back to lessors then QED one needs fewer crew.
It's FAR more clear cut than that! As I already explained, fewer pilots are required!

FREDA
Especially if BA has a current recruitment requirement.
They don't! Recruitment is currently suspended!

If anyone thinks/fears this means 'curtains' for those currently issued with 90 day notices, I strongly suspect there will be slightly better news to follow. In BA there is a strong tradition of pilots sticking together and allowing those wishing to retire to go with a nice golden goodbye. I have little doubt BMI pilots will feel the same.

Good luck to all!

Barcli,

In this case though it is a holding company that owns company A and is now buying company B. While they are kept separate the holding company can do whatever it wants to the newly bought company.

This was the case recently when Kraft bought Cadbury's and closed a factory it promised to keep open and transfered production to other factories with spare capacity and cheaper production. see here: Kraft to close Cadbury plant it offered to keep open - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/7199322/Kraft-to-close-Cadbury-plant-it-offered-to-keep-open.html) Those working at the closing factory had no right to the jobs at other Cadbury's factories of employees who had been at the company for a shorter period of time, let alone at other Kraft factories in general.

Regarding LIFO etc: bmi went to some length in conjunction with BALPA a couple of years ago when the pilot headcount had to be reduced. A matrix by which redundancies would be made included a performance element along with sickness/attendance criteria so that the legal/HR bods were satisfied that a challenge by a disgruntled pilot made redundant would be able to be defended against. That was agreed between the company and the union and as such formed part of the Agreement For Service (AFS) and the pilots' contract.
I'm not saying whether or not it would stand up in a court of law, etc.- just that an up to date mechanism broadly linked to length of service that was designed to deal with a redundancy situation has been in place at bmi for a while now.
BA have decided that this method will not be used even though they technically don't own the company yet; a by product of which would save them the expense of offering the affected pilots a position at LHR along with the relocation package. Could this be the primary driver in this sorry mess?
BTW, when BA shut down its outstations did it summarily dismiss all of the crews based there, or was a relocation package offered?

the reverse of the coin is seniority and LIFO are questionable in terms of legality because it discriminates against younger workers

But if there is no obvious correlation between age and position in the seniority list, then it can hardly be discriminatory to make decisions based on it. Can it?

In most airline seniority lists these days, this must surely be the case.

That said, I do agree with you and hope that those with "at risk" letters will be re-deployed. I was, when it happened to me.

That said, it seems cruel when the distinction between being a bmi LHR pilot and a bmi BFS pilot has such enormous ramifications.

Likewise, it hardly seems fair for redundancies to have ever been entertained based on the distinction between, say, being a BA 747 pilot and a BA 767 pilot.

We are all pilots. The fact that an airline chooses to base us at one of their bases, or type rate us on one of their types ought not to necessarily prejudice our employment subsequently.

LIFO only needs to be shown that the average age of the workers dismissed are younger than average of the employee workforce for it to be discriminatory. At every airline you will find the bottom of the SL is younger than the top. The matrix mentioned gave a primary weighting to service so would again be open to challenge. In every other industry it's clear cut as described in the plant A /B examples. The job of BALPA is to mitigate the loss of any jobs and NOT to transfer one at risk notice from one person to another. It's not nice the way these pilots have been treated but it is normal practice given that their position is being made redundant. They will be consulted now on options such as a new position in the combined ba bmi or if they do not want to move country other options. Seniority is a system which will have to be replaced in our industry as it has in others. All bmi pilots are supporting action to mitigate those at risk positions

it hardly seems fair for redundancies to have ever been entertained based on the distinction between, say, being a BA 747 pilot and a BA 767 pilot .

An interesting choice of types. Both will be in decline again at some point relatively soon. So what happens when these fleets are phased out and at the same time BA decide to reduce pilot numbers, due whatever unexpected calamity hits the industry at the time?

What is to stop BA making those pilots redundant as clearly LIFO, on its own, seems to have been rendered impotent, legally?

In a similar vein, what would happen to the BA pilots at Gatwick if it were closed?

If your answer is "LIFO Agreement" be under no illusions it won't be solely based on that when push comes to shove. BMI have an agreement based on LIFO and it's pretty clear what BA have decided is legal regarding that.


Possibly time for ALL pilots in the UK to ensure that their company's redundancy criteria is up to date and workable, and leaves no room for surprises. To discover the pool is limited to certain fleets would be a travesty and a game of Russian Roulette every time you made a fleet bid.

Yes, the 747 and 767 will be phased out but they are being replaced by 380s, 777s and 787s.

What happens when and if that happens is you take that opening gambit to your union. Which is hopefully sensible enough to realise the company don't care which pilots operate which machines as long as the planned cost reductions are met.

If the union has the right relationship with both members and the company they then discuss which solutions can be amenable to both groups. If the costs can be met the company is happy.

We have to remember this is not personal. It is a business. We are unit costs, with regulatory requirements. If those costs can be met AND avoid industrial action with it's own associated cost, then all are happy!

BA/IAG are not in business to be our friends. The managers are there to make money! If we as a company of pilots decide WE want redundancies based on seniority do you think the company care? As long as its legal (different argument) and achieves the cost base the company wants they can be negotiated with.

In this case, I hope the seniority/LIFO etc arguments are being put to BMI members by their cc which I am sure had the foresight to have a contingency plan for the chance of redundancies as soon as it was mooted there would be a reduction in the IAG slot uptake. With the consequent pressure beimg put on the current pilot numbers. If they didn't... I hope they are now thinking very quickly on their feet.

There is no pleasure to be taken in the misfortune of others. I could so easily be in the shoes of the BMI pilots and may be put in this position in the future. Aviation is a fickle place. We cannot however blame company bosses from doing their job either. A successful business made through those hard nosed decisions is one that maintains job security and the bottom right hand corner of that pay check. Horrible to be so cold but true.

I feel terrible for those currently affected and hope that wise heads manage to reach a position affecting as few as possible while drawing those into a company that is intent on being successful through very tough economic times. The future for all of us under that umbrella may not be rose tinted, that view on aviation should be left with your PPL, but it is definitely brighter.

Yes, the 747 and 767 will be phased out but they are being replaced by 380s, 777s and 787s.

I think you are missing the point of some of the posters here.

What they are eluding to, is what will happen when a fleet is downsized/removed. Can the employer then make the outgoing fleet pilots redundant and directly recruit pilots on to the new fleet. Thus removing the more expensive (based on years of service) existing pilots, to recruit cheaper direct entry pilots.

One would think theoretically - not BUT if it can be argued that the existing pilots no longer have the relevant type rating on the new aircraft, then by virtue that they are not qualified to fly the new type, they become surplus to requirements, unless they get the type rating themselves.

The Unions will be brought in to consult about mitigating positions but if the intention of the employer is to start stripping out the seniority list of the more expensive staff, then I would imagine there is little that the Unions can do. Even if the 6 month recruitment window of compulsary redundant staff was enforced, if the Company was sufficiently over crewed to be able to maintain the flying programme for 6 months, it would negate this possible recall option of the displaced staff.

This is becoming a hot potato and the possibilities for the penny pinching bean counters are just coming to light. With WW and a crack team spending their days just thinking up new ways to reduce costs, these sort of discussion are going to become more and more prevalent and Unions are going to have to up their defense teams with equally sharp minds to remain one step ahead!

What they are eluding to, is what will happen when a fleet is downsized/removed. Can the employer then make the outgoing fleet pilots redundant and directly recruit pilots on to the new fleet. Thus removing the more expensive (based on years of service) existing pilots, to recruit cheaper direct entry pilots.

No. Employment law is quite clear about this, you cannot make some one redundant and then replace them, the argument about fleets is a red herring in this case.

BMI have an agreement based on LIFO and it's pretty clear what BA have decided is legal regarding that.


It may be a minor point but BA have not made these decisions regarding BMI, it is IAG. BA will not have control until BA takes over BMI. So please castigate the correct organisation.

Besides, where would we find the hundreds of long-haul wide body pilots with sufficient experience to jump straight onto a 777 or 380? The last recruitment drive fell short of suitable 744 DEPs and the traditional route into the company is via the 737 or 320 fleets.

I less inclined to call it as you see it Juan Tugoh.

I have friends in other industrys that have been made redundant because their industries legislated that they were required to have a particular qualification on a certain date. As they did not ave this qualification, they were made redundant and others that had the same job title but had actually passed the exam were employed to replace them.

Hence I think that the employment laws are slightly skewed. I agree a like for like re-employment by someone else with the "same qualifications" would not be allowed but if the new staff member actually had different and relevant qualifications (such as the new aircraft type rating) then this I believe would effectively fit the scenario I mention above and possibly the existing "non type rated" pilot may be displaced legitimately.

Feel free to discuss...

I would suggest though that either test cases, factual experiences or the actual words of the law be used rather than gut feelings to verify a particular view point would be helpful.

One would think theoretically - not BUT if it can be argued that the existing pilots no longer have the relevant type rating on the new aircraft, then by virtue that they are not qualified to fly the new type, they become surplus to requirements, unless they get the type rating themselves.

If companies in the City started getting rid of secretaries because they happened to be working on Apple Mac's not PC's, there'd be uproar. Especially if the secretaries were only working on those machines because they'd been told to.

The law is an a** if it allowing companies to get rid of pilots because they happen not to be rated on the right type.

How on earth could anyone decide what was the right type?

The same applies to bases.

BA certainly recruit Direct Entry Pilots. Sometimes there is a requirement for a certain type, but more often than not, aside from an hours requirement, any pilot gets a go.

They then push you onto a type that you may or may not fly.

To then want to get rid of you because you happen to be on that type, seems to me to be more arbitrary than should be defensible in law.

That being the case, the law needs working on.

It doesn't take long going down this path, before one can imagine a scenario where even legacy pilots are totally responsible for the cost of their ratings.

WW has been spending too much time with MOL.

The two main points that seem to be being discussed here are the redundancy and the prospect of BMI remaining a subsidiary.
Having been involved in a BA subsidiary in the past, there are a couple of things I can throw into the pot for consideration.
Once this becomes the responsabillity of BA, they already have existing well tested methods and agreements for dealing with this sort of thing.
Firstly, they will not be able to run a subsidiary company with any aircraft type carrying more than 100 pax unless this type is not the same type that in already operated by existing mainline crew (long established union agreement)
Secondly, they operate a system that makes staff redundant in the exact way that BMI seem to be proposing already ie, seniority only applies within your base.
You are afforded protection in line with your joining date and fleet, but only at your existing base, so if they close your base, or dispose of your fleet at your base, you may only bid for what may be available elsewhere. If there is nothing available or suitable, you are redundant. Been there, seen it, got the tee shirt!
I have no doubt that BA will be happy to look at employing most if not all the BMI crews, but if they are forced to apply individually, they will only join as new starters with no seniority, and as new FO's.
You have my sympathy guy's and girls, it's an awful place to be.

Perhaps this is something that needs to be written in to pilots "Agreements For Service" and verified by employment solicitors that "In a redundancy situation, a pilot will not be prejudiced by current fleet or lack of type rating"?

The discussion on base redundancy determination is still up for debate as to whether it has any validity. As someone has already stated, there may already be precidence with the Kraft case but I would need to read the actual details before being able to comment on it.

There is of course the TUPE / Non-TUPE argument.

The final outcome of contractual issues, I suspect, will boil down to whether or not this is viewed as TUPE or not.

Not going to get tied up in the why's and wherefore's as Im not a solicitor. However, all I know is it can make a significant difference.

That is all.

Good luck to all those affected. Its never a nice situation to be in.

Somebody else who clearly can't be bothered to read the thread.:rolleyes:

My sincere best wishes to the BMI guys. Talking from experience it's a torrid time, but it will get better.

4468,

If what fiftyfour is saying is correct, do you condone a business acting unlawfully, in the name of business?

Litebulbs

Are you accusing Lufthansa or IAG of acting illegally with regard to the sad demise of BMI? If you are, I strongly suspect you are wrong. Perhaps you would prefer the company to simply fold, and ALL jobs be lost?

4468,

Where did I say any of that? A poster has said that some employees were treated unlawfully and were compensated for being wrongfully dismissed. You responded to that as you did, which is why I asked the question of you.

JazzyK,

Are you suggesting that the union/association that represents all the pilots in BMI goes to the new employer and says "sorry but we would prefer you keep pilots 1, 2 and 3 and make pilots 4, 5 and 6 redundant instead because pilots 1, 2 and 3 have been with the company longer". If I was pilot 4, 5 or 6 I would be most upset. to say the least....

Many people have very valid reasons for having a lower seniority than other colleagues e.g. sometimes they weren't born when someone else joined the company or perhaps they spent many years of their life serving their country rather than going straight into a much higher paying civilian job. Why should they be any more liable for redundancy than anyone else?

As has been said already you cannot sack an individual from a position and then place another individual in that same position.

Its a hard call, but BA does not operate regional basing so therefore regional positions are redundant in the big picture. HOWEVER BA needs pilots so should offer these pilots to relocate to LHR to retain their jobs, if they do not wish to relocate then fine redundancy it is. Seniority plays very little part here in the eyes of the law. If BA were not to offer relocation and then to employ other outside pilots within 6 months of redundancy notices, then I think they will be on a sticky legal wicket.

What I am suggesting is that if the current decisions being made about who is in potentially in line for redundancy is not what the members expect, want or wish to stomach then it is for them to suggest a different course of action through their union.

The employers do not care if employees 1, 2, 3 or 25, 3255 and 1 go as long as the cost base the reductions require are carried out. They want it done the most simple way within the law.

The employees may wish a more complex system...voluntary redundancy of high earners? To offset compulsory redundancy of more lower earners? These solutions are to be brought to the table by the union.

As for who goes...the arguments for LIFO... You pay your money you take your choice. I worked for 10 years in other airlines before joining BA. I gave up my command elsewhere to be an FO again with the associated pay cut. To be in a company with greater future prospects and more potential job security. Those were my choices. Career choices we all have to make. For some they are more at the whim of fate than others, however life is not always fair....

If you can come up with a better, transparent system, not subject to personal judgements or the whim of an assessor to line up employees for redundancy then please go ahead.

Last in first out is simple. I know where I am on the list. No amount of sucking up to a manager, being in with the training department or going out of the way to be a company man can change that position.

I'd hope (as has happened in the recent past) as colleagues faced with compulsory redundancy we do all we can to avoid all of them rather than feed people to the wolves. Eventually though there comes a point where they still need to be fed...now who do you choose to sacrifice? The new joiner with 15 years in a pointy jet in their past or the 16 year FO on the verge of their first command? You write the letter to the families and explain why one deserves the boot rather than the other?

Actually Binsleepin, you can do that, it's called Bumping:

Redundancy Bumping Rules - Redundancy Rights - The Solicitor (http://blogs.findlaw.co.uk/solicitor/2009/10/redundancy-bumping-rules.html)

Having experienced first hand (courtesy of Jet2, who bring a whole new approach to redundancy proceedings who hired at the same time as putting a few of us into redundancy).

bluepilot:
HOWEVER BA needs pilots so should offer these pilots to relocate to LHR to retain their jobs
Please be careful with your assumptions. From earlier in this very same thread:
Approximately 25% of the slot portfolio is required to be relinquished by BA as part of the deal. (Branson claims to have a plan for them!)) Significant productivity savings by both BA and BMI Airbus pilots will also dramatically decrease the manpower requirements of the new entity.

One way or another there was always going to be a surplus of pilots to be dealt with?

BA are unlikely to recruit any new pilots for considerably more than 6 months! Ask anyone in the hold pool!

However, it is for the BMICC to propose to Lufthansa/IAG a more palatable mechanism for dealing with their surplus.

4468, BA are and have been offering contracts to new starters on the new pay point deal (i know of people starting next month for example). If at the same time they are making people redundant without options then this I think puts them in a legally difficult situation if they do not offer alternative employment at LHR.

no sponsor, I believe Jet2 offered alternative employment at other bases before compulsory redundancy when your base closed, or do I have this wrong? regards BP

4468, BA are and have been offering contracts to new starters on the new pay point deal (i know of people starting next month for example). If at the same time they are making people redundant without options then this I think puts them in a legally difficult situation if they do not offer alternative employment at LHR.

Isn't the point that BA aren't doing anything at all at this point. IAG are giving notice that roles may be at risk of redundancy. It seems this makes all the difference as any surplus will be dispensed with before BA gets the keys to BMI, sidestepping the legal issues you mention.

Like other posters, my personal feeling is that this isn't the end of the story yet. It may well transpire that some roles can be, after negotiation, saved by relocating to LHR. Time will tell.

Hi bluepilot

If as you say, you know of people starting 'next month', presumably they were made their job offer at the beginning of Feb? Some BMI pilots have just been given 90 day notices by their employers (Luftansa???) which means POSSIBLE redundancy mid July? Even if it WERE BA calling the shots, I see no moral or legal dilemma? BA will not be offering any contracts to new hires, whilst making people redundant. If they did, then of course legally BA pilots would be in jeopardy too. Perhaps that is what people here would REALLY prefer???

Edited to add: if you imagine LH/IAG don't know the law here, I suspect you may be either wrong, or they have at the very least calculated the potential downside to their actions. Either way, like a supertanker, it is now set on a course.

Like others, I don't for one moment think that those sitting on 90 day notices have too much to worry about with good handling by the BMICC! EVERYONE has said what top blokes those currently under threat are. I personally would genuinely take a hit to ensure They have the opportunity to share with their families a good summer and Christmas, I have already done it for colleagues within BA, and I feel no less obliged to those currently inhabiting a different terminal!!

[QUOTE]JazzyK,

Are you suggesting that the union/association that represents all the pilots in BMI goes to the new employer and says "sorry but we would prefer you keep pilots 1, 2 and 3 and make pilots 4, 5 and 6 redundant instead because pilots 1, 2 and 3 have been with the company longer". If I was pilot 4, 5 or 6 I would be most upset. to say the least....
/QUOTE]

Well, with reference to my earlier post, given that there is an agreement in place, and an agreed mechanism for dealing with a redundancy situation - I would suggest that the above scenario should never have taken place. The bmi AFS is explicit (Part 1 sects.12 & 13) for the case of "reduction of fleet complement at base" and when "a pilot is required to change base at the behest of the company".

However, I suppose it might be suggested that the complete closure of a base doesn't necessarily fall into any of the above categories; I would be very sceptical of the notion that the number of outstation pilots + TRIs + Flt Ops Managers exactly equals the required headcount reduction for any slots that BA may have had to give up.

Historically within bmi any base closures has seen the affected pilots given the opportunity to relocate to LHR; if it was associated with a general reduction in pilot numbers, then the matrix (which includes a LIFO element based on company seniority) would be used to reduce that overall headcount.

So Jazzy K, with the above agreement and the historic way in which similar situations have been dealt with, what would you expect the representatives of the pilots to say to the new employer? The method that has been used goes against the current AFS, or put another way- the contract that pilots 4,5 & 6 knowingly signed up to, and the one that pilots 1,2 & 3 expected to protect them.
I don't want to see any bmi pilot out of a job, but if it has to happen then it should be done in accordance with existing agreements.
-No replies to my previous post re: past base closures in BA. Does anyone with a reasonably long memory know what happened then?

Anyone working for an airline that has a seniority list should be worried by the scenario being played out here.

This makes sad reading, typical of the BA/IAG approach towards things i'm afraid . I've seen it first hand.

Best of luck to everyone involved.
Someone mentioned the middle east earlier - the fact that it's not home etc. I can say that from a very neutral point of view, although it is not home, you do get used to it and all companies offer lots of leave to get home anyway. Fingers crossed that no one is forced to apply due to redundancy, but should the situation arise, it is not as bad out here as people say on the ME forum. Everywhere has positives and negatives.

4468, BA mainline pilot redundancies are not going to happen. As regards to when a contract is offered is kind of irrelivant, the fact of the matter is pilots are yet to start with BA whilst others face redundancy, i think it would be difficult case to justifly to a tribunal should that happen. As others have said BMI have entered a consultation period therefore nothing is set in stone and I am sure most BA pilots would not wish to see any pilots out of a job. You cannot argue against base closures as they do not fit the BA business model at all, but you can argue relocation or alternative employment / roles. Lets hope that the BMI CC can win this case , perhaps supported by the BA CC?? I wish everyone involved all the best, mergers / takeovers are never easy or pleasant.

I have just done some "housekeeping" to keep the thread on-topic.

Please stick to the topic!

Halfwayback

bluepilot

I agree.

Please don't forget that WHOEVER is doing the dirty work here, it is NOT BA pilots, with whom our BMI colleagues will soon be flying the line!

Careful Mr.Hudd.

"Bishop" kept me in a job for a very long time when other airlines were regularly falling by the wayside. We weren't always happy with the way he did it but we weren't set up.

He was a businessman, ran a tight ship and delegated.
When it came to the time for his retirement, he had set up the agreement with LH and held them to it.

If the economic situation had changed in the meantime, then LH should have built that into their strategy. LH allowed BMI to fail as it didn't know how to handle the situation.

If "Bishop" could foresee and deal with the numerous economic downturns since the sixties, why couldn't LH ? Because they didn't try.............

Sleeve wing
Dont be naive,
bishop ran the company, took the profits on a jet to jersey every year and charged 4k or much more to turn it said jet around, as every BMI employee knew.
He sold it at the time that suited him to maximise his personal wealth.
Lh were left with little to profit from and all that was left was a poorly thought out bankrupt business model.

Fact, lh wanted to get rid,
Fact Iag were the only credible bidder
Fact, mass cost cuts had to be made.
Fact, the bmi cc snubbed the ba cc sealing the only chance they had to make this relativly painless.

I KNOW, that BMI flight crew are good honest hard working pilots, but we also know they have been horribly strung along by their own management into thinking they have a strong case to sell their slots, and have been run into the ground in the last few years.
But they have also been terribly let down by a bullish and naive CC that thought they were due the earth and could face iag without the help of the bacc,
bad planning and a loss that will be irreversible I fear...

As an ex BM pilot, I think Red 7 has hit the nail on the head.

7,

Smokescreen off! Most succinct and accurate post on this to date I think. Having read the coms from the BMI cc I'm of the very same opinion. Those of us who have been with BA long enough to have seen both feast and famine know that our CC have steered a pretty safe path through shark infested waters. It's a shame that the BMI cc appear to feel that they knew better, whilst having a view on their situation that seems to defy their reality.

Hopefully sense will prevail and negotiation with realistic expectation can save as many jobs outside Lhr as possible.

Good luck to all.

There seems to be some VERY deep approval of the BA CC.
It will be interesting to see what there is to justify this devotion.
I have never encountered any organisation, management or union who deserved such blind trust. Maybe this will be the first, although I doubt it.
I'm sure that the BACC are very good at there job. The bmiCC are credidble too - maybe they could learn from the BACC, but I would be very worried if they didn't try to get a full, objective, view of the situation before representing THEIR members. The bmiCC can't have the same blind following of the BACC.

There's no blind following of the BACC, but there is recognition that they've given us the bad news when we've needed to hear it, and a recognition that the paths other unions have taken with BA over recent years have led to less desirable outcomes for them.

The bmi CC don't seem to have grasped the basic fact that time was not on their side and they wouldn't be getting a full, objective view before the axe started swinging.

The Jury is out......we will see!

Dan Air all over again.
Let's hope BALPA doesn't 'look after' the BMI pilots like they did the Dan guys!
Sad news for all!

On the subject of integration - The bmi CC owes it to their membership to get a fair deal in terms of integration of SLs. You cannot vilify them for that or any way belittle them for it.

I guess it depends on what your definition of fair is. BA and bmi pilots clearly have opposing views on the matter. Hypothetically speaking, do you think the bmi CC would consider themselves to have negotiated succesfully if they achieved integrated seniority but at the expense of 47 redundancies out of seniority?

What is the difference between BA pilots and bmi pilots? Nothing, both good operators of aircraft and perfectly interchangeable employees, one group is in no way superior to the other and maybe should remember that. One group however, has benefited from better management.

It's rather more than just better management. Better representation has played a significant part. Remember we are talking about the same management team which has hammered every employee group in BA. How you engage with that team is as important as how they run the business.

The bmicc owe it to their members to push hard for integration of MSLs after the advice that they were given by BALPA in the BMED takeover.

I'm sure they do, but they also owe it to their members to ensure their goals are realistic. What BALPA advised the bmi CC to do for the BMED takeover is yesterdays news. You can't simply point to that and ask BA and it's pilots to acquiesce because they simply won't do it, and I doubt any amount of special pleading will persuade either interested party otherwise. Sooner or later the bmi CC are going to have to realise that it's not achievable, park that ambition and get on with getting the best they can for their members, if they can get anything at all beyond TUPE and isolation.

In terms of redundancy, I am sure that they are working internally to try and mitigate the redundancies of the outstations.

Good,I'd expect nothing less.

The bmicc are surely working pretty hard right now........I hope that they get the support from BALPA HQ however it turns out, legal and otherwise.

I hope they will too, but if they are hoping that BALPA are going to try to pressure BA pilots into merging seniority lists I think their hopes will be dashed. After all, the only industrial muscle BALPA has in BA is the BACC, and it's quite clear what their position is.

Let's hope they (BALPA) perform their legal obligation and treat all their members equally and fairly.

Or more particularly read the answers before you type.

Who exactly do you think BALPA is. In reality in this case it's the BACC and the BMICC, not some organisation that lives off base and wields a magic wand.

If you're not part of the solution then consider-are you part of the problem.

BMICC could learn from that.

Sygyzy - your opinion NOT my experience.

And how much experience do you have in BA Anton? There'll be no magic wand. You already have the view of BALPA via the ISRC report.

So in essence, BACC are running BALPA? I am sure that there are a couple of thousand other members that would be perturbed to hear this.

Twas ever thus, surely? Anyone thinking otherwise is kidding themselves.

I'm not getting involved in Anton et al's obsession with seniority - I couldn't be arsed to keep contributing to the other thread with people banging the same drum over and over and over again. Some people really need to wind their neck in though, as theres a huge amount of crap about employement laws being spouted from people with a clear entitlement disorder. And when 1000's of people are loosing their jobs to have people still banging on about seniority and 'me-me-me-entitlement' instead of being thankful that they may still have a job is frankly disgusting, as is blaming the company and the people therein who are the only ones willing to come to the rescue./Rant mode off

Just a short comment 'on topic' though.
Have the mainline crews at regional bases and LHR trainers been made redundant or have they had a statutory notice that their role is reduntant, but that they then will be considered in the pool of all mainline pilots for the jobs availalble - coz there's a world of difference.

I went through a similar 'consultation' at a previous airline, and also in a previous career - and alot of this stuff is statutory. Its quite clear that IAG do not have regional bases in their plans, so its obvious that all regional JOBS are now redundant. It doesn't necessarily mean that the PEOPLE currently attached to those JOBS will be out of work.

Sadly I think its inevitable with the scale of BMI's losses and the future plans that there will be less jobs up for grabs than there are mainline pilots, however I very much doubt anywhere near the clear picture has emerged yet. Lets just hope for that as many jobs as possible are salvaged as every lost job is without doubt, a personal tragedy.
But lets also not be a bunch of lib-dem-woolly-rose-tinted-anti-capitalist types. At the end of the day IAG / BA etc are not a charity, nor do they have unlimited funds, they need to keep their cost base and business viability under control too. nobody owes anyone else a living.

It is about bmi pilots being made redundant because of where they are based... ....BALPA policy, as I understand it, is last in-first out across a global pool of pilots. This is not a legal discussion

This is a terrible situation for everyone affected and I hope BALPA, the BMI CC and the BA CC can come up with some kind of solution to mitigate any pilot job losses.

However, so far as I can see if there are going to be any redundancies this is being handled entirely correctly and entirely within the law. Whether it be a base closure, or the redundancy of pilot manager posts it ought to be uncontroversial surely that the person in the post being dispensed with is the person who loses his/her job?

Seniority can take us so far - and it is a good thing in many respects - but we can not use it as an excuse to break the law, and no amount of strong union negotiation could ever change the legal framework under which employers have to operate.

IMVHO.

The irony is, one of the representers is on 90 days notice I believe.

The bmi cc have massively missed the boat by not taking the advice of the BA cc and this is the result.

If I were a BMI pilot right now, I would be asking huge questions of my cc,
why did they bury information that was in the public domain regarding merger recomandations,
why did they walk away from BA cc advice, ( they didnt need to take the advice, but it would of been good to listen)
why did they think for so long that a bankrupt workforce should still be able to hold out for a massive wind fall when they were rescued by IAG.

I hope the redundant pilots end up only being redundant in their current roles and are absorbed into BA lhr.

My understanding is that conversion courses for BMI crews start mid may, so things will move quickly from here.
rumour is,
3 days ground school for sops etc
1 day sep
3 sim details,
1 sim lpc/opc
line sectors, 4 for f/o's 6 for captains, followed by a BA command check.

seems to me to be about 2 weeks worth with days off. should be enough time to repaint about 4 of the fleet in BA colours......

red 7 - i said most of that a few weeks ago, but was shot down by anton and a few others as i obviously didn't know what I was talking about. Oh well. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

The bmiCC have not to the best of my knowledge not even mentioned zipping of the seniority lists. From the outset they where offered a deal(!) that would have been impossible to recommend to their membership without at least exploring their options with their future employers. Events have subsequently become even more complicated by the threat of lay off.
It would indeed be a very difficult sell to their colleagues if they do not engage with the future employers. The constant harping on about them overplaying their hand is unjustified. Infact it would be more accurate to say their hand have been tied behind their back so far!

To insinuate that the bmiCC's actions have resulted in the threat of lay off's is, quite frankly, scurrilous.

To insinuate that the bmiCC's actions have resulted in the threat of lay off's is, quite frankly, scurrilous.

I don't think anyone IS insuating that - I'm certainly not.

However what I DO think , and what many people think is that the BMICC were focussed on the wrong issues and didn't see the elephant in the room.

I said it on the other thread and so did many others, that worring about seniority and staff travel and other t's and c's is 10 steps down the road. Suddenly step 1 has turned out alot different than they thought, however depressingly similar to what alot of other people thought it was.

Lamina


Firstly the BMI cc were not, and still have not been offered a deal, so they could not make any recomendations but they could of heard out some very good advice to help that process.

WHich leads onto the fact that I think they tied their own hand behind their own back, and based on that, YES I would insinuate that due to the bmi cc's INACTION, not action has resulted in the layoffs we are discussing.

Had they taken advice I am pretty certain a different result would of been being discussed here, but we did try and suggest that a few weeks ago, but they knew better..

So when you say 'take BACC advice', read take BACC 'accept mywayorthehighway' offer, smells slightly of bully boy tactics.

Absolutely. The posts from BA pilots make sorry reading.

Don't be brow-beaten into forgoing what is due to you under the law. And respect to the BMICC for having the courage to seek this. Unfortunately, BALPA will not help you, so you will have to get a pot of money together if it comes to tribunals/high court.

Time traveller
Care to explain what you think is due under law?
I assume you mean TUPE, and with regard to merged seniority, but we await a detailed reply of why you believe this.

As I understand it the bmiCC didn't publish it because it was a cringe-makingly badly produced document that reflected appallingly on the Association. A point that is privately accepted within BALPA HQ, I believe.

I wonder if anyone from the BAcc would agree with that, or if it is just an easy get out?

'easy' because it is so credible?

...and back to the title of the thread!

What do the vociferous and accusatory voices here suggest that BA pilots could/would have done to prevent redundancies in bmi at this point? What would they do now?

Less finger pointing, more solutions.

BA Pilots, nothing
BAcc lots, but you make people listen........

The BACC offered a compromise agreement? Really?

Of course, if this was an option BA would have to offer it now, otherwise they could be failing in their obligations to explore every avenue to minimise redundancies. You can't change what's on offer just because the offer didn't come from the BACC, great though I'm sure they are.

The BACC don't offer compromise agreements, they could merely propose one that might be acceptable to BA. BA are under no obligation to offer anything suggested by the BACC.

red7 - having been to the briefing last week... we were told crew wont transfer across to Airways until the 4th moves across mid-to end of June...

surely training then wont start till June.

There's been much talk about the BACC wanting to 'stick all BMI pilots at the bottom of the MSL', but that's not the whole story, is it? There were many protections which the BACC proposed that would have ensure BMI pilots quality of life was maintained on the A320.

Let's review what was likely to be agreed by the BACC:

Grandfather rights to A320 commands
Some sort of modified monthly bidding rights on the A320 based on BMI DOJ
Dead-man's-shoes access to A320 commands based on BMI captains retiring
Pay - to be negotiated between BMICC and BA (BA will not allow the BMI cost-base to increase)

The only time BMI pilots would feel the effect of being 'stuck at the the bottom of the MSL' is if they wanted to bid to other fleets. And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? What and select group of BMI posters really want is carte blanche access to the entire BA long-haul network. That would be a massive windfall for them at the expense of BA pilots, and it isn't going to happen.

Just a small point. No-one is 'stuck', i.e. fixed in place, at the bottom of the MSL. BA will inevitably recruit and at that point, pilots who have joined from BMI will no longer be at the bottom, just like everyone else who has joined.

Facts seem thin on the ground at the moment, don't they?

Post 99 raised a valid point that has yet to be adressed. Has BA offered any relocation opportunity to those at MAN/BFS/EDI...to move to LHR in whatever capacity /seat/.Or is this an exact copy of the way BA treated the NCL/MAN based B734 pilots 20 years ago in the Dan-Air debacle who lost their jobs despite volunteering to move at their own expense to LGW.For the avoidance of doubt BALPA did nothing for the 186 DA Pilots who were NOT LGW B734 based and merely urged them to accept sums ranging from £1500-£2500 per head. The involvement of the IPA/DAPAG resulted in a better outcome which cost BA £3M. It was only when BALPA realised that they were about to be embarrassed did they become involved and coordinate efforts with DAPAG to seek compensation for ther own members...many of whom were members of DAPAG.Whatever the outcome for BMI,the LHR jobs with BA will be secure and financially superior to those had the Company ceased trading...ask those who joined from City flyer in 2001. As I understand it the BMI pilots will be unfrozen and will be able to bid for a LH position as did those CFE joiners in 2001 who quickly moved to RHS B744.

What and select group of BMI posters really want is carte blanche access to the entire BA long-haul network.

I don't. :confused:

I don't want to fly long haul. There. I've said it. And I'm sure there's many more like me. So you needn't worry about me wanting your precious long haul commands.

So why don't you want a deal that keeps you on the A320 with grandfather rights to your command, your current pay scales and bidding rights proportional to your Bmi date of joining? Really, what's so unacceptable about that that you'd rather have your company council gamble with your jobs instead?

you'd rather have your company council gamble with your jobs instead

I don't believe they are gambling with our jobs. If you think having agreed to the BACC method of "integration" would have prevented the announcement of flight ops job losses, you are quite naive (and you call bmi pilots that). And this "I told you so" attitude that certain posters have is patronising and offensive. I didn't see anyone suggesting these particular cuts were coming before the announcement.

I am confident the bmi CC will achieve the best deal possible for members. I hope in a few months (weeks!) I am a BA pilot and recognised as such, and I'm sure we'll have a much stronger/more prosperous future together as one workforce in one airline.

Who says that any of the information about the bmi cc actions is true. They are trying their best to protect a wide variation of pilots at different points in their careers. They cannot represent all groups within the pilot community. Say they represent the position of relatively new FO's with the view of you keep your job, bottom of MSL and frozen on 320 for 5 years, no bid rights. This group would go ok I can do that, but is it fair that a captain on the A330 and a TRE get this too? I guess the cc are trying to secure a fair deal for the average pilot at bmi which should keep most happy. Give the cc a break they are professional pilots not negotiators.

If you think having agreed to the BACC method of "integration" would have prevented the announcement of flight ops job losses, you are quite naive

We'll never know now, will we?

The BACC has a history of coming up with innovative deals. VR, for example, has been mentioned. It is my belief that the BACC in conjunction with the BMICC could have mitigated some of this.

I don't want to fly long haul. There. I've said it. And I'm sure there's many more like me. So you needn't worry about me wanting your precious long haul commands.

Excellent, problem solved. As long as you can get your 299 odd colleagues to agree to never bid off the A320 I'm sure BA pilots will welcome you all onto the BA MSL based on your BMI DOJ.

Say the BMI guys wouldn't join the same seniority list, what could be the consequences? British Airways express.....? feeder into Heathrow?


It has been said countless times already that the BACC have already agreed with BA that BMI will be incorporated into BA. The requirements for this (which have been met) were agreed with the IAG board.

If the BMI pilots are not on the BA MSL (unfortunately looking increasingly likely) they will be rostered as a separate group of pilots - they will not form a separate fleet/company. That group of pilots will not see any new members, it will slowly decrease in size with retirement of ex-BMI pilots.

Ba do not plan to keep 330 after the end of the summer season

So some pilots will still be part of a sub pilot group within British airways in 35-40 years time because that is how long it will take to clear up the mess. I don't care what happens ith seniority but all pilots should be on one MSL. Join at the bottom and work your way up without being penalised for the rest of your career sits better with me thn a sub group. Anyhow it's all been decided already

Bex88
It wont take 35/40 years because any BMI pilot who is around 20 yrs old, and has that career ahead of them, would take the option to join the BA msl list asap and bid off after the intial freeze,
I am sure that regardless of the process agreed there will be some form of Ghost seniority numbers running in paralell so that is possible.

I'm sure they will take the command bridge into account. If a Year 12 FO from BA became a captain they would join Year 12 captains pay scale. If a yr 12 or 13,14,15 year FO from bmi became a captain they would join year 1 captain pay scale.

With this in mind most FO's will do better joining the bottom of the list. I think it's down to the pension!

Red7

I think your suggestion of being able to transfer to the ba MSL at the bottom is a good one and will be the option I would go for. At the moment very little is known other than if the individual is safe or not

Bex/red,

I've been told it will be a one time deal to transfer onto the MSL. May not be true, 'twas a very good source, but definitely worth having a think about.

So some pilots will still be part of a sub pilot group within British airways in 35-40 years time because that is how long it will take to clear up the mess. I don't care what happens ith seniority but all pilots should be on one MSL. Join at the bottom and work your way up without being penalised for the rest of your career sits better with me thn a sub group.

I (and the BACC) couldn't agree more. The possibility for to have all on one MSL is waning. BA want a legally watertight solution and without agreement between the two CCs the simplest option for them is to maintain two separate pilot groups.


Bex/red,

I've been told it will be a one time deal to transfer onto the MSL. May not be true, 'twas a very good source, but definitely worth having a think about.


Apparently whether or not the option to voluntarily join the bottom of the BA MSL will be made available is undecided. The theory is that because any BMI pilot electing to join the bottom of the MSL would be doing so voluntarily that any possibility of subsequent legal challenge is negated. If BA management/legal cannot be 100% convinced that this is the case, then they may well decide to not provide the option to transfer at all.

Not a desirable outcome, certainly not what BA pilots wanted, but to be brutally honest, they'd not be much worse off than they are now.

I've heard that there is a deal on offer to prevent redundancies in Bmi, anyone know the details?

Its a mixture of offering unpaid leave and temporary part time to all bmi pilots to reduce the overall "virtual" headcount. If there are not enough takers then up to 6 unpaid days off will allocated to everybody to achieve the same result. Going to a vote but certain to be passed. Nice result which the bmiCC have achieved by working with the BA/IAG management.

The only fly in the ointment is that this only covers the 22 outstation based guys and not the (7?) trainers and all the management pilots, separate discussions are ongoing in their cases.

Nice result which the bmiCC have achieved by working with the BA/IAG management.

That is good news if it's true. I hope it does get passed.

The one thing you can be sure of is that BA will have got the numbers wrong and with the arrival of two new types next year I suspect that there will be plenty of work soon enough. The important thing is to get as many as possible through the door at this stage.

I've been listening to the BMI guys on the RT this week and have felt for them with all that has been going on. It's good to see and hear professionals at work. I hope that this period of uncertainty will soon be behind us and allow everyone to look forward to the challenge of integration. I suspect that there will be some more surprises both good and bad, although that is pure speculation on my part, not some insider knowledge.

Anyone who has ever done a course will know that it's best not to do it with any of life's major stressors going on in the background and that professionalism will stand you all in good stead. The BA trainers are good chaps in general but it would be a pity not to show your best because of outside distractions. Not sure how I would stand up to that test at the moment if I were in your shoes and I'm sure that that will be born in mind.

My advice, get in the door, get spat out on line and then worry about what else is going on. In the long run I hope that you all look back and accept that even if wasn't the best thing to happen, being taken over by BA, it wasn't as bad as you thought it was going to be.

Welcome aboard chaps

Its a mixture of offering unpaid leave and temporary part time to all bmi pilots to reduce the overall "virtual" headcount. If there are not enough takers then up to 6 unpaid days off will allocated to everybody to achieve the same result.

If this comes to fruition then that really is great news.

Nice post - and a bit of good common sense.


Regards
Exeng

SGT Wilson,

I appreciate that.

I know there are a lot of us at Bmi who are apprehensive about joining BA and how we will be received. Most people, myself included just want to come across settle in, do our best and get on with it.

Hopefully 12 months from now it will be all done and dusted and we can try and get on with our lives and look to the future.

Sgt Wilson, What a super heartfelt, understanding post which I'm sure will be appreciated by many. Indeed there are some very serious issues for some to deal with at the moment especially with pensions etc, Again many thanks.

For CAT3C and all our soon to be colleagues,

That is exactly the spirit in which you will be received.

Like the Sgt said, welcome aboard , and I hope that your redundancy/pension woes get sorted in the best and most expeditious manner possible.

We look forward to seeing you all, thank you.

Max angle states: "Going to a vote but certain to be passed". I don`t hold that person`s optimism and arguable false hope. I`m also not sure of the legalities of forcing this on the approx 35% group that aren`t in Balpa. Good luck to all.

legalities of forcing this on the approx 35% group that aren`t in Balpa.

No-one has to join BALPA. A majority of BMI pilots are BALPA members. BALPA has collective bargaining rights for BMI.

You may be covered by a collective agreement in your workplace even if you are not a member of a trade union, as trade unions often negotiate on behalf of all of the workers employed in a specific group. This group is known as a ‘bargaining unit’. - UK Government website.

Perhaps this link (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employment/tradeunions/tradeunionsintheworkplace/dg_179244) will help you, Fir Tree?

Some people view those who benefit from collective bargaining by a union (e.g. tax concessions, annual payrise) but do not help to pay for it with a union subscription, as freeloaders, but you will always get that in any society IMHO.

P.S. Could I add my welcome to the BMI guys, looking forward to seeing you!

Sorry fir tree. If you are not a member you don't get a vote. That's the down side to saving the 1%.

I'd be very surprised if BALPA Membership in BMI Mainline wasn't in excess of 90% now.

Saw somewhere else that BMI guys were doing visits at the CRC. The guys I saw looked very smart!!!:)

The vast majority of BA pilots look forward to flying with you guys and doing our best to help you integrate.

Obviously there are 'issues' about which we have very different views, but you will all find BA a great place to work. They are my third aviation employer (incl days wearing a growbag!) and they are a first rate employer!!

Anyone with misgivings after reading some of the garbage printed over the last few months - please take it with a huge pinch of salt. You will be very surprised at the reality that IS flying in BA.

All the best to you new joiners!:ok:

The guys I saw looked very smart!!!

Maybe they got a look at the BA Uniform Guidelines :)

Thanks for the welcoming words

Without knowing what is being tabled for discussion, it's very difficult to offer any advice to our new colleagues, but there are some general principles that we have all entertained in managing our careers so far.

- Get on the BA MSL as soon as possible

- If TUPE means loss of command, but you still are pay protected with grandfather rights - take it!

Everyday I fly with people who are on their way up, across, winding down, swapping seats, going part time, people I've met before, people I've never met, people who were skippers with other airlines, people who used to run squadrons, people who were doctors, people who were city traders, people who used to teach me, people who are running their own businesses outside, lots of different people.

Just be one of us, managing our lifestyles to suit our families and time off to our best advantage. Status is really not the only thing in BA, your lifestyle is.

Welcome aboard, first beer's on me.:ok:

I second what Airbus Unplugged says. Every word.

Looking forward to flying with you. I may even buy a round! :eek:

A warm welcome to the ex-bmi guys and girls-I look forward to flying with you and buying you a beer.

Well all I know is I am very pleased to have this opportunity to keep my job and transfer to BA. It will bring me what I have so desperately been missing.... Security. The finer points of the t&c's are to be thrashed out but to be honest apart from TUPE I am confused. The major concern has been answered and I look forward to flying in BA colours with you guys. Who knows if I can tame the moth in my wallet I may even buy you guys a round. :)

And what of us Regional guys? Seems like Willie can't even be bothered to sell us now and may close us down. I genuinely wish all the mainline bods luck, but can't hide my frustration and sense of hopelessness with the way its panning out for Regional and Baby.

Its nice to read the welcoming messages.

I will tell my Bmi Colleagues they have a lot of beer to drink :ok:.

I hope this bout of 'Hail fellow well met' will be moderated somewhat by reference to the likes of Mungo Man's post

I am ashamed to read the selfish puerile posts regarding back slapping social events when the lifechanging concerns of mungo man appear of litle concern to the BA joiners...good luck to them...but spare a thought for the way in which BA treats a minority and how upsetting this is to be excluded by virtue of being Embraer /737 rated.

I am sure most of us haven't forgotten about them either. Knowing what the BACC is like, they will look at all avenues (creative etc) to help them out as much as they can. However, it is a business decision coming from the top so there isn't a lot any of us can do.

Here is hoping for a buyer....

Flap 80 - well said.

How dare people be happy that their jobs are safe when others may lose theirs.

If we follow that logic we should never ever have a cause for any form of celebration as there is always someone whose livelihood is under threat. I am sure we are all aware of the woes of BMI regional and Baby pilots and wish nothing but the very best for them, indeed we all hope that some white knights come along and save them and their jobs. However to suggest that those fortunate to have a more secure future after a period of, no doubt, great stress and worry is frankly woefully petty.

May I just point out the thread is bmi mainline pilots made redundant. People now come on here and say its wrong that we are happy we have mitigated against these job losses and should not show any relief or positive communication to our new BA colleagues. I would like to point out that no pilot at baby or regional has been declared at risk of redundancy, whilst some at mainline have. We have had a great deal of stress and redundancy hanging over our heads. It is perfectly fair that we communicate our relief. No pilot has been left out because they are on a 737 or a emb 145. These pilots work for different companies which are owned by the same group (IAG) and were never going to be part of the integration to BA. Nobody wants to see anyone loose their jobs and at this point whilst the future of baby and regional is to be decided no pilot at these companies have been told they are at risk and sale options continue to be explored. Attacking mainline pilots is not exactly going to do anyone any good.

The fact is, a lot of us have had to put up with the (jet) snobbery of a select few mainline pilots in the past. Off they go to BA while the rest of us apply for jobs at B&Q in the coming months. Yes I know we didnt have any slots of our own, it's a business decision etc... Our main beef is that we are not valued because of the type we fly. We should be valued because we are all professional airline Captains and FO's!

Kind of sticks in the teeth a little as you can imagine.

Side note,

As for redundancy, check your facts. Regional pilots were under threat not so long ago. Some baby pilots lost their jobs.

Our main beef is that we are not valued because of the type we fly.

Actually no. You are not wanted because the business you work for is not wanted - this is nothing to do with the type you fly. Nor is it anything to do with personal value, it is all to do with the fact that the business for which you work has no value to IAG.

Seemingly people's careers and lives as well. Cherry pick the best bits, dispose of the rest. Lifes a bitch.

Baby and regional pilots at risk not so long ago? News to me and if so its not due to the IAG purchase. In 09-10 (not so long ago) mainline lost 129 pilots but that is a different topic to this as are the baby and regional ones I believe. I raise attention back to the title of the thread and emphasise that the loss of any job is awful. Optimism would help look at what is in the papers about regional and baby the sales process is still being explored and should be the focus. As for jet snobs I am sorry if you feel there are some but I have respect for you guys and I am very sure that is felt across the pilot workforce

The fact is that if you lose your job that is a tragedy, both personally and for your family and I don't know any pilot, BA or otherwise that does not have immense sympathy for the BMIr and Baby pilots. Indeed, I think we all hope that BA will find a buyer for these businesses but I think most also recognise that this is about business, not personal worth or about how the aircraft you fly affects how your are valued. I think it is smarter and perhaps easier to bear if you recognise this does not reflect badly on the pilots under threat but that it is just business and that sometimes life is a bitch.

bex88,

These pilots work for different companies which are owned by the same group (IAG) and were never going to be part of the integration to BA.

Simplistic.

I'd hazard a guess some of them have contracts which say otherwise?

Well best of luck to them because they will have to take on a legal case against IAG and the argument for the case is weak at best. A old out of date contract is not worth much and it can be demonstrated an employee has accepted a new role and worked under t&c's of a different company within the group for a considerable period. As said any job loss is tragic and the focus should be on how to move forward not snipe at mainline guys. Lets face it would anyone not want IAG to find jobs for all of the baby and regional pilots. Did the very very limited number of guys who claim to have contracts with british midland get put at risk of redundancy in 2009-10 and if not why did you not stick your hand up and claim to be part of us then?

bex88,

Well best of luck to them because they will have to take on a legal case against IAG and the argument for the case is weak at best. A old out of date contract is not worth much and it can be demonstrated an employee has accepted a new role and worked under t&c's of a different company within the group for a considerable period.

Whose side are you on really?

:E

You might find BALPA is already aware of the situation and indeed independent legal advice is being sought by pilots on the matter?

As said any job loss is tragic and the focus should be on how to move forward not snipe at mainline guys.

Actions speak louder than words.

You seem to forget that Regional and baby pilots have been flying for subsidiaries that have allowed Mainline to remain as "solvent" for as long as they have via all kinds of various mechanisms be it slot-filling, alleged inflated sub-leasing costs and ostensibly sequestering forward bookings revenue....

Did the very very limited number of guys who claim to have contracts with british midland get put at risk of redundancy in 2009-10 and if not why did you not stick your hand up and claim to be part of us then?

I'd always be first to volunteer to be shot when the opportunity arrives.

:ok:

If an organisation is unable to keep track of which employees are on which contracts, is it the employees job to advise them?

You seem to forget how many years of redundancies the other subsidiaries were exposed to?

I'm super pleased that Mainline pilots are being transferred across to BA.

Its just a shame the solidarity does not extend further....

There are no sides to this. However going back this is about mainline pilots who are at risk of redundancy. Baby and regional pilots have not been issued at risk notices and the sales process continues so what has anyone lost at this point? There are guys who are still at risk so maybe thought and effort could be spared for them.

The BBC is reporting that there may be good news for the guys in Regional!!

The previous deal that appeared to be on the back-burner would hopefully be in the final stages!:ok:

I certainly hope that my pilot colleagues in Regional get good news!!!

Ditto :ok:

Fingers crossed for everyone!

Potential news of a Granite deal coming to fruition sounds positive. It will also help BA's PR.

It does however need to be seen in the context of the financial strength of those buying it, i.e. how much funding is actually being invested, as none of us want to see the Newco go bust six months down the line and staff negotiating with the administrator for any redundancy.

The discrimination against regional/loco pilots is not new, indeed there was an article in the BALPA Log at the time of the disposal of BA Connect to Flybe entitled BA and Apartheid which raised these issues.

Having said that, the attitude of the BA guys on here, seems a lot more positive compared to the attitude back then, so it seems a bit harsh to criticise them for welcoming their new colleagues.

As has also been pointed out (as yet at least) the baby and regional guys have not been notified as being under threat of redundancy, and if suitable buyers are found, then there's no issue. If however things don't work out and redundancy becomes a reality, and at the same time BA is still recruiting externally, then that is a very serious issue that BALPA, and all of us who are members, whether as BA, (ex) BMI mainline, or any other part of the pilot community, need to be prepared to take a stand against.

Have the T&Cs for the former BMI mainline pilots that are joining BA been announced yet?

If however things don't work out and redundancy becomes a reality, and at the same time BA is still recruiting externally, then that is a very serious issue that BALPA, and all of us who are members, whether as BA, (ex) BMI mainline, or any other part of the pilot community, need to be prepared to take a stand against. The very best they will be offered by BA is a place on the next available selection dates for DEP, competing to keep a job against all the external applicants. This is all they have offered to other BA subsidiary pilots faced with redundancy in the past at a time when external recruitment was ongoing for mainline.

Have the T&Cs for the former BMI mainline pilots that are joining BA been announced yet?

Not yet. Discussions are still ongoing. The minimum they will get is TUPE but hopefully they will do better.

I'm all for baby and regional guys being offered opportunities to become assessed for DEP positions, however the train of thought that BA has some moral obligation to provide direct entry a la mainline is a step beyond. Ideally baby and regional get sold off, minimising disruption and anxiety to the pilots in both organisations. IAG aren't integrating baby and regional into BA, therefore they have no legal obligation to provide new positions. BA have people within their holding pool which they have already selected. ALL of these people applied to BA long before the intention to purchase bmi was even announced. If you WANT to join BA then apply and hoop jump like the rest of us. I'd be surprised if IAG management came to your rescue, especially given the amount of redundancies occurring within the bmi group external to the overall pilot body. I could of course be wrong, however I believe offering regional and baby pilots first refusal on assessments is pretty fair.

callsign kilo

Just playing devils advocate...but then by what right are bmi mainline pilots getting direct entry into BA? They haven't passed any selection for BA either and are jumping ahead of people waiting in the hold pool who have passed the selection.

TUPE and employment law thats why. You could also say that given that they currently operate in and out of heathrow on the aircraft ba will be using, on the routes they will initially fly and that they have been assessed both by bmi and the authority as competent that they are suitable to fulfil the position, or would a 1/2 hour sim provide a better assessment. :p

Well said Van G...dont forget that BA will be having a good look at Training records/Personal files of some of those BMI people who have had difficulties in the past, not so much with handling issues but CRM issues They did this in 1992 with a few of the Dan Air LGW B734 people to weed out those with CRM issues. Watch this space.

Given bmi's reputation for training within the industry it is highly unlikely that there will be many rouge pilots amoungst them but Flap 80 is right I am sure training records will be looked at and maybe some will be singled out for additional training / assessment during their integration. However TUPE is legally binding and these guys have all passed bmi assessment which is no easy task either.

"Rouge pilots?" I think BA would employ them regardless of their colour :-)

Rogue..... What a numpty :ouch::D

bex 88. I was asking with reference to a previous post and playing devils advocate.

But whilst I'm here, peoples backs are up at some bmi mainline pilots not just because of their selfish narrow minded posts on here. It stems from the most ridiculously insensitive and arrogant behaviour witnessed on the crew bus, crew room etc and I guess this forum provides an area to vent that frustration. Crews endlessly discussing seniority issues sitting right next to people who have no idea if they have a job at the end of summer, or even in a few months time. People joking about getting hats...

Yes I am happy you have a job. Yes you have a right to be happy, but back slapping right now in the public domain and aforementioned crew room/bus idiocy is at best insensitive given the uncertainty of your colleagues futures. And just because our jobs aren't officially 'at risk' are you really suggesting there isn't a real and immediate threat of redundancy to us? Because I assure you there is.

So all the best with your future. But please get down of your high horse, save me the TUPE lectures and show a little humility.

You asked a question and I gave a straight answer. As for crews joking about wearing hats on the crew bus etc you are right it shows a complete lack of empathy and regard for other peoples positions. Seniority discussions are relevant but again showing a bit of sensitivity and not discussing this in public would be very welcome to me as well! If people are doing that you should say something as it may help focus the mind of others. The tread topic though is bmi mainline pilots made redundant and some are in a even more time critical position than maybe yourself.

callsign kilo

Just playing devils advocate...but then by what right are bmi mainline pilots getting direct entry into BA? They haven't passed any selection for BA either and are jumping ahead of people waiting in the hold pool who have passed the selection.

I see your point Van G, of course I do, however as one poster has already stated - legal obligation is binding. And if I can also play devils advocate, then do things become interesting when BA look at the records and see the names of x,y and z; noting that they went through their process and failed. BA's recruitment strategy is based largely on assessing psychometric and non techinical ability. It appears that BA believe that there is a partcular personality fit suited for their organisation. Those guys making fleeting and insensitive remarks in the vicinity of troubled colleagues, inavertently or not, are usually the type to send alarm bells ringing. Unfortunately for you and me, the 'no I in teamwork' brigade are generally a clever set of egotistical barstewards with Jekyll and Hyde type personalities.

Someone also suggested that a training department with highly respected standards is unlikely to harbour many rogue pilots -It's simply not the case, I can assure you! You can lead a horse to water, but on many occasions it simply won't drink. Many people, once conditioned, can also play the game a handful of times, when required to do so. However new and unfamiliar surroundings can often see them become unstuck.

Just something I've noted in my travels.

Just been talking to an old friend in bmi Mainline. The pension situation sounds shocking. It would seem that some people are likely to loose up to 40% of their pension since Lufty dumped the final salary pension in the government run emergency fund. The PPF was intended to provide some measure of protection to employees of companies that had gone bust - not the case here.

How is it that the German former parent company who are worth billions and the new owner who is also worth billions can get away with this? It is a scandalous situation and it sounds like some pilots are champing at the bit, ready to take some sort of action over it. In pension fund terms the black hole is not that big...

I am not sure why IAG should be responsible for the pension blackhole, they bought BMI with the proviso that Lufty would keep the pension liability. Indeed there would have no deal if IAG had to pick up this liability. How Lufty then manages to duck it's obligations to the pension while still being solvent is a mystery.

The Sunday Times(29 Apr) has an article related to the Bmi pension issue - makes for an interesting read.

John Smith jumped up from his armchair as the letter box snapped shut. The pilot rushed into the hallway of his Hampshire home and tore open a letter from his employer, BMI British Midland.

As Smith (not his real name) read the letter from Clive Grimley, chairman of the pension trustees, an awful truth dawned on him: his plans for a comfortable retirement had been dashed.

Lufthansa, BMI’s owner, was washing its hands of the carrier’s pension scheme. A deficit of £180m (€220m) meant there would not be enough to pay the promised pensions.

Instead, the German airline was dumping the liabilities on the Pension Protection Fund (PPF), which is normally used to rescue the retirement plans of insolvent companies. Lufthansa would also provide an £84m sweetener to make up for some of the shortfall in members’ pension savings.

Smith, in his early 50s, had been looking forward to a retirement income of £43,000 a year — he reckons he will now be lucky to get £27,000. “Most of the pilots are in a state of despair and anger,” he said.

The PPF is bad news for well-paid workers, such as pilots, because it guarantees a maximum of only £34,000 a year for those who have not yet retired. It does not cover most inflation-linked increases to pensions, or widows’ or dependants’ benefits.

This is the first time a large, solvent company has been allowed to dump liabilities into the PPF and walk away.

The controversial deal emerged this month as Lufthansa sold BMI to International Airlines Group, owner of British Airways.

IAG wanted BMI’s Heathrow operations but not its pension liabilities. It received a huge discount on the £172.5m headline price after agreeing to take on BMI’s regional and low-cost arms, for which Lufthansa had failed to find a buyer.

The German airline’s jettisoning of the scheme has left pension experts and unions baffled because Lufthansa had pledged to support it after the sale to IAG.

Jim McAuslan, general secretary of Balpa, the pilots’ union, has written to Dame Anne Begg, who chairs the Commons work and pensions committee, asking for an investigation. He has also urged Vince Cable, the UK business secretary, to look into the matter. McAuslan fears other companies will use similar tactics to get out of their pension commitments. “This is a solvent, gold-standard German company transferring a business to a gold-standard British company, and in the process the pension has been ditched under the pretence of insolvency,” he said.

So, what happened?

Lufthansa proposed to continue supporting the BMI pension scheme by setting up a British-based shell company, with no assets, to take over funding responsibility. The Germans would pump £10m a year into the scheme for 25 years. This was blocked by the Pensions Regulator because it was similar to the funding structure it had approved for Polestar, the printing company, which had a deficit of more than £500m. The Polestar scheme collapsed and had to be rescued by the PPF last year because the shell company had insufficient cash to make up a shortfall.

The Pensions Regulator sounded the alarm on Lufthansa’s proposal because the Germans would have had no legal obligation to continue supporting the BMI scheme if something went wrong in the future. The watchdog decided that a safer option for the BMI workers would be to transfer the airline’s scheme to the PPF.

Lufthansa was desperate to end its exposure to BMI, which it took control of in 2009 for about £300m. Since then, it has struggled to turn round the loss-maker — it is estimated to have lost more than £1 billion on the investment.

Lufthansa confirmed it had proposed using a shell company to manage the pension scheme, but said the regulator had rejected the proposal because it was deemed too much of a risk.

John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, asked why the regulator had not used more forceful tactics to persuade Lufthansa to take on the liabilities. “The regulator has very strong powers that it appears to choose not to use,” Ralfe said.

Sources claimed the regulator and BMI’s trustees felt under pressure from Lufthansa to seal an agreement on the scheme. If they had not done so, the deal with IAG could have collapsed, raising the threat of the Germans pulling the plug on their British subsidiary. Under this doomsday scenario, BMI would be made insolvent and the scheme would have ended up in the PPF anyway — but without the £84m sweetener.

Jim Snee, a former BMI pilot who retired in 2008, said the debacle had been a “rude awakening” for members of the scheme. It also sent out a warning to younger people about the value of saving into a workplace pension, he said. “Why would you invest your life savings in a scheme run by nefarious people who aren’t properly policed?”

Struggling employers get lifeline on pensions as funds crisis forces regulator to take action


A financial lifeline will be thrown this week to about 350 companies struggling to fund deluxe final salary pension schemes against the backdrop of a faltering economy. Without the regulator's decision to relax its approach to the funding of pension deficits – estimated to total about £255billion – it is feared that many scheme sponsors would be in danger of failing to meet their pension promises.


Struggling employers get lifeline on pensions as funds crisis forces regulator to take action | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2133104/Struggling-employers-lifeline-pensions-funds-crisis-forces-regulator-action.html)

BA deal can't stop BMI pension scheme being shifted into protection fund | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2132654/BA-deal-stop-BMI-pension-scheme-shifted-protection-fund.html)

Why is this is not enough to make the trustees go back to the drawing board with DLH and the Pension Regulator for a review now the regulator is 'being more pragmatic' ?

Meanwhile DLH are still trading,still flying into the U.K, and seem to be doing rather well.

Boeing delivers monster 747-8 jet to Lufthansa... with a wingspan of over 225 feet | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138228/Boeing-delivers-monster-747-8-jet-Lufthansa--wingspan-225-feet.html)

Van G:

"Just playing devils advocate...but then by what right are bmi mainline pilots getting direct entry into BA? They haven't passed any selection for BA either and are jumping ahead of people waiting in the hold pool who have passed the selection. "

Quite simply, because the BA pilot community were given the opportunity by BA Management to decide whether they wanted bmi integrated in to BA or kept separate as a new lower cost version of BA at LHR.

Down to their contract scope clause giving them the right to fly BA aircraft at LHR.

And the BA pilot community voted to have bmi integrated rather than face the present BA probably stagnate while the new low cost BA born out of bmi attracted the future growth opportunities.

Anyone who has been in midland for some time and has hung on (and that's most who are left at present) hasn't exactly been lying on a bed of roses.

I think you'll also find that the hundreds of pilots from Northeast, Cambrian, BEA/BOAC, BCAL, Dan Air, Citiflyer and a few other decent UK operations that I've probably missed from the mists of time that have all been absorbed in to BA, have also never been subject to a BA selection procedure.

Are they any less as professional pilots ?

For non bmi group people - there's very little connection (except at the very top of the business pyramid) between the three elements of the group, and Regional operates quite independently out of the Aberdeen HQ, having been borne out of Business Air. Yes, there has been some sensitivity at LHR at Regional coming in and taking over a fair chunk of bmi mainline flying for the last few years.

If mainline pitched up at ABZ and started taking over Regional routes there would be similar concerns at the loss of promotions and opportunities.

But if you speak to your group colleagues you'll find a lot of common empathy and understanding about all of our futures. The common bond is the way in which we were all treated under the pre-DLH ownership. I very much hope that Regional can fall back in to the hands of parts of the Business Air management team and once again thrive under a dynamic and focussed team north of the border.

I know of several BMI pilots who have failed BA selection on more than one occasion. I wonder how the recruitment team feel about welcoming these guys on board? Does it now make a mockery of the whole selection process ?

I know of several BMI pilots who have failed BA selection on more than one occasion...Does it now make a mockery of the whole selection process ?

I know of many bmi pilots who have passed BA selection on many occasions. The all too common trait was an inability to operate an airliner with efficiency and (IMHO) safety. Fortunately, they were all F/Os and were never let loose by bmi without the support of a Captain. That definitely did make a mockery of the whole (BA) selection process.

As for the bmi pension scheme, if past performance is anything to go by, the vast majority of the bmi pilot workforce will capitulate without so much as a whimper, let alone anything even remotely resembling a fight. As usual, not surprisingly, BALPA will eventually walk away from the problem due to lack of decent support (amongst other well known reasons, of course).

Come on! Prove me wrong! Stick up for yourselves, just for once. :suspect:

Prelude01

I don't think it makes a mockery of the situation. It was just an awesome opportunity for BA at Heathrow where new slots are very few and far between.

At the end of the day BA were never gonna say....geez, I wish we could have those 42 slots but lets not bid if we have to take the pilots too.

There is a saying in the States....the fleas come with the dog. I'm not saying that BMI pilots are fleas - what i am saying is it's not a perfect set up but it's workable.

Why's it not perfect? Well everyone will have a story to tell by the time the dust settles. For my two peneth worth....I really enjoy the people I fly with on the Airbus at Heathrow and would dislike witnessing a number of individuals pitch up and attempt to ruin the vibe because they felt slighted.

That said, I'm sure that 95%+ of our new colleagues will be great and the beauty of Bidline is that you can ditch the trips with the arseholes once you've flown with them once and got the measure of them. Indeed I do it already with one or two current BA wallies.

Welcome on board.

Somebodys said it already but allow me to reiterate, first beers on me.

CB

It's just ridiculous harping on about BA selection for bmi pilots.They have proven their worth and obviously ability to operate an airliner. This is where selection processes breakdown because they apply a broadbrush - OK make it ridiculously hard for little johnny out of Oxford, but you should n't apply the same criteria to experienced pilots.

I did both Britannia and first choice selection in the same 2 weeks, I passed one and apparantly failed the other. So i was good enough to fly one IT 757, but not the other airline's.I mean really, WTF ?

I wish good luck to the good ones at bmi. I hope your welcome to BA is warmer than the astraeus folks received in some quarters ...

I did both Britannia and first choice selection in the same 2 weeks, I passed one and apparantly failed the other. So i was good enough to fly one IT 757, but not the other airline's.I mean really, WTF ?

As the selection procedure is for the company and not for the aircraft type etc., then it is not a great surprise that you can fail for one company and pass for another. That's before you even go near the idea that you flew poorly in one sim test and aced the next one. Companies are looking for pilots but also types of people and I think it is fair to say these differ widely. This is not necessarily to do with safety - the LPC sorts this stuff out, but more to do with whether you will fit in with the company ethos and culture.

It amazes me that there are professional pilots out there that don't understand this, to paraphrase: WTF?

I think (hope) it's pretty much a given that experienced pilots can fly the aeroplane. The selection process is more about weeding out difficult individuals with whom one would not wish to share a flight deck. In my years of flying I've not come across many people who really struggle with the aircraft. Come across plenty of knobs though - just ask any easyjet gatwick FO about the "3 B's".

Again I should be at pains to point out that no company is without these individuals and I'm not for one minute suggesting BMI has more than its fair share. I do hope however that whatever the final solution to seniority et al (of which lets face it we have no control), we can all live happily under one roof without some days out becoming a real drag. Preferably with the baby and regional guys included.

To continue..... I know of many BA pilots that have also failed selection

Former BMI pilots joining BA will have to do groundschool, sim training, LPC and final command check/line check.

Yes, juan. I get that different companies are looking for different attributes , however can you not see the similarity in what first choice and Thomson do. It's ancient history, but I'd be working for Thomson anyway now, and in fact have a tui pension through FC. Furthermore I've flown for pretty much all the uk airlines on an ACMI basis anyway...

No, I don't believe the criteria is much different in this case. It merely comes down to how far the HR dept is trying to stake a claim for it's very existence by exerting it's authority over a role that could be undertaken by management pilots.

The fact is through circumstance Bmi guys have another door into BA and good on them. Some will have passed the selection and some will not have but thats life. I think if people are upset as they are holding then find another company to go too. I'm in limbo at the moment due to this takeover and it is a pain but the doors will open again and I will be eagerly waiting. Good luck to all of you that are starting with BA and I hope all the other issues are sorted for you. Hope to see you down route when hopefully I join BA.

It's just ridiculous harping on about BA selection for bmi pilots.They have proven their worth and obviously ability to operate an airliner. This is where selection processes breakdown because they apply a broadbrush - OK make it ridiculously hard for little johnny out of Oxford, but you shouldn't apply the same criteria to experienced pilotsIf a BA Cityflyer E190 or BA Openskies B757/767 pilot wishes to fly for mainline, they have to go through the full selection process, having already been through an (almost identical) BA selection process. They are already employees of the BA Group. The fact that they are known quantities to BA who have full access to training files, etc. makes little difference. They want to re-confirm you can read, subtract, fly a computer joystick cross bar and "tell me about a time" all over again.

If there are Pilot redundancies within the BA Group at a subsidiary, they still have to go through the BA selection process again to keep a job, along with all of the external applicants. As a result, a fully qualified experienced type rated Boeing 767 Pilot could be out the door (at expense to BA) and put on the dole, whilst on the very same day a cadet pilot or low houred turboprop or military guy is offered a contract. This is BA Corporate policy and yes it happens. You would have thought groundschool, sim training, LPC and line check would be sufficient for internal employees, just as BMI mainline pilots are receiving.

I guess the same has happened in the past with BMI and its subsidiaries, but I dont recall BMI mainline recruiting whilst laying off employed pilots elsewhere in the group?

Allow me to clarify something: bmi is not full of pilots who've failed the BA selection process. bmi pilots are, in the main, people who like flying for a smallish, friendly outfit where you can get to know a significant proportion of your pilot and cabin crew colleagues. Those pilots hell-bent on flying big aircraft around the world will have stayed for a while then headed off to Virgin, BA or the desert.

Good luck to everyone involved.

" As a result, a fully qualified experienced type rated Boeing 767 Pilot could be out the door (at expense to BA) and put on the dole, whilst on the very same day a cadet pilot or low houred turboprop or military guy is offered a contract. This is BA Corporate policy and yes it happens."

Really?! When did this last happen? When BA started recruitment again they were looking for type rated pilots initially, would hardly fit in with your assertion that they'd lay off type rated pilots only to recruit non-type rated ones!

When were BA last recruiting and laying off crews at the same time?

I think there's a bit too much 'expert' comment on this forum, and we all know what the definition of an expert is.......

Correct CF. But without adequate representation on the continent for OS there isn't a lot BALPA could do about it to mitigate those lay offs.

OS are a French company as I understand it so not sure what BALPA involvement there should have been, if any.

Given the BALPA history with OS I don't think there was much appetite to try to help either.

Despite what you might think are the rights and wrongs of it IAG views all of the airlines in the group as seperate, just as BA did before it. If you view the various entities as connected you are making a mistake. BA were not laying off crews, Openskies were. Although you might wish that the various airlines were linked, I suppose thats partly what the Openskies dispute was about in 2008, that boat has left the harbour and it won't be coming back soon. There are many comments about what BALPA should do about it, we are in a new IR environment, look at the recent changes in Spanish employment law enabling changes to T's and C's without consultation. The employers are ahead of the unions on this one I hope BALPA can continue to pick its way through all this to enable a better future for all of us in the future. I havn't decided whether to hold my breath yet!

I wasn't inferring that BALPA would have been able to exert any pressure on a different outcome. However, having no representation certainly doesn't help (it being in the EU or not), the company can do whatever it likes. Hence laying off people in OS.

For the record, this has never happened in BA or it's former guises. Primarily due to innovative solutions and everyone pulling together to provide job security/stability. Something we can be very proud of.

The OS sentiment was one created by the company unfortunately. Us 'contaminating' the set-up didn't make for comfortable reading... (but that's a whole different subject, one that's done to death)

I was merely replying to Atropos/CF/Spider-man posts.

Allow me to clarify something: bmi is not full of pilots who've failed the BA selection process. bmi pilots are, in the main, people who like flying for a smallish, friendly outfit where you can get to know a significant proportion of your pilot and cabin crew colleagues. Those pilots hell-bent on flying big aircraft around the world will have stayed for a while then headed off to Virgin, BA or the desert.

Lets see how many choose to stay on the "nice friendly little fleet" when given the option to move to the big unfriendly fleets then.:eek:

Well, BA Baracas, if the Airbus fleet is, as you say, a nice friendly little fleet, then that's where I (and I suspect many others) intend to stay. There are lots of bmi people who want to be at home as many nights as possible; not really compatible with long haul flying. I have heard many people liken the atmosphere at bmi to that of a flying club and for those that do not place money and a big aeroplane at the top of their list, flying an Airbus all over Europe will suit them fine. Obviously there will be many itching to get on a BA widebody and good luck to them all. However, it's not the big draw some people think it is.

There are lots of bmi people who want to be at home as many nights as possible; not really compatible with long haul flying.

I left short haul for long haul because I wanted more nights at home. Admittedly, I am a commuter so I used to bid for longer tours but even taking that out of the equation I have more days at home since joining a long haul fleet and, no, I'm not too knackered to enjoy them - quite the opposite.

Horses for courses!
You wouldn't enter every horse in the grand national!
There are a few donkeys and mules around too ( in both companies)!!

When are the T & Cs for the former BMI now BA pilots going to be announced?

T&C's should be finalised by 1st June, which is when I believe BMI will officially be integrated into BA.

As it stands I understand BMI pilots will not be given the luxury of independant choice. Due to potential litigation issues BA will probably go with the separate sub fleet option with a small percentage of work extracted prior to stage one bidding.

I would hardly call that integration. Are you saying we are being bubbled?

That sounds like a bubble to me too......so tell me again, what did the BA guys give up 5% for? I'd ask for it back!

Well BA managers are saying they dont want the bubble scenario. First pilots move to BA on the 14th of this month but it will take over 6 months before bmi is fully integrated. This is stage one of two only. Big picture though, pilots keep their jobs and current t&c's and that is what matters in the short term. To be honest beyond that no one knows.

That sounds like a bubble to me too......so tell me again, what did the BA guys give up 5% for? I'd ask for it back!

As long as it's a shrinking bubble and not a growing bubble then it's worth the 5%.

Due to potential litigation issues BA will probably go with the separate sub fleet option with a small percentage of work extracted prior to stage one bidding.

What if I would like to bid for the extracted work? I am being dis-advantaged which they (union and management) said I wouldn't be? Please can I have my two days annual leave back?

Seeing as there's been no announcement, and there's unlikely to be one for a week or two yet, are we really going to debate this again without the facts?

Oh yes, it's such fun to speculate wildly!

Jockster, what do you call a small percentage of work? Wouldn't it be around 30%?

I didn't mention 'percentage' skyrocket10 did on previous page. But in order not to be disadvantaged no work i.e. 0% should be extracted prior to IB1 bidding.

Depends what the work is. If it's exclusively to former bmi destinations and not to any BA ones (there is little overlap between the networks) have you been disadvantaged?

I think some of you may be taking this "disadvantaged" thing a bit to literally!

You could end up with all existing bmi flying only being available to bmi pilots. As it changes to new long haul destinations then they will have to have that too. You can't reduce their 6 week roster notice (TUPE) and you won't let them have BA flying until after IB1. Ergo, they can only have new flying, on whatever aircraft type is on that route.

Sounds like the makings of a deal....

I checked the dictionary and "integrated" and "segregated" are not the same thing. As for "disadvantaged" then a trip to Sierra Leone should help to define that one.

You could end up with all existing bmi flying only being available to bmi pilots.

Possible!

As it changes to new long haul destinations then they will have to have that too.

That doesn't automatically follow. Besides, I suspect a significant number of bmi pilots would prefer to head for the bottom of the BA MSL at the first opportunity rather than mark time at the bottom of a shrinking fleet. bmi might not even have enough pilots in the bubble to fly all their previous work!

You can't reduce their 6 week roster notice (TUPE)

Can't you? TUPE doesn't lock everything in a previous contract in position, ad infinitum. BA have plenty of scope to make justifiable changes. They'd be scrutinised, but TUPE doesn't prevent change. If 6 weeks notice of roster was enforced then BA could simply take a leaf out of bmi's books and just publish a 'roster' six weeks in advance then change it every day!

Hand says; As long as it's a shrinking bubble and not a growing bubble then it's worth the 5%.

Well if it that happens you only have yourselves to blame.

And then like Bmi the whole roster gets block windowed, as per AFS................ gosh this is going to be fun....... all those days of bought.. as per AFS again.:rolleyes:

I think we've already been through all the reasons why it won't be a growing bubble MrBenip. All future recruitment is into mainline, not the bubble. Unless your cloning yourselves that bubble aint growing.

http://freedomok.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Trojan-Horse.gif

IAG have a little present for you :eek:

[QUOTE]Well if it that happens you only have yourselves to blame/QUOTE]

Why? Last time I checked there were no pilots on the IAG board.

City flyer, that is my point. BA managers are saying we must all act as one integrated airline to benefit fully from the synergies but the dangers of not being so play into the hands of IAG. Bmi as a balloon is like a Trojan horse being let in. When the squeeze comes for more efficiencies it would be possible to introduce these simply by expanding the balloon or forcing people on to these terms (iberia although not technically the same) I thought I was taking a more humorous approach to a topic which often leads to snipes at one another. Remember if you are in BA or bmi then we will be working together so let's keep it light hearted and share the odd joke. Sorry if animals of the equestrian variety offend you. :)

'Seniority' is a bit of a dinosaur thing...

As an outsider looking in it seems that those who don't have it, seniority in BA, don't want it because it blocks potential career progression in a one step forward 2 steps back sort of way, and negates their bmi seniority which makes the time put in seem suddenly not worth very much, frustrating.
Those that have it obviously see its potential loss as a loss to their perhaps not so quick but I presume predictable career progression, and the associated benefits, and would dilute their time put in to less than its present worth.
Regardless if change is introduced it will be change for the worse I suspect, as the company (as all companies these days) will use the opportunity for cost savings.
My advice for what its worth is when weighing up the pros and cons, is to ask, what are the advantages/disadvantages to me in the next 1-5 years and what are the advantages/disadvantages to me in the next 10-20 years, then take a balanced view.

Reminds me a bit of the retirement age debate.

has a deal be done for the 16 management pilots facing redundancy?

you want to save them ?

As long as the management pilots have the ability to accept a loss of that role of course they should be allowed to remain employed. Anyone who suggests out of bitterness of "lets knock the management" OR "knock the Training Pilot" syndrome and have them dismissed has never experienced the distress and upset mid career redundancy causes not just to the employee but also their family. What BA are doing by seeking to make redundant those with management or training qualifications is despicable and is very similar to the devisive way the Dan Air NCL/MAN B734 pilots were treated in OCT 1992. Hopefully this will not happen and as along as a BMI TRI/TRE has the personal strength and discipline to accept the role loss and his/her new status a secure career awaits. Disgraceful that personal enmity from BMI employees should suggest otherwise.

Some managers have already been offered positions.

Barcli, why not? They're a decent bunch.

BMI Regional Sold to Granite (BMI Regional Sold to Granite)

BMI Regional sold for £8 million. Is it me or is that a bit cheap? Surprised nobody bought it sooner.

Its not the sale cost you should be considering. Its the overall liabilities of the company that is being purchased compared against it's forecasts. Hence the reason why DLH and now IAG can't off load baby.

Its fantastic news in my opinion, however it boils down to nothing more than a hand washing exercise by IAG who, if no buyer was found, would have shut down regional as well. :uhoh:

I'm pretty sure the costs of doing so would have also been a determining factor in the overall sale price.

Not to mention the discounting of the purchase price from Lufty because Lufty hadn't got rid of them first. I think IAG did really well to get £8m for regional!

Thanks to some great work by the bmi mainline CC BALPA Reps and the solidarity of bmi mainline BALPA members there will be NO redundancies in bmi mainline. Well done guys.

:D

Ooh, hurrah for you. Never mind about those at baby with no firm prospects on the horizon.

You need to remember the name of this thread which is why I posted the news here. As for baby I am sure we are all hoping for a good outcome for all the pilots affected. Some of them are friends of mine.

Ooh, hurrah for you. Never mind about those at baby with no firm prospects on the horizon.

Jobs were at risk. Pilot colleagues within the BMI group chose to give up something to save those jobs. That is something to celebrate. I think all BA/BMI are concerned about the prospects for our colleagues at Baby. Sarcastic comments are hardly likely to endear you and your cause to any that may be in a position to help.

Jobs were at risk. Pilot colleagues within the BMI group chose to give up something to save those jobs. That is something to celebrate. I think all BA/BMI are concerned about the prospects for our colleagues at Baby.

A-ha! You've hit the nail on the head there. We are/were a BMI Group (at least that's what my payslip says). However it's all distinctly separate at times (integration into BA), yet intricately intertwined at others (payroll, HR, etc).

I haven't heard much shouting from mainline pilots to integrate flight deck from baby as well. With regular announcements in the press about other airlines taking on baby routes, and that baby is to be shut down (forget that it is still technically one of the options out there), there's not much to be positive about.

So much for being part of a 'Group'.

I am sorry you feel that the bmi mainline pilots and cc should be petitioning for the integration of our baby colleagues into the ba plan. The problem is that you have your own cc. That means that you are a separate entity as far as tupe/employment law are concerned. The mainline cc are not allowed to negotiate on the behalf of baby pilots as they are not your representatives.

How convenient.

but correct :=

Just wondering why some left main line for Baby in the first place?

Was it for commands or life style?

Not wishing bmi baby colleagues anything other than good jobs elsewhere, however you're talking about three separate siblings under the same parent umbrella. They are not one.

Did the bmi regional and bmi baby pilots offer to share in mainline's redundancies over the years?

Did they offer to share in mainline's demotions due contraction over the years?

Did they offer to share in the promotions due to expansion at bmi regional and bmi baby?

Why not? A: Because they are separate!

Should Iberia and BA pilots share each others similar gains and pains?

Should Swissair and Austrian Airlines pilots share each others similar gains and pains?