Is BA an ethical company?

I'll have some of whatever Charlie Girl has been drinking.

Christ. Reading that made my face hurt.

Please Charlie Girl no more posts unless you employ a translator. What colour is the sky on your planet?:rolleyes:

Did I date you in the past? :hmm:

Sorry to hear the rehab failed.

"Comprehension is comprehension.."

"No chance of the Pprune massif translating offending thread into post Shakespearean English.."

Sorry old girl, didn't know the divorce made you so bitter!

That's right city flyer - they, personally, are destroying the industry. What have you done about it? Lobbied BALPA? Gone out on strike about it?
No, I thought not.

If you had handed over £27,000 in the last couple of months to bmibaby, knowing of the BA transaction and the issues posed (which have been in the public domain since January), then you would be not only financially illiterate but highly foolish.

I wasn't aware there were any P2F'ers left in bmi (if this is what it is), but surely this is the lesson of all lessons for P2F'ers who are destroying the industry. BA owes you no duty of care legally or morally if you are not even an employee, and you won't be represented by BALPA...!

PS - less of the incoherent rants and more reasoned sentences please.

Well technically, the money was handed over to OAA for the type rating, not bmibaby. A job offer would have been made subject to gaining a type rating.

I do agree that the writing was on the wall from the end of last year. I wouldn't have wanted to be in the position of the chaps who are only just starting their line training!

For those in the know and close to the issues, she speaks a lot about what is really unpleasant about the ongoing BMIB / IAG / BA issues

Are the BMIB guys and gals getting anymore than just uk statutory redundancy? Hopefully a sizeable payout was factored into the discounted sale price agreed with LH ...

City Flyer

You're a bit harsh on those that can see only the good side of flying for a living. Why not take aim at the managers that had more insight into what was happening to bmib and possible knowingly allowed them to pay a large ammount of money for basically nothing.

City Flyer

If you had handed over £27,000 in the last couple of months to bmibaby, knowing of the BA transaction and the issues posed (which have been in the public domain since January), then you would be not only financially illiterate but highly foolish.



Well if they really have been forking out in the last two months the best that can be said is that they were niave and unaware of the ways of some airline management, and more importantly unaware of the possibilty that they could be out of the door in the event of a takeover - perhaps ;) they were very new to the business and were too busy trying to get on with their training and "live the dream" to realise that they were headed for a train wreck?

BFF

Why not take aim at the managers that had more insight into what was happening to bmib and possible knowingly allowed them to pay a large ammount of money for basically nothing.


Agreed, and if those managers were IAG managers then the OP may have a point, OTOH if they were Lufthansa/bmi/bmibaby management then I'm afraid Charlie is taking a pop at the wrong airline, all IMHO of course....

If they did indeed fork out that sort of money since the BMI deal was announced then i have zero sympathy and they deserve everything they get. Harsh? maybe, but thats the way the world works.
FAR, FAR too many people bang on about miss-selling etc these days, when in many situations its miss-buying by people too daft or too lazy to do even the most basic due-dilligence checks themselves.
10 seconds on goolge would have revealed that giving 27 grand to BMI in the last few months was a thoroughly moronic idea.

Anyway, one of the key requiremnets for someone to be an airline pilot is a sensible attitude to risk, and the ability to weigh up risks and assess options. Anyone making these sort of financial transactions, almost certainly has no place in a commercial airliner cockpit due to their having almost diametrically opposite attributes to those required.

Clear , concise communication is another Pre requisite so how do we rate Charlie Girls chances?

Oooh, just watch all those who are sitting fat, dumb and 'happy' slagging off someone who has run into hard times!

Charlie Girl started slagging BA At least the slagging she got was accurate.
The starting of this thread was unfair and unjustified in the first place.

City Flyer

Just for the avoidance of doubt I entirely agree with your sentiments, and your comments on the state of the industry and the attitude of some (not all) of those trying to join the industry at the moment. When I said they were niave I was trying to be a :) sort of soul rather than being :mad:......(mind you given the OPs comments I started off being :mad: :mad: but decided to tone it down a bit).

As sudden twang commented the OP started the thread by slagging off BA. Maybe the OP should look at how the whole sorry mess started, how IAG got involved, then reload and fire in the correct direction.

BA are as responsible as you can get in this industry, or certainly near the very top globally.

It's all relative of course.

Oooh, just watch all those who are sitting fat, dumb and 'happy' slagging off someone who has run into hard times! I'm not "slagging off" people who have run-into hard times through no fault of their own, but I have zero sympathy for people (wether they are individuals or scottish banks) who are having self inflicted hard times, because they can't be bothered to do either the most basic of research, or (like most people in this country) they just assume that someone else will just come along and pick up the pieces.

from P2F, to the public sector, to the finance industry and beyond, what is needed right now is for people to be absolutely 100% responsible for the results of their own actions and to take everything that is coming to them. Then a few months or years down the road, other people will look back and say "hmmm, that didn't work out too well - maybe I should think about this", rather than "hey, its a risk, but what the hell, I've got nothing to loose because, mummy / daddy / bank / taxpayer will sort it out for me"

757 Driver, In nearly two pages, your posts have been about the most rational. A lot of the rest have just been as much emotional clap-trap as they have been accusing Charlie Girl of.

"BA are as responsible as you can get" -- BA are 'responsible': to themselves, FULL STOP!! (Caveat emptor!!)

IAG bought BMI. Lufthansa drew a line in the sand with the EU and stated they would close down BMI if the deal with IAG was not ratified as it was loosing too much money per day. IAG stated from initial bidding that they did not want Regional or Baby, I have heard on the grapevine that all other interested parties said a similar thing.

LH threw the pensions of BMI into the regulator, no-one else as they agreed to take the pensions liability away from any purchaser.

BA pilots agreed cuts and productivity increases to bring BMI onto the BA mainline, the other option was a change of AOC and a re-writing of contracts which would probably have resembled 'Click Air' contracts. Very unpleasant for everyone, BMI mainline and BA. Would a 'BA Express' have worked? No-one knows for sure. Given the demographics of Heathrow and anyone with experience of operating out of it would probably tell you a resounding 'No'. That is now going to be a subject purely of conjecture.

350 Pilots now going through LPC/OPC conversions, aircraft being repainted and BMI routes/crews being integrated into the BA schedule as of the start of June. Not bad considering the job security in mainline BMI a few months back.

Where then have BA (Not IAG) acted without responsibility? Please, do tell.

BA has only one interest here: LHR slot-grabs. This is nothing new, the likes of Brymon and BRAL/Manx were also discarded along the wayside as part of this slot-grab. The only difference is that bmi would have created employment law problems as their employees were actually based at LHR and flying the same types as BA. BA's only 'responsible' action here is to their shareholders as their actions have avoided expensive employment law litigation. The employees at baby and regional have not had that LHR/Airbus toehold so they were discarded along the wayside too. (There has however been none of this 'responsibility' towards the regional employees that kept those LHR slots 'warm' for bmi for all those years. They simply weren't on the Airbus so there wouldn't be the employment law problems, so they could be discarded along the wayside.)

However, the crews at BA are going to learn about this big Trojan Horse that they have just allowed in! BA (the company) are responsible to themselves, FULL STOP!!

Trossie,

Welcome to the world of business. Of course BA has a responsibility to it's shareholders. It is no longer a nationalised company. The shareholders have been very patient for a long time in a very volitile business. They expect a share increase/dividend over the long term.

The only thing BMI had to offer of any value whatsoever was the slots. BMI Baby didn't have them neither did BMI regional. Without the slots BMI would have gone bust years ago thanks to very poor management. Unfortunately no one is in this business for the 'good' of the employee. No interested party was bidding for a loss making airline, they were bidding for lucrative LHR slots. Why does this surprise you? As far as any company goes the rest of the 'stuff' that comes with BMI is just baggage to be sorted out. It's not personal, it's business. The days of 'job for life' are over. Baby and Regional did not fit in any way, shape or form into any LHR carriers business model. This ain't a charity!

As for a Trojan Horse, time will tell but I think not. There are moves afoot to cure the ''bubble' principle in time and I'm sure those pilots coming across will find that the working conditions at BA are alot more stable and alot more 'plannable' than what they are used to. There are a few 'vitriolic' ex-BMI posters on here who believe they should have everything and a few vitriolic BA posters who believe they should have nothing, most of us are happy to accept a common middle ground.

Payscales wise? It was unfortunate but not entirely unexpected that a change was being put in place, pensionable pay hasn't changed at all but the 34 pay points (which have no effect on pensionable pay, that increases at the same rate it always has) mean longer to the top but no change in the top pay. Compare that to almost all of the Middle/Far east airlines and you'll still find it a pretty good deal. Certainly no where near a friend of mine flying the 777 for Cathay who is an A scale Captain flying with C scale co-pilots.

The only thing BMI had to offer of any value whatsoever was the slots

As far as big business is concerned I could not agree more. The pilots who fly those slots and existing BA slots are as worthless to the big business as each other which is why they must end up as one cohesive group after all the hot air has been expelled around the meeting table. For big business the existing BA pilots are just as worthless as the existing bmi (shortly) to be ex bmi pilots. The slots are the only thing that matters.

Where then have BA (Not IAG) acted without responsibility? Please, do tell.

At the moment BA personnel i.e. the likes of Willie Vanillie are in control of IAG therefore IAG is BA as far as I am concerned.

"Welcome to the world of business." My point exactly! The problem with a lot of posts here is that they think of airlines as social entities and not as businesses.

BA is a rather 'slot hungry' machine and that is that. As ScotPilot has put it, the pilots don't matter other than for their position in that machine.

About that Trojan Horse: just watch how that machine gets started on using it! Ts&Cs will be the next 'litter' discarded along the wayside!

Trossie,

I would agree with you on the trojan horse philosophy if it wasn't for the fact that we have compromised and compromised pretty much every year I have been in BA with regards to Ts and Cs (since 2005).

Before I joined it was the new money purchase pension and before that it was a change from box style payments to a flat hourly rate, etc.

I think BA has been changing faster than most in regards to constant changes in Ts and Cs.

If we had buried our heads in the sand as a workforce and refused change then the need for modernisation and a correction in Ts+Cs would be well overdue and the need for a trojan horse more important for management.

The airlines in which pilots refuse to make useful concessions are the ones that find themselves so far above the benchmark that management have no choice but to seek that trojan horse. BA is not one of them in my mind and only time will tell if this approach from our BALPA company council reps is the right one. Those that argue we should stand stronger and stop compromising with management may have a point but I think the alternative is management by passing us altogether. I hope this doesnt happen.

Trossie - we all know that BA is a business, but I am intrigued about which airline treats pilots so much better than BA?

Pilots are a business 'asset' as long as they are required to fly the aeroplane.

They are also a business 'target' as far as costs, productivity and long term expenses are concerned. As with all parts of business, profitability is the primary concern. Forward projections based upon solid figures and costings is what entices institutional investment in an otherwise volitile business environment. Flight Crew can be a variable figure with long term costings past workable productivity gains with respect to pensionable liabilities for the company. Thus, a big target for accountants and managers. It will not change!

As soon as Pilots start understanding the business structure behind the constant pressure to reduce terms and conditions, accept that there will always be attacks on those conditions as it is symptomatic of the nature of the industry then we can get on with applying pressure in the other direction to sustain our position within the company. Pilots positions, costs and benefits must be justifiable within a business case, sellable to the institutional investors who demand a return for long term investment. Cost savings that look good on a spreadsheet don't often translate into the real world but the managers who propose them are always willing to try and push it.

As far as working for a 'responsible company' goes I find BA to be one of the best, certainly at least willing to engage employee groups in negotiation unless the specific employee group fails to negotiate. Those negotiations then have a direct bearing on the direction the company take, e.g. the integration of BMI.

As far as personal opinions and silly name bending of the personnel at the top of the company are concerned then you're welcome to your games but what you, personally, consider doesn't mean a thing. IAG controls the two companies, the companies proffer business plans to IAG for approval, IAG dictate direction, the relevant boards decide how they do it.

There is currently a lot of work going on behind the scenes on the integration of the BMI workforce. If you sit at the middle of the roster when the pilots join zippered you will still sit, relatively, in the same place afterwards. Short term annoyance, long term gain. Finally, in the current environment, as long as I still have a job, I'm happy. QPQ.

Why would it be annoying to sit in the same place, relatively, in a zippered in roster system? Sounds neutral to me.

I thought you would move up a bit anyway, as bmi have quite a few junior Captains?

Max,

The only annoyance, to be honest, would be toward the intial BAPLA issuance of 'No BA pilot would be disadvantaged'. Not toward the BMI guys who, like the rest of us, are only pawns in this game and do as they are told, albeit with a modicum of influence through the BMICC.

Once the ripples settle out though the overall situation with increased airframes, new routes etc. will be to all of our advantage, The BMI chaps/chapesses might well find being rostered to 850 hours and the workload a slight increase but the stability is far better.

BMI Baby and regional, whilst very unfortunate and a very good friend of mine works for BMI Baby soon to lose his job, were never a part of the buyout. Just as BMW wanted Rolls Royce and Mini they bought the whole and stripped and sold off what they didn't need. It happens all the time in business. Unfortunate but that is the way the world works.

Surely you aren't disadvantaged though? You are in the same relative place or higher, with more trip lines to choose from. Sounds like you are better off to me!

50 out of 100 with 75 lines of work

Or

60 out of 140 with 105 lines of work.

Which is better?

That assumes you are middle of the list, if your in the bottom 25% you just lost 300 places in seniority and the short term will probably cost 10 years of your career. The BACC sure now how to spin their members into giving the company what it wants with a cherry on top

Seniority wasn't mentioned anywhere; try to understand the question!

It is simply a question about your relative position on the bidline status list, nothing else implied or infered. If you are in the bottom 25% the question would read:

Would you rather be 80 out of 100 with 75 lines of work

or

105 out of 140 with 105 lines of work?

Ok, so if the company expands by 10%, and the 10% join above you you are 10 % worse off. If you gave up 5 or more years service with BMI to join BA 6-8 years ago you will now be relatively lower than guys you used to be relatively higher to at BMI. But I'm sure no one on the BACC will find themselves relatively worse off.

Ron,

I think you will sleep easier at night if you simply consider where you are now, and where you would be under any proposed solution. Ignore where everyone else is, what you did before, who you used to compare yourself too. Are you going to be better or worse off under the point being debated?

I don't think there is an alternative that bumps you up a huge amount by sticking them all at the bottom of the status list. The alternative is that you remain exactly as you are now and the bmi guys get a chunk of the flying allocated to them such that you never see it; and you can't control the lines that are removed from your bid.

I'm sure your decision to move when you did will have other lasting benefits that bmi guys won't get premature access to. Add to that Max's demonstration that you are immediately better off in terms of your bidding position and you don't seem to have too much to worry about.

As for your last comment, are you inferring that the BACC are only in this for their own security/gain? Is that a view that is prevalent in your airline? Why don't you elect someone else?

Unfortunately for a system based on seniority to work there has to be movement forward and ther has been very little of that at BA for 6 years. Now that BMI is joining BA all recruitment has been suspended.
So losing 300 places (which is more than the total number places I've moved up in 6 years) is coupled with no new joiners at BA for the foreseeable future.
I came to BA for opportunity and control over rostering and I've had 6 years of BL flying every weekend to somewhere no one wants to swap with and now there is no end in sight. Not dissadvantaged my arse.

I'm assuming you are on a long-haul fleet as I have been in BA for a year and have averaged two to three weekends off per month pretty much the whole time. With over 100 people beneath me on the Airbus list i'm pretty much guaranteed a tripline and e-maestro sorts out most niggles I have with my roster. If you are long-haul maybe you could consider a move back to the Airbus in order to get some control over your roster?

Still confusing seniority with status lists my friend! Calm down and actually consider the proposition with regard to your position on your status list only. Obviously there won't be 300 bmi types joining any single status list, there are about 170 Capt and 150 FOs.

What fleet are you on anyway? If you are a widebody then none of this affects you, if you are narrowbody then you'll move up the list to a better position than where you are now.

Who says they will be zippered?

They certainly weren't on staff travel priority!

"BMI Baby and regional ... were never a part of the buyout."

BMI Baby and regional were bought. How can that not be part of the buy-out?

This started (go back to the first post) about Baby, who are all losing their jobs. And you lot have now changed this into the people with the most cushy jobs bickering about being 'disadvantaged'!!!! You are carrying on like a bunch of spoilt toddlers. Shut up and do something to help those Baby pilots instead. If you carry on like this then I hope that the arrival of the bmi pilots gives BA management every excuse to drive a giant wedge right through those gold-plated Ts&Cs of yours!!!

Trossie,

Get your facts straight. BMI baby and BMI Regional were to be sold by LUFTHANSA before any interested party bought BMI Mainline. The original purchase agreement was that IAG would buy BMI Mainline for circa £125 Million. If IAG were forced to take BMI Baby & Regional then the purchase price for BMI Mainline would be dropped considereably to cover the costs of disposing of those assets that LH failed to sell.

LH agreed to take liability for the pensions deficits and then, as a massive, profitable company (at the time) dumped the entire liability onto the Pensions regulator. Both LH AND the pensions regulator must take responsibility for that.

Baby/Regional were never wanted by IAG they don't fit the business model, they fly the wrong aircraft and operate out of the wrong airports for the IAG model. What don't you understand about that. It's a shame, my mate is losing his job and I, as a fellow pilot, feel for him but how do you think we, as a bunch of employees, are going to convince the board of IAG to protect two companies that don't fit, don't fly the mainline types and were never wanted?

Personally I feel very sorry for the guys in both companies however I also felt sorry for Zoom, XL etc. etc. etc.

I can do no more for them either.

I hope that the arrival of the bmi pilots gives BA management every excuse to drive a giant wedge right through those gold-plated Ts&Cs of yours!!!

Sums up your attitude adequately I suppose. Screw everyone else as long as I get what I feel to be justice. Sorry, not going to happen. :ugh:

Last rumour I heard was the BMIbaby 737s would be re-deployed to LGW to replace even older and BA 734s. Any truth?

The decision on LGW fleet replacement is ongoing at the moment. Currently either the 737NG or the A320NEO are the front runners. However, as the restructuring of the management tree has given us 'Chief Pilot Boeing' and 'Chief Pilot Airbus' I have a feeling the SH will, possibly, remain Airbus.

All IMHO of course.

(I doubt they will bolster the 734 fleet with more aging, check heavy aircraft!)

...................:{

Wirbelsturm:
"Sums up your attitude adequately I suppose. Screw everyone else as long as I get what I feel to be justice."
I'm an outsider here, I won't get anything out of anything that happens or doesn't happen. Just the toddler bickering that comes across here doesn't put many of you in a good light. And some of you probably need to be treated like toddlers!

Jockster:
"If he leaves a load of rubbish in the garage." The Baby and regional guys are just going to love you for this comment, aren't they?!!

Some of the crass "I'm alright" attitudes that come across here are disgusting. When people are losing their jobs the attitude comes across as "Screw everyone else as long as I get to keep my precious little place on a seniority list"!

I understand that BA plan to take 12 of the Baby B737s as they are in better nick than the BA B737s at LGW.

So why are the Baby pilots being discarded by BA? It doesn't seem to make sense given that BA need to recruit large numbers of pilots over the next few years. Whilst BA have been consistent from the first in expressing their intention to dispose of Baby if there were no buyer - is this a case of throwing out the pilots with the Baby?

I believe this is a line that BALPA are exploring in an effort to mitigate redundancies at Baby.

I further understand that the aircraft leases were paid up by Lufthansa - so BA are effectively getting 12 aircraft for free.

When you consider the timing of the Flybe announcement of starting domestic routes out of EMA (Baby had kept them out of EMA for years) - there doesn't seem to be as much benefit to BA if Baby had been sold.

If business is business why pay out large amounts of redundancy when recruiting Baby pilots into BA would improve the bottom line? BA may also get a better press by doing so.

Whilst BA may need the pilots in the future, it appears they do not need them now. If BA are taking the baby frames then it will be a one for one swap for their dinosaurs. Recruitment was suspended at BA in March and I am led to believe they are slightly over-crewed after the mainline integration. They have in the region of 80 bods in their hold pool who have been told to expect nothing for the rest of this year. I think the best the baby guys may get is first refusal on assessments when recruitment reopens. IAG have no legal obligation to the Baby pilots, in the same way they don't see an obligation to the 1500 other people who will loose/have lost jobs due to the merger.

If business is business why pay out large amounts of redundancy when recruiting Baby pilots into BA would improve the bottom line?... Job offers and TUPE do not apply for the bmibaby pilots because the operational activities of the airline have not been integrated into BA ... does this statement still stand true if BA do decide to absorb all or part of the baby fleet into mainline?

I don't see it as absorbing the baby fleet. It won't be for expansion circumstances, merely replacement. This will most likely happen when baby ceases operations. As the airline no longer exists and this point, I don't see a consequence. BA are simply using aircraft that IAG would otherwise had to pay storage on and in the process replacing aircraft that are required to have major overhauls in the not so distant future. It has nothing to do with personnel in my opinion.