Terms and EndearmentThe forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.
Spot on Busta - "Seagull" Management - my previous company was Trafalgar Square then!!! - a sad fact when working with this level of quality of management; you are stuck with them! Usually because of previous history/reputation and almost certainly no-one else will employ them!
But their time is limited!
__________________ Regards JB007!
Flight Ops,Crewing and Dispatch Moderator
I really don't think that many educated folk have an issue with the common theme running through many of the postings - self preservation. Of course it's a natural instinct and we all have it, just some more than others - we are all human after all! The point I'm stressing is don't get too selfish, by putting emphasis on the word self. In order to protect your jobs, you need to play your part in a cost reduction programme. If IAG is to be a powerful global player then everyone, including myself, must look to help the company reduce the overinflated cost base. There's lots more meat to be taken off the bone before we're well and truly competitive. We all need to think outside the box, see where we can reduce costs and the future will be so much brighter for all.
You have been peddling this tripe for months since the demise of the BASSA action. Putting a 'I'm only trying to explain to you' condecending tone on it doesn't change the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Your bluster during the cabin crew dispute is totally at odds with your current' reasoned' approach, enough so to make you seem a little irrelevant.
The position that YOUR previous department (by your own admission on the Cabin Crew thread) found itself in was that there had been no movement with the times, no rationalisation of working procedures, no modernisation of payment ideals etc. They left themselves so exposed when the facade of Union 'protection' (protection only for the very highest to get the very best paid trips) crumbled away.
The pilot workforce has constantly evolved over the years to ensure a competitive product for the company. The BACC is quite happy for the pilots to be benchmarked as we know we are competitive in the real world. Also, due to close working relationships with the company at a high level, any changes, proposed or implemented are done so at a joint level between the company and the BACC. We, as a group, are more than willing to change and evolve as time goes by, our past has shown such. But, of course, you're a 'manager' this week so that would all be obvious to you.
Quote:
There's lots more meat to be taken off the bone before we're well and truly competitive
Very true, which is why the IAG head team have been spending so much time in Spain the past few months where the situation is 'difficult'. Also the number of personnel per airframe is disproportionate in IAG compared to some other carriers. What is interesting in this number is that the number of 'flying personell' e.g. Flight crew and Cabin crew are the same, it is back office staff and some ground staff that are excessive.
If you want to fly an airline safely you need safe hands at the controls of the aircraft. Many say that customers vote to the cheapest ticket. In many cases this is true but, in the case of corporate companies and high value employee's the Airlines safety record and professionalism is also a major concern. BA is one of these, just as Corporate Customer Services in Cranebank next time you are there. Don't believe me? Then why has Siemens banned all corporate travel within Europe on RYR? Not because of poor decisions from the crew in fuel policy but because of the abhorrent management processes that forced those crews into making those fuel choices in the first place.
Very few airlines can afford a hull loss.
Want to trim the meat off? Bring down the ridiculously high number of inneffective and nebulous, blood sucking managers.
Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 12th Oct 2012 at 14:06.
When I got into commercial aviation, the limit was 1,000 hours per annum. The normal limit was 100 hours per month but it was possible to do 120 hours if you had a quick medical check-up at the 100 hour point.
When I started flying on the N-register, the rules were 100 hours in 30 calendar days up to a maximum of 300 in 90 days. It was quite legal to fly 120 hours in a 30 day period (international) as long as 300 in 90 was not exceeded.
I have it in my mind that the 900 hours per annum limit came in with JARs so are we not just going back to where we were?
Please don't get me wrong; I am not saying that this is a good idea but I do wonder if we are not going back 30 years.
First of all, my apologies; I understand this is a primarily British-related thread, but some things are the same everywhere, so I'd like to contribute just a little bit, with your indulgence.
The reality is... You don't want tired airmen in the flight deck (accident waiting to happen). You don't want inexperienced airmen in the flight deck (experience saved Flight 38 pax and crew). You don't want disenchanted airmen in the flight deck (Yeah. Really. Ask AA).
What I'm getting at is this: You need pilots to fly an airplane (Yeah. Really! Ask AA. Or defunct Eastern Airlines). You need the mechanics. You even need cabin crew. You don't really need managers. You want them, sure. but you don't need them.
So, fellas, ignore all the noise and hold that ground. 1000 hours? Give me a break.
What I'm getting at is this: You need pilots to fly an airplane (Yeah. Really! Ask AA. Or defunct Eastern Airlines). You need the mechanics. You even need cabin crew. You don't really need managers. You want them, sure. but you don't need them.
Mike you make some valid points but at the end of the day flightcrew costs at many legacy carriers are above market the rate. I'm sure if you were starting up an airline would you pay above market rates take AirAsia as an example do they have a problem to recruit pilots the correct answer is NO.
Ok, let's see how long the gravy train works for this abuse of pilots!
Because very soon, the shit will hit the fan, and any airline associated with the Low Co tactics of recruitment, will suffer, just like when the Colgan crash in USA!
I have a friend of mine, flying 80 - 90 hours a month, and to make ends meet he comes home to UK and works on a construction site on his days off!
So Wunker dear, do you want be the management that sanctioned such terms on your crew, when there is a big burning hole in the ground!
Sure it's a calculated risk, sorry, not with my children on board! All aviation needs, is one Big Bang, with one of the Low Co airlines, and there will be another tune singing!
Than again, who cares, let's pop the champagne, and celebrate another year of increased profits!
Here is issue, we all share the same sky, the differences in various TC's itself is a safety issue for all parts, just for that reason alone!
Now Wonker, let me not disturb you furthermore on your night shift cleaning the lavatories, be careful so your boss does not see you responding to this forum on your mobile phone, while you should be working!
Don't worry, we all appreciate our clean lavatories! You are doing a good job just where you belong!
Ignore him/her - If I can't get a sensible response to my point about over cabin crew "back to backs", despite wonker being concerned about "bunching of work", you're not going to get anything meaningful back about Flight Safety.
I'm not sure how an ostrich can make so much noise with it's head stuck so firmly in the sand....
The simple fact is that the FAA are going in the opposite direction and the results of any fatigue in the 'Euroland' system will be seen in tired pilots landing and taxying large jets around congested airfields and airspace in?????
America.
How long before the trans-atlantic pressure, quite rightly, begins to be applied?
Perhaps after a few ground collisions and a few, hopefully, near misses in the air the real world will wake up and realise that having tired people flying 200+ tonne aircraft into congested airspace is a little more difficult, tricky and dangerous than having a truck driver fall asleep at the wheel (truck drivers have more stringent safety regulations than we do now!).
WW, has it ever occured to you that on a strategic level, your leader, your namesake has made a blunder of monumental proportions by getting into bed with Iberia?
His 7 year tenure has been an unmitigated disaster for the owners of the business that you care so much about.
His 7 year tenure has been an unmitigated disaster for the owners of the business that you care so much about.
RHINO yes mistakes have been made along the way getting into bed with IB was not one of our best moves and WW must take a certain amount of blame for something i tend to agree with you to a degree. Stripping costs out of the business remains top of the priority list such an example would be market rate pay structures with flightdeck terms being a prime example. If you compare a BA Captains wage to that of say a Monarch Captain both capable of flying from A to B then you can notice who brings home a larger pay packet. Big changes on the way thats all i can say at this moment in time.
Ignore him/her - If I can't get a sensible response to my point about over cabin crew "back to backs", despite wonker being concerned about "bunching of work", you're not going to get anything meaningful back about Flight Safety.
So sorry it's taken so long to get back to you wiggy as it has taken a while to source some facts regarding back to back flights for cabin crew. One US eastcoast and return flight would generate two days off or MBT's after it. It is far more productive to have the company use those crew to add another eastcoast onto it, this only results in 3 days off or MBT's. So as you can see it displays a higher degree of crew usage, hence increased profitability for the company. The back to back concept was passed as safe by the CAA/FAA and has indeed now been copied by various other airlines operating across the pond.
Generally management salaries are low and topped up with bonus/share options if challenging targets are met. Don't forget your pension is linked to your pensionable pay, just the basic element. Many nights are spent burning the midnight oil, sometimes for nothing. Plans and business cases put forward have more chance of not coming to fruition than be accepted, sometimes demoralising all concerned. Compare that to someone who collects a basic wage up to £140,000pa and has a final salary pension of £80,000pa. It is incomprehensible how a carrier can continue to fund this in the present climate. Whilst you would like a comparison between management/flight/cabin crew, lets not ignore this is the big elephant that really needs tackling - the feather nest you're going to lay in when your wings are mantle piece ornaments. Freeze the final salary scheme as of tomorrow for all and revert to a money purchase scheme - that's what would truly make us a world beating airline in the profitability stakes.
What is the product you are dealing with here? Moving passengers and/or cargo.
Who moves the product? Pilots and cabin crew.
Everything else in the business supports those functions. In descending order they are maintenance, airport staff and last are the worker bees at the head office. They are last and least needed. They should outsourced wherever possible and kept to a minimum head count. This includes HR, training and general office staff. They need to realize that without front line staff they have no job. Their sole function should be "how can I support the people moving the customers?"
My friend Jock, I totally agree with you - it's going to be challenging for the next 5 years. A Spanish bailout will not materially affect IB. If customer numbers drop together with yields and our cost cutting programme is not implemented then we're talking serious trouble, but all is in hand. As I've said on numerous occasions we all need to do our bit and there's still meat on the bone in BA. IB has hardly been touched yet. I've every faith in Willie. He's steered us through tough times and I'm sure he'll still be here in 5 years to announce a £1 billion profit - that's our target!
