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.
then we may see the end of Iberia "Old" and see a renamed Vueling as the "New" Iberia
Why? (a serious question, I'm not trying to be awkward).
Vueling has a positive reputation - it seems to be harder to find people with a positive view of Iberia's customer service. As long as Iberia's assets like traffic rights, corporate contracts, travel agency relationships etc. are preserved, is the Iberia brand actually a valuable asset in the eyes of consumers, or would it be better just to start from scratch in brand-building (e.g. Vueling)?
Profitability is the difference between revenue and costs. Far too many people in Iberia, it would seem, only judge revenue. It's possible to make a profit on a low revenue route (or in a low revenue market) as long as your costs are low enough.
The problem for Iberia is that, like BA pre-Walsh, its antiquated cost structure mean that there are fewer and fewer routes on which it can make a profit.
djfwells Iberia cuts Latin America routes, Air Europa increases them
If Iberia cut routes due to being unprofitable, what makes Air Europa so confident that they can run them profitably ?
They are not unprofitable and unlike what the pro ww bonkers like above will led you to believe they were always profitable.
You make slight changes in duty time, departure and cargo haul and you will turn a perfectly fine route in an unprofitable one.
They have been made unprofitable so they can cut them , cut jobs in the process and that way the irish bastard can do whatever he wants to do which are not good things for IB or for Spain.
They are not unprofitable and unlike what the pro ww bonkers like above will led you to believe they were always profitable.
You make slight changes in duty time, departure and cargo haul and you will turn a perfectly fine route in an unprofitable one.
They have been made unprofitable so they can cut them , cut jobs in the process and that way the irish bastard can do whatever he wants to do which are not good things for IB or for Spain.
What a conspiracy theorist you must make. I assume you believe that there is nothing wrong with the Spanish economy, everything is rosy in the EU and the world is hiding the massive boom since 2007 just to annoy the Spanish.
Enjoy the sky in your world because it isn't the one the rest of us live in!
dlcmdrx - Before you start levelling accusations at IAG and its management regarding their motives, you might like to take notice of the fact that both IAG and BA have instigated legal action against SEPLA, the latter party taking legal action over claims SEPLA made about BA growing at the expense of Iberia.
IAG and British Airways have lodged a claim in the UK High Court against SEPLA, the Iberia pilots' union, and the International Federation of Airline Pilots Association in relation to the strikes that SEPLA undertook against the creation of Iberia's subsidiary Iberia Express in late 2011 and early 2012. This claim is not related to the recently announced restructuring of Iberia.
The claim is made under European law which provides that airline groups should be free to establish air services across Europe. IAG is seeking a declaration that its EU rights were infringed and British Airways is seeking damages because the strikes affected its business, causing it to incur financial loss.
British Airways is also seeking redress for the reputational damage it suffered because of false accusations made by SEPLA that British Airways misappropriated Iberia funds and that the strikes were intended to prevent the transfer of Iberia's business to British Airways.
Oh, and it seems that IAG has managed to persuade the BBC produce this one hour work of fiction as part of a vast conspiracy against Spain and Iberia:
first a little background. I work for BA but I live in Spain. I am, indeed half Spanish as well. However, I am no expert on anything here. I did, however, want to put a point of view across.
Firstly, I do sympathise with the plight of the Spanish pilots. Many of them have been more than kind to me in the past with help getting home and to work.
Having said that, I do feel that IB pilots should wake up a bit and smell the coffee. We at BA have been relinquishing T&C's (and complaining about it) for over 10 years. We have given up much: 1/2 hour on our Sch 10 may not mean much to most of you but in layman's terms it is a 4th man on all Hong Kongs, Sao Paulos, Rios and others others. 2 days leave recently in order to inbibe BMI and not let our management create a BA express at LHR as well as a whole host of other work coverage related sacrifices. It all started 11 years ago with a cheese board and all allowances were included in normal pay. To SFO's who'd been in the company some 7 yrs that meant about £2,000 a month as they were in a position to start bidding for the plum trips.
I won't even go into the changes to our pension over the years but suffice to say that we have to work 10 yrs longer in order to earn the same on retirement. Some of the blame, admittedly, is Gordon *&%$()g Brown's fault.
Ever since we have been bailing BA out of their troubles. However, in reality they are not BA's troubles, they are OUR troubles. If we wanted to have a long career in a stable airline, then we needed to make changes; and we did. Painful as they were we now have a viable airline with solid (ish) finances. At least as solid as an airline's finances can be.
As many of you know, in our recent history we had a crisis with the CC. The CC union behaved in much the same way as SEPLA are doing now. They would walk into meetings saying: "The answer is no, what's the question". They went at Willy with water pistols and they got water cannon in return.
The trouble with intransigent unions is that they start on a route from which the only return spells humiliation. Willy will destroy SEPLA like he did BASSA and that is bad for the pilots.
SEPLA will say that they offered this and they offered that but what they did not do is listen to what management had to say. Unions these days are not about resisting management; they are about understanding their business and its problems and not allowing management to pull the wool over their eyes. They understand little about the problems facing airlines (and therefore their livelihoods) and think only of themselves. A Union like that really deserves to be humiliated because it serves no-one but itself.
The parallels with BASSA are staggering: the negativity, the bravado, and then the dissemination of unprovable propaganda in order to discredit their adversaries in a last death throe of angst and bitterness.
I have been, in the past, one of our union's harshest critics. I have complained and kicked and punched and bitten at every give-away we ever made. Anyone who knows me knows this to be true but I have to admit that were it not for some very cool headed and intelligent people at the helm of the BACC, we would have had a very similar fight on our hands.
Spain has had the misfortune of a dictatorship until 1976. The net effect was to go completely the other way for too long now without actually addressing some of the attitudes prevalent especially in government owned institutions. A country who is only just waking up to the fact that it is not the worker who should be protected at all costs is having to learn very quickly in order to survive. The inflexibility of its labour market is really paying negative dividends now.
They have always wanted to play a part on the world stage and they elect governments to help them get on that world stage but when it comes to doing what it takes, they don't like it because it changes their status quo. There has never really been much of a sense of community and sacrifice in Spain. Witness the slow decline of Spain as a nation by separatists.
They want IBERIA to be a world class airline and yet they want that to be done their way. If you want to become a world class airline then you need world class leader. In Spain, today, there is no such thing.
Willy will destroy SEPLA like he did BASSA and that is bad for the pilots.
Did he really destroy BASSA? They are still here, alive and kicking with 10,000 members. Don't forget BASSA's aim of the dispute was to achieve a legally binding contractual agreement protecting the then current Cabin Crew employees. After 3 years of a bitter, hugely damaging dispute that caused untold damage to the BA brand, decimation of working relationships and the 'promotion' of WW to head of IAG that's exactly what they achieved.
Quote:
The parallels with BASSA are staggering: the negativity, the bravado, and then the dissemination of unprovable propaganda in order to discredit their adversaries in a last death throe of angst and bitterness.
I'm not sure about the 'dissemination of unprovable propaganda'. Perhaps if Unites accountancy team were given the same access to the BA accounts as BALPA were afforded then they might have been able to verify that indeed it was a fight for survival. Unfortunately BA only gave access to the union who was going to try and help destroy a fellow TUC affiliate. Don't forget it also appears that the BA dream of employing a non unionised section of the workforce, by creating 'focus and listening' groups has failed as the mothership of BASSA is now representing mixfleet. Sorry to inform you relightengine it appears to me that BASSA/Unite are here to stay. If you wish to inform yourself on the dispute and BA's main aim of union busting start by reading the very informative book written by Professor Keith Ewing of Kings College Fighting Back: resisting 'union-busting' and 'strike-breaking' in the BA dispute | The Institute of Employment Rights
WWW, you have just proved relight engines point. You make unsubstantiated false claims and throw mud at others to hide your short comings.
The CC strike wasn't about a binding contractual agreement for CC, it was about preventing cost cutting by keeping crewing levels at their previous numbers and stopping the CSD from having to work a trolley. That went well didn't it. The numbers were reduced, all CC recruitment is now on MF, so legacy crew now have great career prospects don't they. Bravo, great way to look after your members. Not.
Unites accountancy team would have had access to the BA accounts if they had agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement but they refused, so no access. Not BA's fault.
The pilot union didn't try to destroy a TUC member, it was neutral. What individual members decided to do to assist their employer was entirely a personal choice. You still seem to ignore the fact that over 80% of all the volunteers who worked as crew during the strike (cc and ground staff) were UNITE MEMBERS.
BASSA made up stories about empty a/c flying circuits and being hidden at Cardiff to make it look like BA was operating with pax. Complete lies.
BASSA used to be a thorn in the side of BA ops dictating day to day decisions. No longer. Now they are just carping in the sidelines, the majority of their members have zero career prospects and the most important recent achievement they have recently as is that their members can put a red tag on their luggage. BA more than achieved the cost cuts they were after pre strike.
SEPLA take note, BASSA were crushed despite what they claim in their alternative reality. I can see history repeating its self.
it was about preventing cost cutting by keeping crewing levels at their previous numbers and stopping the CSD from having to work a trolley
No it wasn't. It was about a cost saving sum that was increased every time BASSA came up with that saving. At all times a binding agreement was sought protecting crew T&C's going forward. That was of upmost priority. Twice BASSA agreed to the cost saving figure and agreed a way forward and twice the figure was raised.
Quote:
Unites accountancy team would have had access to the BA accounts if they had agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement but they refused
Not correct
Quote:
The pilot union didn't try to destroy a TUC member, it was neutral.
Why were reps having meetings 'with Willie himself', as quoted from the BALPA forum. Neutral? Not
Quote:
BASSA made up stories about empty a/c flying circuits and being hidden at Cardiff
They didn't. Think you'll find this was idle tittle tattle from plane spotters or some members of BASSA.
Quote:
BASSA used to be a thorn in the side of BA ops dictating day to day decisions. No longer
BASSA members still retain all T&C's. Mixfleet tighter T&C'S to follow - negotiations ongoing.
Quote:
SEPLA take note, BASSA were crushed
No they weren't
Last edited by Watersidewonker; 3rd Jan 2013 at 11:04.
No it wasn't. It was about a cost saving sum that was increased every time BASSA came up with that saving. At all times a binding agreement was sought protecting crew T&C's going forward. That was of upmost priority.
BA told all employee groups what savings were required in advance of the business review, and guaranteed that if agreement was reached in advance of the business review then there'd be no increase in the savings required if the review results were negative. All other employee groups, including those represented by Unite, reached agreements by the required date. BASSA didn't. Their savings target went up. They were warned, they didn't pay heed. Even their offers of savings were nothing of the sort, representing short term loans to BA which weren't even accurately costed.
BA offered a number of binding agreements protecting crew T&Cs and BASSA didn't give their members a vote on any of them.
Quote:
Why were reps having meetings 'with Willie himself', as quoted from the BALPA forum. Neutral? Not
To thrash out the pilots cost savings. Only BASSA believe there was a 'cloak and dagger' plot led by pilots reps to lead the VCC. You need to revew the outcome of Patel V Unite.
Quote:
They didn't. Think you'll find this was idle tittle tattle from plane spotters or some members of BASSA.
Encouraged and repeated by BASSA. The average plane spotter isn't stupid enough to make those mistakes.
Quote:
BASSA members still retain all T&C's. Mixfleet tighter T&C'S to follow - negotiations ongoing.
But BASSA don't have to be asked before BA impose the disruption agreement. And BASSA didn't get the extra Purser back, or remove the CSD from the service. BASSA may no have been crushed, but they are no longer the force they once were. Nowadays their main influence is on what colour bag tag the XXXXers sport.
Please tell us Hand Solo. I can't find any information. Was money paid? Who paid this money? I'm sure ALL facts, wrong doings etc will be in the public domain when the ECHR court case begins early next year. Meanwhile until you have all the facts please don't spout off all you're told as gospel.
Quote:
To thrash out the pilots cost savings
Last edited by Watersidewonker; 3rd Jan 2013 at 13:58.
Absolutely right LD. We've strayed into ancient history here. Every man and his dog knows who emerged from the dispute with their tail between their legs, and it certainly wasn't BA! BASSA (sadly in some ways) are now a busted flush. Never again will they be able to mount effective industrial action. Though to be fair, with current legislation it's difficult to imagine ANY union in the airline business achieving that.
Do you know what was the straw that broke the camel's back? Picture this: a 747 from the west coast full of passengers and unable to land at LHR due bad wx. It diverts to a Scottish airport. The pilots (3 of them on a WC) and 4 of the 14 CC were willing to fuel and go on to destination; they had plenty of hours in hand. One of the CC decides that it would break the rules and calls their union. Under their "agreement" if an aircraft lands where it's not destined to, they should have 2 local nights before continuing or..... arrange a huge payout for the inconvenience. You must bear in mind that legally they would have been able to carry on for a total duty of 18hours and they had used some 12 by the time they had fuelled up.
The union stated to all the CC that if they chose to continue, they would be DISCIPLINED by the UNION!!!! Something unheard of since the 70's.
The upshot was a huge bill for BA, and loss of face for BA. WW was so incensed by it that the CC were MADE to in a B&B for 2 nights and the pilots got home. So please do not lecture me about loss of prestige.
So, you might argue that it would have been cheaper for BA to pay up and go. However, how far does a company (who has been pandering for years to this sort of thing) go before it says: ENOUGH!. Truth is that when BA were flush with money it was a regular occurrence but in this day and age, something had to be done.
A previous incident similar in vein meant that another 747 had to divert into an American airport for similar reasons even though it could have continued using discretion, which by the way, is the CAPTAIN's discretion.
Now, as LD says, let's get back on track.
It seems to me that SEPLA have totally shut themselves away in the past few years; they seem to think that the company whose interests they are supposed to be protecting for the benefit of their membership is immune to market forces and the competition that surrounds them. In a typical Spanish attitude to such things, they have chosen not to look after their basket of eggs and thus have allowed many better run and structured companies to steal their market share. The Spanish have done the same with tourism and agriculture, once the staple diet of a less industrialised nation.
It is not BA's fault that the likes of EJ, Ryanair, and Vueling have a leaner business model, it is not IB's either, but the harsh truth is that an Airline either adapts or dies and whether SEPLA admit it or not, their main responsibility is to ensure a viable airline for their members and if BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) is the way to achieve that, then BOHICA it is.
Notwithstanding the above statement and at the risk of repeating myself, they should take the time to understand their business so that what management insert isn't bigger than it needs to be, or inserted for longer than it needs to be.
