Iberia to Lose 4500 jobs - 25 airframes
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I know I said I would bow out but I haven't come back to bandy words with half-wits.
I am.......somewhere far away..... and with one of our managers, an Ivory tower dweller. I asked him what he knew about the Iberia situation and his ominous answer was this:
Actually before I report his words i want my colleagues at IB to know I am not reporting this gleefully; remember, I am half Spanish, my family are 90% Spanish, a great many friends are Spanish and I love Spain, so I don't relish it's hardships.
They have until the 31st Jan to come up with a plan that covers the cost savings necessary; they have a framework to work around and the stark choice is simple but brutal.
The alternative, he said, will make all that has gone before seem like a walk in the park. Now, he (this particular manager) has no interest one way or the other with regard to the outcome; it won't make his job or that of BA's any easier or harder whatever the outcome. Indeed, it's not going to impinge on BA at all as they are two separate companies with separate accounts despite what some will have you believe. Of course, he has a management hat firmly welded to his head so opinions on what he thought of the situation were not sought.
The only unknown is whether the Spanish government will step in or not.
Personal view: Spanish people do not, as a rule, read the newspaper every day. if they do, it's a quick flick through in the bar at luncheon (between 10-11 invariably). That is a double edged sword, actually. The govt. cannot really afford to have another 4,500 people on the streets but by the same token (and considering that up until now they have supported WW and Iberia management) public sympathy for an airline that has a terrible reputation for customer service and whose employees are seen as well remunerated, if not VERY well remunerated, having a 30-40% wage cut, is not going to move the masses. The govt. dilemma is that it does not have any money to bail Iberia out and as we all know, that would just be a plaster on a weltering sore - Again, not saying that IB employees are at fault here (other than customer service issues), it's just the way aviation has changed and you either sink or swim in it. The govt. owns a fair number of shares (I believe) via Bankia; it is a right leaning govt. and as such has a better understanding financially than the clowns who governed Spain before. So, their dilemma is political and it will largely depend on public feeling. If they step in and have to fund; it will be unpopular. If they don't contribute financially and it all goes down the pan, that's 24,000 on the streets instead of 4,500 (not to mention on the dole!). If they do nothing and let IAG get on with it, the chances are IB will turned around and only 4,500 jobs on the line.
Of course, any number of bungles and patches in between are possible but my feeling is that Rajoy will not simply ignore the situation, I reckon they'll make a token gesture to delay IAG's draconian plan, but they will, eventually, win out and it will cost even more jobs and even more money.
I am.......somewhere far away..... and with one of our managers, an Ivory tower dweller. I asked him what he knew about the Iberia situation and his ominous answer was this:
Actually before I report his words i want my colleagues at IB to know I am not reporting this gleefully; remember, I am half Spanish, my family are 90% Spanish, a great many friends are Spanish and I love Spain, so I don't relish it's hardships.
They have until the 31st Jan to come up with a plan that covers the cost savings necessary; they have a framework to work around and the stark choice is simple but brutal.
The alternative, he said, will make all that has gone before seem like a walk in the park. Now, he (this particular manager) has no interest one way or the other with regard to the outcome; it won't make his job or that of BA's any easier or harder whatever the outcome. Indeed, it's not going to impinge on BA at all as they are two separate companies with separate accounts despite what some will have you believe. Of course, he has a management hat firmly welded to his head so opinions on what he thought of the situation were not sought.
The only unknown is whether the Spanish government will step in or not.
Personal view: Spanish people do not, as a rule, read the newspaper every day. if they do, it's a quick flick through in the bar at luncheon (between 10-11 invariably). That is a double edged sword, actually. The govt. cannot really afford to have another 4,500 people on the streets but by the same token (and considering that up until now they have supported WW and Iberia management) public sympathy for an airline that has a terrible reputation for customer service and whose employees are seen as well remunerated, if not VERY well remunerated, having a 30-40% wage cut, is not going to move the masses. The govt. dilemma is that it does not have any money to bail Iberia out and as we all know, that would just be a plaster on a weltering sore - Again, not saying that IB employees are at fault here (other than customer service issues), it's just the way aviation has changed and you either sink or swim in it. The govt. owns a fair number of shares (I believe) via Bankia; it is a right leaning govt. and as such has a better understanding financially than the clowns who governed Spain before. So, their dilemma is political and it will largely depend on public feeling. If they step in and have to fund; it will be unpopular. If they don't contribute financially and it all goes down the pan, that's 24,000 on the streets instead of 4,500 (not to mention on the dole!). If they do nothing and let IAG get on with it, the chances are IB will turned around and only 4,500 jobs on the line.
Of course, any number of bungles and patches in between are possible but my feeling is that Rajoy will not simply ignore the situation, I reckon they'll make a token gesture to delay IAG's draconian plan, but they will, eventually, win out and it will cost even more jobs and even more money.
Last edited by relightengine; 12th Jan 2013 at 12:20.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: House
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's not going to impinge on BA at all as they are two separate companies with separate accounts
If IAG itself didn't co-sign on the debt, which it probably didn't, then it isn't liable for the loss. Instead, we would record a £1.5 billion write-off in our net worth (the price agreed at time of merger) as a capital loss on our shares of IB which would prompt a decimation of the IAG share price, complete loss of investor confidence in IAG and would in all probability lead to a loss of consumer confidence in the BA brand (as in the publics mind we are so closely linked). To say we are completely separate is rubbish. We are one quoted PLC submitting one set of accounts and a major change in the circumstance of a major holding within IAG could have dire consequences for those remaining. IAG split figures to enable the city to see what sections are performing and those not (allegedly).
You'll not be receiving BA shares for your troubles you know - you'll get IAG (and that includes IB)
Last edited by Watersidewonker; 12th Jan 2013 at 14:05.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: House
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We in cc FULLY understand. We could write pages and pages about what happened and we fought for over 2 years.
The same mentality tried to rid the company of our union - we're still here though - good luck!
The same mentality tried to rid the company of our union - we're still here though - good luck!
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
err, WWW, it maybe that I didn't make myself clear and, as it reads, fair enough, open to interpretation. I didn't say whatever happens to IB will be anathema to BA, all I said was that whichever way it goes will not impinge on BA. I have little or no doubt that Iberia will not sink altogether, and I think that all here will agree when I say, we hope that it does not.
What I meant was, whether IB come to an agreement or IAG implement the changes is not going to affect BA other than having to pick up some slack which will be more bitter (to me at least) than sweet, despite what you may think.
Yes it will be a blow to IAG but not to the BA brand as such. As far as 1.5bn goes, between equipment, real estate and slots you could pretty well cover a good part of that, as well as BA moving and taking a large chunk of the South American market. The really important aspect: the human fallout; 24,000 people on the street with no job and no prospects is going to be a government problem more than an IAG problem.
Anyway, that is not the way it will go, right? Let's think positive for a change.
Aporrizaje. You may be right, the goal may well be reduced Union "Rule". The important part of that is the word, Rule. Unions should not be allowed to rule anything, much less a large company. I have said it before and at the risk of repeating myself, SEPLA is a self centred union which has no place in today's market. It concerns itself with one aspect of unionism and one aspect only, that of preservation of T&C's when what it should be concerned with is the long term preservation of careers for its members as well. There is a balance there to be achieved and in order to do that it has to know and understand its business, which I don't think that it does.
Up until very recently it (IB) has put all its eggs in one or two baskets; it's markets are limited to Europe (very, very competitive and IB is not, even in service terms; voted, I believe, 10th worst customer service airline in the world), and South America (it's biggest). South America is at best a boom and bust zone and at worst unstable in certain areas. It's north American market hasn't been developed properly because Americans would rather go through London (hence why IB's most profitable route is JFK - LHR - flown by the likes of me, by the way, and no problem as far as I'm concerned).
IB has been mismanaged for years, I grant you but you can no more change that than you can change any regret, all you can do is work with what you have.
Bear with me but think of this in pilot terms:
You have taken an aircraft into the air with a whole bunch of ADD's and not enough fuel other than minimum contingency. All of a sudden something very drastic goes horribly wrong. Let's say, for instance, that you are leaking 1.7 tonnes of fuel every hour (get the picture?). As a pilot, in that moment, is there any use in blaming the engineers, the company or the planners (even yourself) for the predicament you find yourself in? What do you, as a pilot do? These are your choices:
1) You carry on regardless even though you aren't sure you will get to destination (storing up problems later when you will be short of fuel!)
2) you divert to somewhere where you know that you will have to offload passengers in order to get out of there again, but you save the aircraft (your job:SEPLA's job) and you continue to destination with the aircraft fixed and plenty of fuel.
Let's now compound the problem and say that the wx has turned at destination (the future is bleak). If you have chosen 1, you have just sealed your fate and that of your passengers. If you chose 2, gold star, you've just given yourself and a whole bunch of your passengers (the others will be looked after and find their way in due course) plenty of breathing space and you have increased your chances of success by a hundredfold.
What use is blaming past management of IB? What would you, as a pilot, do to save the day?
What I meant was, whether IB come to an agreement or IAG implement the changes is not going to affect BA other than having to pick up some slack which will be more bitter (to me at least) than sweet, despite what you may think.
Yes it will be a blow to IAG but not to the BA brand as such. As far as 1.5bn goes, between equipment, real estate and slots you could pretty well cover a good part of that, as well as BA moving and taking a large chunk of the South American market. The really important aspect: the human fallout; 24,000 people on the street with no job and no prospects is going to be a government problem more than an IAG problem.
Anyway, that is not the way it will go, right? Let's think positive for a change.
Aporrizaje. You may be right, the goal may well be reduced Union "Rule". The important part of that is the word, Rule. Unions should not be allowed to rule anything, much less a large company. I have said it before and at the risk of repeating myself, SEPLA is a self centred union which has no place in today's market. It concerns itself with one aspect of unionism and one aspect only, that of preservation of T&C's when what it should be concerned with is the long term preservation of careers for its members as well. There is a balance there to be achieved and in order to do that it has to know and understand its business, which I don't think that it does.
Up until very recently it (IB) has put all its eggs in one or two baskets; it's markets are limited to Europe (very, very competitive and IB is not, even in service terms; voted, I believe, 10th worst customer service airline in the world), and South America (it's biggest). South America is at best a boom and bust zone and at worst unstable in certain areas. It's north American market hasn't been developed properly because Americans would rather go through London (hence why IB's most profitable route is JFK - LHR - flown by the likes of me, by the way, and no problem as far as I'm concerned).
IB has been mismanaged for years, I grant you but you can no more change that than you can change any regret, all you can do is work with what you have.
Bear with me but think of this in pilot terms:
You have taken an aircraft into the air with a whole bunch of ADD's and not enough fuel other than minimum contingency. All of a sudden something very drastic goes horribly wrong. Let's say, for instance, that you are leaking 1.7 tonnes of fuel every hour (get the picture?). As a pilot, in that moment, is there any use in blaming the engineers, the company or the planners (even yourself) for the predicament you find yourself in? What do you, as a pilot do? These are your choices:
1) You carry on regardless even though you aren't sure you will get to destination (storing up problems later when you will be short of fuel!)
2) you divert to somewhere where you know that you will have to offload passengers in order to get out of there again, but you save the aircraft (your job:SEPLA's job) and you continue to destination with the aircraft fixed and plenty of fuel.
Let's now compound the problem and say that the wx has turned at destination (the future is bleak). If you have chosen 1, you have just sealed your fate and that of your passengers. If you chose 2, gold star, you've just given yourself and a whole bunch of your passengers (the others will be looked after and find their way in due course) plenty of breathing space and you have increased your chances of success by a hundredfold.
What use is blaming past management of IB? What would you, as a pilot, do to save the day?
Last edited by relightengine; 12th Jan 2013 at 17:47.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The goal here is does not seem to be reduced costs,but rather reduced/nonexistent unions."
The sole reason for the cabin crew dispute. Imposition rather than negotiation. Prompt a strike and try and break the union.
The sole reason for the cabin crew dispute. Imposition rather than negotiation. Prompt a strike and try and break the union.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Universe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
Winston Churchill
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill
Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.
Winston Churchill
Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
Winston Churchill
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!
Winston Churchill
How do these quotes apply to the debate, you ask ? Ah....up to you
The onslaught against all our conditions is on, could it happen to you ?
Good luck to the Iberia pilots in their negotiations and Good luck to the BA pilots, let them not them forget who has the responsability of the passenger in their hands.
let us not bicker amongst ourselves, they like that.
Winston Churchill
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill
Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.
Winston Churchill
Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
Winston Churchill
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!
Winston Churchill
How do these quotes apply to the debate, you ask ? Ah....up to you
The onslaught against all our conditions is on, could it happen to you ?
Good luck to the Iberia pilots in their negotiations and Good luck to the BA pilots, let them not them forget who has the responsability of the passenger in their hands.
let us not bicker amongst ourselves, they like that.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....and in 1951?
I don't think anyone in BA (or any other company) is under any illusions about keeping our T&C's as they are. In fact I can almost guarantee you that my pension will bear little or no resemblance to what it is projected to today. (if you want to pierce a BA pilot's heart, f*&k with his pension - at least pre 2005 or so). With the new EASA rules coming into effect soon I'm almost as sure that the other BA pilot's favourite part of working for BA, Bidline Rules, will become unfit for purpose. It will become an unacceptable burden on the system and we will most likely lose it altogether and it will be replaced with a less savoury and unpalatable system like the one we use in LGW. No names, don't want to get sued by the company that supplies the rostering program but you know the one I mean. Actually, to clarify, it is not the system, rather the way BA run it that makes it less palatable and in any case infinitely inferior to Bidline, but I digress.......
What I can tell you is that I have 100% faith in our BACC (and it hasn't come easy, I can tell you), to work with BA in order to come to the best solution possible. I can also confidently say that BA know that when we are happy, we produce good results and we don't give grief; BA are profitable and the brand is respected; they will come to us cap in hand and they will have good reason to because Europe has stuffed us all, but they will not be looking to destroy anything unless it's their profit margin.
Some may say that we will weep like children for what we could not defend as men, (if you have ever lived Bidline you'd understand) and weep we shall.
I would rather weep for a few months than experience the slow bitter decline of a once great company, a company I am proud to work for.
I'm sure that some of you will think this melodramatic, but recent aviation history is littered with examples of good companies who have gone to the wall, or been reduced to a fraction of what they were for one reason or another. I'm also quite sure that some of you will relish the moment all of this happens. But you will be a little disappointed : we will just get on with it as we have for the past 10 years and other than a few vociferous individuals feeding your lust for baiting BA pilots, you probably won't hear much about it.
Safe flying to all.....
I don't think anyone in BA (or any other company) is under any illusions about keeping our T&C's as they are. In fact I can almost guarantee you that my pension will bear little or no resemblance to what it is projected to today. (if you want to pierce a BA pilot's heart, f*&k with his pension - at least pre 2005 or so). With the new EASA rules coming into effect soon I'm almost as sure that the other BA pilot's favourite part of working for BA, Bidline Rules, will become unfit for purpose. It will become an unacceptable burden on the system and we will most likely lose it altogether and it will be replaced with a less savoury and unpalatable system like the one we use in LGW. No names, don't want to get sued by the company that supplies the rostering program but you know the one I mean. Actually, to clarify, it is not the system, rather the way BA run it that makes it less palatable and in any case infinitely inferior to Bidline, but I digress.......
What I can tell you is that I have 100% faith in our BACC (and it hasn't come easy, I can tell you), to work with BA in order to come to the best solution possible. I can also confidently say that BA know that when we are happy, we produce good results and we don't give grief; BA are profitable and the brand is respected; they will come to us cap in hand and they will have good reason to because Europe has stuffed us all, but they will not be looking to destroy anything unless it's their profit margin.
Some may say that we will weep like children for what we could not defend as men, (if you have ever lived Bidline you'd understand) and weep we shall.
I would rather weep for a few months than experience the slow bitter decline of a once great company, a company I am proud to work for.
I'm sure that some of you will think this melodramatic, but recent aviation history is littered with examples of good companies who have gone to the wall, or been reduced to a fraction of what they were for one reason or another. I'm also quite sure that some of you will relish the moment all of this happens. But you will be a little disappointed : we will just get on with it as we have for the past 10 years and other than a few vociferous individuals feeding your lust for baiting BA pilots, you probably won't hear much about it.
Safe flying to all.....
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: global
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% faith in the BACC? Try telling that to all the FO's who were promised 'No BA pilot disadvantaged', only to discover the BACC gave away all the short haul commands to bmi! Remember unions will tell you anything to sell the deal they want you to sign up to.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the commands to BMI?
I think you are mistaken somewhat. They had a share of commands proportionate to the amount of work they brought to the company: routes, slots and aircraft. Had they not joined us the extra work/commands would not have existed. The most important thing, however, is that we avoided a Quantas/Jetstar situation from happening at Heathrow. We have invested in the future. Unrealistic, I think, to expect to take over a company, throw all the captains out or into the RHS and put BA F/O's in, considering they have brought a fair dish to the table. But hey, if that's what you think is fair.....
It is no different to what CityFlyer Express were given some 12 years ago and it is a fair deal voted for by a large number of the BA pilots. The majority of the No votes were essentially to do with the extra savings imposed on us such as 2 less days leave a year and other compromises rather than a bugbear about commands.
The commands will come with expansion and BMI have given us a chance at expanding. Thanks very much, guys and welcome to BA.
I think you are mistaken somewhat. They had a share of commands proportionate to the amount of work they brought to the company: routes, slots and aircraft. Had they not joined us the extra work/commands would not have existed. The most important thing, however, is that we avoided a Quantas/Jetstar situation from happening at Heathrow. We have invested in the future. Unrealistic, I think, to expect to take over a company, throw all the captains out or into the RHS and put BA F/O's in, considering they have brought a fair dish to the table. But hey, if that's what you think is fair.....
It is no different to what CityFlyer Express were given some 12 years ago and it is a fair deal voted for by a large number of the BA pilots. The majority of the No votes were essentially to do with the extra savings imposed on us such as 2 less days leave a year and other compromises rather than a bugbear about commands.
The commands will come with expansion and BMI have given us a chance at expanding. Thanks very much, guys and welcome to BA.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see many SH commands coming to BA pilots in the next 18 months as the BACC have clearly failed to mitigate the bmi command surplus, so perhaps Charlie is correct. Incidentally, while its rather nice manners to thank the ex-bmi guys for the 'expansion', it does of course have absolutely nothing to do with them and everything to do with IAG/BA's acquisitive slot strategy at LHR and BA's cash. However if Il Duce tells you that then you're at liberty to believe him without question. No BA pilot disadvantaged? More like no BA Rep disadvantaged!
Last edited by Hand Solo; 13th Jan 2013 at 13:28.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not exclusively the chairman, but no BA rep has been disadvantaged by the deal. Perhaps that reflects the curiously narrow demographic which constitutes the BACC? Good news for all Captains! It's also noteworthy that the burden of the bmi surplus is borne by those with the seniority for a shorthaul command, not those with the seniority for a longhaul command. Plus we all know the BALPA forum has merely become a more polite version of the BASSA forum. The words may be longer but it's still become a personality cult in which the leader and his actions cannot be questioned without bring forth an outpouring of opprobrium by his lackeys.
Last edited by Hand Solo; 13th Jan 2013 at 13:58.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that clearly depends what you mean by disadvantaged and how many numbers you are looking at. It is clear that when such dealings are undertaken you are never going to please all of the people all of the time; a compromise is always the way forward and when the BACC made that statement I'm not absolutely sure they were fully aware of the alternatives BA were offering.
Perhaps you would have preferred the BASSA/SEPLA approach. I thought I did (at least in some small measure) at the time, but I have changed my mind.
It is short sighted at this stage to make that statement. I'm thinking more long term whereby more slots means there's room for the new toys; new toys means expansion (and in BA's case that means LH). Granted not everyone wants a LH command but that's where the money and time off is. There are plenty of SH skippers who do want LH commands and they, in turn, will leave room for the others. The 10 yr delay in retirements is soon coming to a head; they will come thick and fast, and for those that were close to commands and want them, they are still near at hand.
Thing is, on this forum BA pilots are revered and despised in equal measure. Stamping your feet because the deal "disadvantaged" you personally just feeds the notion that a) we are never happy, and b) we don't care about anyone but ourselves. I am no spring chicken and have been at BA between 10 - 15 yrs, my command prospects have also been delayed by this.
I urge you to read the thread on the Chinese carriers for a little sobriety.....actually, this thread is about Iberia so look there and ask any FO there what their prospects have been for the past 6 years, indeed, what are they now?
Perhaps you would have preferred the BASSA/SEPLA approach. I thought I did (at least in some small measure) at the time, but I have changed my mind.
It is short sighted at this stage to make that statement. I'm thinking more long term whereby more slots means there's room for the new toys; new toys means expansion (and in BA's case that means LH). Granted not everyone wants a LH command but that's where the money and time off is. There are plenty of SH skippers who do want LH commands and they, in turn, will leave room for the others. The 10 yr delay in retirements is soon coming to a head; they will come thick and fast, and for those that were close to commands and want them, they are still near at hand.
Thing is, on this forum BA pilots are revered and despised in equal measure. Stamping your feet because the deal "disadvantaged" you personally just feeds the notion that a) we are never happy, and b) we don't care about anyone but ourselves. I am no spring chicken and have been at BA between 10 - 15 yrs, my command prospects have also been delayed by this.
I urge you to read the thread on the Chinese carriers for a little sobriety.....actually, this thread is about Iberia so look there and ask any FO there what their prospects have been for the past 6 years, indeed, what are they now?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 'disadvantaged' is pretty clear - all promotion prospects gone for 18-24 months unless you have seniority for LH command. Now I don't think that's what the BACC mentioned when they said no BA pilot disadvantaged. Of course Il Duce now says he regrets saying that, but given its the whole premise on which the deal was sold its a bit late in the day to change his mind! I'm quite sure the BACC weren't fully aware of what alternatives BA had in mind, because if you dig a bit deeper you find that they had a shocking paucity of information about BAs future plans, and certainly not enough to substantiate the grand claims they made, but they'd reached a deal and they were going to deliver the membership come hell or high water and collateral damage be damned!
You state you like to think long term, but that's actually the ultimate get out clause. If you expand the timescale out sufficiently you''ll eventually find a spot where most people are not disadvantaged. That's not what we were sold. The retirement freeze should be coming to an end soon, but I'd argue that's more of a reason not to be sacrificing much sought after commands in pursuit of a policy of 'reasonableness' with BA.
When BA pilots are despised (excluding when it's just down to a massive chip on the shoulder, and there's plenty of that about) it's because we are seen as arrogant and condescending, and it's often believed we've hijacked their union for our own ends. Perhaps it's refreshing for them to see that our company council is just as flawed and prone to special interests as theirs instead of lecturing them about how we get it right every time and they should do as we do. Slavish, unthinking adherence to 'the cause' is just as hazardous to us as it is to anyone else. Engage your own brain and make your own mind up based on the evidence available. Don't allow organised vested interests to give you your opinion,
You state you like to think long term, but that's actually the ultimate get out clause. If you expand the timescale out sufficiently you''ll eventually find a spot where most people are not disadvantaged. That's not what we were sold. The retirement freeze should be coming to an end soon, but I'd argue that's more of a reason not to be sacrificing much sought after commands in pursuit of a policy of 'reasonableness' with BA.
When BA pilots are despised (excluding when it's just down to a massive chip on the shoulder, and there's plenty of that about) it's because we are seen as arrogant and condescending, and it's often believed we've hijacked their union for our own ends. Perhaps it's refreshing for them to see that our company council is just as flawed and prone to special interests as theirs instead of lecturing them about how we get it right every time and they should do as we do. Slavish, unthinking adherence to 'the cause' is just as hazardous to us as it is to anyone else. Engage your own brain and make your own mind up based on the evidence available. Don't allow organised vested interests to give you your opinion,
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not exclusively the chairman, but no BA rep has been disadvantaged by the deal
If you think BA could expand and fulfill your need for promotion as things were then you are deluded beyond a BASSA official. Without the BMI deal where was BA's expansion coming from? Where was your promotion coming from? BALPA reps did not dream up the deal for BMI, it came from elsewhere, BACC reps just got the best deal for us that they could.
They may have been a bit over the top with the "no BA pilot will be disadvantaged" but anyone with half a brain could see that the deal to achieve that end simply does not, and did not exist! Do you have half a brain?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A load of ? Really? Which BALPA rep has been disadvantaged? Those who have got a long haul command this year? Nope! Those who had a long haul command already? Nope! Those who are C32L and get improved IB2 bidding? Nyet comrade! Looks like the BALPA reps did pretty well out of the deal.
As for the rest of it, BA's long term stated strategic goal has been the acquisition of slots at LHR. The expansion was coming, come what may. Of course Il Duce will tell you that if BA hadn't bought bmi as an entire entity we couldn't get the slots for expansion, yet if you actually talk to any of the leadership team it appears they never held that view. They were remarkably relaxed about having any takeover deal blocked as Lufthansa would have folded bmi immediately and BA could, in their view, have picked up a sizable chunk of the slots without any of the liabilities. Funny old thing that, the BACC completely misreading/misrepresenting the views of the leadership team. Oh, by the way, the BACC did dream up the deal for bmi. Given BA's decision to purchase bmi the whole post integration landscape was created by the BACCs negotiations (you think BA really cared how bmi was integrated?). They got the best deal they could - but for whom?
Now if the BACC didn't mean 'No BA pilot disadvantaged' then why was that plastered over all the documentation on the vote? And why, pre-ballot, did they repeatedly slap down anyone who dared to point out that it was indeed a nonsensical and impossible claim? The flaws in the deal were obvious and repeatedly pointed out. They weren't 'a bit over the top', they were full on, ramming through the deal they'd done and and to hell with anyone who disagreed. Those who seem to have been stealth-lobotomised are the ones who voted it through without questioning it. It's interesting to see the PPU has sprung up in Virgin. If they can provide decent legal cover and possible IFALPA affiliation I suspect they'll do rather well when in BA when they open their doors to other airlines. No more paying £100 each month to have the 4-stripe Cosa Nostra make you an offer you can't refuse!!
? Really? Which BALPA rep has been disadvantaged? Those who have got a long haul command this year? Nope! Those who had a long haul command already? Nope! Those who are C32L and get improved IB2 bidding? Nyet comrade! Looks like the BALPA reps did pretty well out of the deal.As for the rest of it, BA's long term stated strategic goal has been the acquisition of slots at LHR. The expansion was coming, come what may. Of course Il Duce will tell you that if BA hadn't bought bmi as an entire entity we couldn't get the slots for expansion, yet if you actually talk to any of the leadership team it appears they never held that view. They were remarkably relaxed about having any takeover deal blocked as Lufthansa would have folded bmi immediately and BA could, in their view, have picked up a sizable chunk of the slots without any of the liabilities. Funny old thing that, the BACC completely misreading/misrepresenting the views of the leadership team. Oh, by the way, the BACC did dream up the deal for bmi. Given BA's decision to purchase bmi the whole post integration landscape was created by the BACCs negotiations (you think BA really cared how bmi was integrated?). They got the best deal they could - but for whom?
Now if the BACC didn't mean 'No BA pilot disadvantaged' then why was that plastered over all the documentation on the vote? And why, pre-ballot, did they repeatedly slap down anyone who dared to point out that it was indeed a nonsensical and impossible claim? The flaws in the deal were obvious and repeatedly pointed out. They weren't 'a bit over the top', they were full on, ramming through the deal they'd done and and to hell with anyone who disagreed. Those who seem to have been stealth-lobotomised are the ones who voted it through without questioning it. It's interesting to see the PPU has sprung up in Virgin. If they can provide decent legal cover and possible IFALPA affiliation I suspect they'll do rather well when in BA when they open their doors to other airlines. No more paying £100 each month to have the 4-stripe Cosa Nostra make you an offer you can't refuse!!
Last edited by Hand Solo; 13th Jan 2013 at 21:24.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BMI integration was never going to be a 'quick fix'. There was always going to be a slow down of C320L command when the company being subsumed was over borne with Captains due to an existing BALPA deal which generated one BMI captain for every BMI Baby command!
However, over the long term with LH expansion then the time to command for those already in the company will improve.
You can't expect changes over night but improvements for those in the 2500-1500 bracket will come quickly when they come.
However, over the long term with LH expansion then the time to command for those already in the company will improve.
You can't expect changes over night but improvements for those in the 2500-1500 bracket will come quickly when they come.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you man up and post this on the proper BALPA forum?
What is so brave about making accusations of corruption to a few pivotal reps if you're being watched by an audience of grammatically challenged sycophants or timid agreeing lurkers.
I suppose the advantage is Kim il JUD doesn't need a bidet.
Last edited by Right Engine; 14th Jan 2013 at 08:10.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if chocolatracer was a bit more observant he'd see that the subject has been done to death on the BALPA forum several times over several months, pre and post ballot. The outcome was always the same: the reps dodged the questions and the unthinking cheerleaders turned aggressively on any FO who dared stick their head above the parapet saying it was their fault for not bidding for the first available command. Nothing like answering a different question entirely (and gaining some smug points at the same time)! Perhaps chocolate was one of those 'usual suspects'?
That's why the BALPA forum is the same as the BASSA forum. The hierarchy is never wrong and must not be challenged!
Incidentally, have you heard of the BACC apologising for getting anything wrong in the last five years?
That's why the BALPA forum is the same as the BASSA forum. The hierarchy is never wrong and must not be challenged!
Incidentally, have you heard of the BACC apologising for getting anything wrong in the last five years?
Last edited by Hand Solo; 14th Jan 2013 at 08:34.