Thanks for the reply midnight. I know you think that those terms are unreasonable, but I question whether they actually are that unreasonable. To look at it point by point:
Turbo prop pilots were to be excluded from any form of access to B.A.;
OK, I don't know what the logic (if any) behind this was, or whether the instruction to specify this originated from BA or the BACC. I do think its rather unlikely that the BACC can specify this without the backing of BA though. I can see why it would be very divisive within the BACX community, but given that BACX had no hope whatsoever of blocking any Scope agreement, I do wonder why they weren't tempted to make the most of a bad job rather than walk away with nothing.
- No access to any fleet based out of London Gatwick
Don't have a problem with that one I'm afraid. LHR and LGW are our very slot-constrained turf. Subsidiary aircraft there are a direct threat to our career opportunities.
- No access by BACX pilots to any aircraft over 100 seats
Ditto the above. Would you reasonably expect BACC to allow BA to farm out our short-haul fleets?
Furthermore, aircraft below 50 seats to be the exclusive remit of BACX pilots, but aircraft 70 to 100 seats to be shared with BA pilots.
No problem with the 50 seat element. The 70-100 seat element seems a bit pointless, but I think that is the kind of arrangement which exists in Scope agreements in the US so may have been the inspiration. I might be wrong here, but I don't think BACX operate any aircraft in that category except the RJ100/146. The RJ was always going to be shared with BA anyway, but 70 seaters would be new acquisitions for BACX, so we'd all be starting from a blank piece of paper when drawing up agreements. Could something mutually acceptable have been thrashed out? Possibly that could have been a way to develop a common pay scale for all 70-100 seat pilots, be they BA or BACX. The problem of older guys not getting a command on a 50+ seat may have been addressable through the 70-100 seat agreement.
Regional commands at BHX/MAN went as low as 4 years seniority, with LGW at 7 and LHR around 8-9. I would expect that any BACX pilot with ambitions for 70-100 seat command would have equivalent BACX seniority? I doubt many BA pilots with more than 6 years BA seniority would bid for a command on a lower paid 70 seat fleet when they could get a London command in 7-8 years. If there are ambitions for command of 100+ seat aircraft then that just isn't going to occur in BACX for reasons stated above.
In summary, I don't think we've identified the origins of some of the stipulations in the Scope agreement, but I don't think access to the RJ100, BA exclusivity at LHR and and LGW and limitations on 100 seat aircraft are unreasonable. The BACC are there primarily to protect our interests as BA pilots. I don't think the access to mainline was an illusion at all. BACX will be an all jet fleet soon, which would mean that all BACX pilots would be elligible for mainline. The cynic in me thinks the high-level negotiators may have known something about this at the time. Even if not, the inevitable flow of some CX jet pilots to BA would have freed up jet opportunies within CX for the prop guys. The whole deal was never going to be a supreme victory for BACX, as BACC had some pretty clear 'red-lines' (100 seats, LGW and RJs). I think the rest of it had potential for BACX. By walking away the BACX CC effectively removed their chance to influence the deal to the benefit of BACX guys whilst failing to prevent BACC meeting its stated goals. I've no doubt yourself and many colleagues would have felt betrayed by CX CC accepting that deal, but with the benefit of hindsight are you are better off through it's rejection?
Right, I'm off to read the bit in this months log about industrial relations.
Your thoughts?