bmibaby issues
Except as a tool to hit the company harder, I've never been in favour of any joint action with bmi and regional.
For Ts and Cs, the three groups are considered as separate, and no comparisons are allowed in negotiation, but for the across the board rise of 2.4% we are suddenly all of one company.
For all but the most senior bmi pilots, there is an incremental rise year on year too, so their rise is greater. Most are still in the final salary pension scheme, and even those who are not, enjoy better pension conditions than bmibaby.
When Tony Davis stood before the EMA bmi pilots and attempted to bribe us over to baby, he put the very tax advantageous sector payments on the table as the alternative to increments. He described it as a 'productivity' bonus, and at no time was any time limit on it mentioned.
The nub of bmibaby pilots' dispute is that some three years on, against the wishes and advice of BALPA, management imposed the 2.4% rise and applied it to the sector pay also, having left that element alone up until then. This would, of course require the revenue's approval, which was not forthcoming. Tax relief was cut. At a stroke bmibaby pilots are out of pocket. TB admitted a ‘tactical error’ but the company refuse to pay for it.
Bmibaby pilots are the only worker group within the bmi empire to actually suffer a pay cut. That is actually earning less in real £s than last year.
A ‘Yes’ vote does not mean, as CR would have you believe, an inevitable strike. It means that management will be forced to square up to the issue and at least talk. Who knows, we might also find out what actually went on between them and the IR over the setting up, and demise of our tax-free sector pay element.
Put simply – I will not accept a pay cut. End