Originally Posted by Shark Slayer
BACX did not hire 130 pilots, they just did'nt have to fire 130 pilots
Thats just a different side of the same coin to me Shark. The nub of it is that BACX were contracting and without the RJ's they'd probably have had to lay people off, which I'm sure we both agree is a bad thing.
Originally Posted by Pacamack
So the BA pilots union didn't have the foresight to negotiate an agreement that would cover all BA operations any where in the world. BA pilots are now threatening to go on strike because this agreement no longer suits them and the BA management wont go back and correct the union's original mistake?
Genius! I'm sure you thought you were being cunning asking the leading questions about Schedule K and then expressing surprise at the motivation behind the strike. Well sorry but we've all seen where you were going with that, and if you'd even bothered to read and digest the whole of the thread you'd know the issues. So just for you, here's an extract from agreement:
"In addition,the actual deployment of aircraft and crews will be subject to
retrospective review."
BA won't review, they've broken the agreement. Are you less confused now?
Originally Posted by Bullshot
I would have some respect for the Hand Solo & Chums position if they insisted that Openskies is part of BA & therefore only BA pilots should operate it - on current BA terms & conditions. All Openskies pilots would thus belong to BA entirely and would in no way be poor relations.
But it is not like that is it? What you guys want is access to Openskies Commands which would benefit some of you - the minority - but you are quite prepared to make the 'compromise' that the poor old Openskies F/O's will be joining on inferior T&C's. But 'allowing' them a position on the BA seniority list will be recompensation for inferior T&C's to you!
What, you mean inferior T&Cs just like occurred within BA at LGW, the Highlands and the Regions? There's plenty of precedent there and attempting to impose the costs of highly profitable mainline LHR on bases that run on much tighter margins is commercial suicide that leads to no jobs for anyone. Would you rather BALPA compromised on pay to allow the operation to get off the ground, ratcheting up the terms later, or demand top whack BA pay from the outset and have BA can the project as too expensive? You haven't really thought out your argument there have you?
Originally Posted by biddedout
BACC and big BALPA could have been a little more proactive in helping deal with Bacon’s base closures by encouraging BA to accept the transfer of pilots into Mainline
Encouraging is the key word here. BACC and big BALPA can encourage all they want, but that's all they can do. It's BA's trainset and if BA don't want the CX guys to join then the BACC can't do anything about it. To do so would be secondary industrial action and BA would have BALPA in court in a flash.
I tend to disagree with you about the usefulnes of having the CX RJ drivers on the MSL. Yes you can describe at as foot in the door, jam tomorrow etc etc, but it was jam today. There were far less than 60 secondees and the BA cadets were not on the RJ. Thats 130 BACX drivers with access to the MSL. Isn't something better than nothing? Had the offer been accepted then todays Cityfler issue would most likely not exists. Perhaps it will all be sorted out in the wash up of the current dispute but knowing the way BA management work they'll hang on to the excuse of the operation being commercially uncertain as long as they can.