It's pretty predictable that every 6-12 months one group or another in BA threatens strike action. Last time it was the cabin crew, now its the pilots.
...and if we do go on strike it will be the first time in nearly 3 decades that BA pilots have done so. And it will be with a heavy heart because the travelling public deserve better.
Direct your ire at BA management. We ask for no improvement to our T&Cs. We ask for no money. We are willing to do this for the cost-base that BA 'needs'. All we ask is a common seniority list.
BBB wrote:
We are disappointed that BALPA has chosen to walk away from the talks led by the conciliation service, ACAS.
We did not. BA said take it or leave it. We are still willing to talk.
We do not want a conflict with them [the pilots]
So why ignore our concerns & refuse to talk for 6 months?
and have not sought one.
So why did BA walk out of the Standing Conference, and now, offer us something that they knew would be unacceptable to us?
We have offered binding assurances that OpenSkies will pose no threat to the terms, conditions and job security of British Airways pilots
Downright lie. Verbal assurances have no validity. If they can offer assurances verbally, then why can they not bring themselves to put pen to paper and amend Schedule K?
Prospects for BA flight crew have never been better
Couldn't agree more. We want to be part of this new venture. Why exclude us when we have stated all along that we will do it to your costings?
Our plans for expansion at Heathrow and Gatwick mean we will be recruiting more than 300 new BA pilots in the next two years, as the London-based fleet grows to more than 240 aircraft.
Err, that's all pretty much been the case since late last year when we agreed to Work Coverage issues that we negotiated (at much cost to the pilots' bidding 'freedoms') which will cover retirements & for the first time see Reserve Pilots being calculated properly. At the moment the 'Reserve' number of pilots is under-resourced. Three hundred pilots & 240 a/c over two years ain't expansion - it's treading water (more-or-less). Nice try though.
Our offer also included making available to BA pilots 50 per cent of flight crew vacancies for the six aircraft currently planned to go into the new airline
The key word here is 'planned'. Anything over-and-above six; we get no say whatsoever. What if OS gets to fifty, or a hundred and fifty?
while protecting job security and career progression in BA
Tell that to the FOs who will wait a lifetime for a command! Taken straight from the Boston Consultancy Group's book that one...
OpenSkies is a new airline in a highly competitive market from Continental Europe to the US, and the terms and conditions for its staff must reflect that.
And I'll say it again. We offered to do it on BA's costings. They flatly said "no". Why?
BALPA says that terms and conditions for OpenSkies pilots must match those at BA as soon as the airline becomes profitable.
BALPA have stated all along that if the business can afford an increase in the T&Cs of OpenSkies pilots it will be aiming for that. Just like LGW. Just like any good Union should. It is important to emphasize that the key word here is 'if'. We have no desire to see OS fail, assuming the pilots are on the MSL. We wish it to succeed. Should the pilots not be on the MSL then we hope it falls on it's 4rse before it becomes the dreaded trojan horse like Jetstar, ClickAir etc.
This would generate cost and complexity that the new carrier could not sustain. OpenSkies would not be viable - restricting our ability as a company to compete by setting up a European business and putting at risk the creation of 350 new jobs
Utter tosh. BA have not, ever, costed Mainline crews doing W-patterns. They have no idea if it would be cheaper or more expensive to do so. BA will be charging full BA fares in OS. Are we really to believe that given its (supposedly lower) cost base it will lose money if pilots are on the same Seniority List? Given that the pilots have offered to do it for the price BA wanted? It simply does not add up, nor make any sense.
We felt it right and fair to give BALPA private notice that we have a valid legal claim against them before they took the disproportionate step of calling a strike. If strike dates are issued, we will act to protect our customers by applying for an injunction.
Good luck to them. My Union has been at pains to follow the letter of the law so the injunction should fail. BA, as usual, have lied and 'spun' to it heart's content.
We must act to protect our customers and explore every option to prevent the massive disruption a strike would cause.
Likewise. Just change 'customers' to 'members'. We too feel for our customers caught in this crossfire, engineered, from my perspective, wholly by BA.
We have made ourselves available to talk with BALPA at any time in order to find a peaceful solution
Well it took us 6 months to get you to talk in the first place. We then talked for a few weeks and you said "Take it or leave it". YOU walked out of the Standing Conference. We agreed to concilliation. You again said "Take it or leave it". YOU again walked out. WE are still willing to listen to you despite your intransigence. You had better get a move on. You have only got just over a week left...
Meanwhile, to the travelling public who put up with the embarrassment that is BA and endure the calamity that is BAA/Heathrow, our sincere and heartfelt apologies for the grief that you will surely suffer. 99.9% of BA pilots have no desire to strike and inconvenience you, but I am afraid we have been left no choice. Strike we will.