Next in Line,
I have been asked to place the following on the forum by MR who is not on PPruNe.
Regards,
XFO1-11
Assertion: "Not all the LHLC resigned - 4 remained deciding that continuing to work on behalf of their colleagues was more important than trying to make a point"
Facts: Incorrect - all but one of the LHLC resigned: although a small number
subsequently withdrew their resignations under pressure from the BALPA 'establishment'. However most of those now say that in retrospect they wish they had not withdrawn their resignations and are appalled at the way the 'establishment' refused to run the re-election that the BALPA Rules required on the basis that 'they would get the same team back so it was better to muddle through for nine months until the next 'calendar' election was due in the hope that
memories would dim'.
Assertion: "The financial penalty that airrage mentions was doomed not to succeed due to the number of volunteers willing to fly long range without an acceptable bunk"
Facts. Not sure fully what is meant here; but the LHLC position always was that should an acceptable deal not be reached through the 'formal/normal' BALPA
negotiating processes, then all the facts were to be placed before the 777 membership
and it would have been for the 777 members to decide in a democratic referendum
whether or not the BA proposal was acceptable. In the event CD and MO brokered a deal
which allowed BA to go back on areas already agreed with the 777 reps during local level negotiations (and recorded in agreed minutes of the meetings), allowed BA to go back on commitments made by the 777 Chief Pilot's in newsletters on the issue (ie his and
Mike Jeffery assurance that the overhead flight crew rest would form part of the agreement "....as your Director is committed to investment in crew facilities.....), and which fell well short of the BACC position which had been debated at length and agreed the
Thursday as CD and MO reached the substantially inferior deal on the following Monday.
Assertion: "....the excuse for everything these days including not sending printed timetables to FOs and EOs but only to captains and chief stewards....."
Facts: "These days" nobody gets a printed timetable because they are no longer produced.
Quote: "CD does not sign agreements off his own bat"
Facts: Mike Jeffery had approached CD about the urgent nature of an agreement on 777 Bunks so that already delayed decisions could be implemented on route splits between 744 and 777 fleets and the next bid packages produced. Under pressure from MJ, CD agreed to holding a 'Standing Conference', ie the end of the negotiating machinery between BA and BALPA. On its own this was rather 'irregular' because the issue was still at local level between BA and BALPA (hence the 777 reps acting at that stage on BALPA's behalf) and the next step would have been to elevate it to Head Office (where the BACC Chairman and others come in). Then if there is no agreement, it goes to Standing Conference and the GS and DFO come in. At that final level, there is an element of the GS having the potential to act "off his
own bat". What happened here is that the GS did exactly that (in aassociation with the BACC
Chairman) but only after allowing the BA DFO (MJ)to pressurise him into agreeing to elevate
the issue to a level within the negotiating machinery where it had not arrived by the
due process.
Assertion: "MO, the chairman at the time, was of the opinion that since the LH reps who
were present at the meeting (but in a separate room although kept fully consulted on the developments as they arose) were happy with the arrangements including the stage 2 bunks
which are currently in place, then it was quite acceptable to sign an agreement"
Facts: There are very serious errors here. The issue went like this:- 1. MJ wanted a Standing Conference (SC) to bring the issue to a head: despite the fact that the BA/BALPA machinery had not been exhausted - which is how you should get to a SC 2. He contacted CD and 'demanded' one and CD tried to obliged - but could not get an
'official team' at such short notice. However he did get a 'team' of sorts, but it did not include any 777 reps (or any others from the LHLC) nor the BACC Chairman or Vice-Chairman so was given the status of an 'interim SC' with the plan being to have a full SC on the Monday after availablities were resolved over the weekend. 3. At that 'interim SC' a document headed "Draft Proposals for the Handling of Long Range Trips on the 777 Fleet" was "agreed in principle". In the document was the clause "BALPA suggested 2X NCP payment per trip, BA responded with 1.5X NCP per trip" 4. Such a concept of EXTRA pay for operating the sub-standard 1a Bunk was 180 DEGREES REMOVED from the policy the LHLC was pursuing and also BACC policy - and this aspect of
777 Bunks policy had been endorsed by the BACC the day before the 'interim SC'. What the LHLC and BACC wanted was normal payments for those who flew the trips and protection for those senior enough to get the trips but who did not think they could rest adequately in the 1a bunk and therefore dropped the trips (NB the 1a bunk was agreed as having
shortcomings and hence BA's willingness to negotiate on this area). 5. Before the the full SC started on the Monday, the LHLC part of the BALPA team met with CD and MJ to voice their disquiet at these "draft scheduling proposals", and the rest of the morning was spent with CD and MJ going between the BA side and the LHLC reps getting the scheduling back into line with LHLC/BACC policy. Which is how the issue was finalised and operated. 6. The meeting then turned to the various stages up to the final Overhead Flight Crew Rest. CD brought to the LHLC reps BA's proposed agreement. This was then amended so it reflected areas which had already been agreed at local level and minuted in agreed minute as such; and also amended using words from Alan stealey's newsletters to incorporate the commitment he had made in newsletters into any agreement. 7. The SC then resumed WITH ALL THOSE INVOLVED ATTENDING THE FULL SC (ie including the full LHLC team - contrary to the assertions above). Discussion went on for some time but the BA side would not agree to its previously agreed points or promises/commitments being
'firmed up' into a formal agreement so the LHLC part of the BALPA team foun itself unable to agree. There was then an adjournment. 8. In his subsequent report to the NEC (explaining why all but one of the LHLC had
resigned) CD confirms this, he writes ".....The BALPA team then adjourned to consider the
negotiations.....". He then goes on in the document "After a long discussion and in spite
of the reps., the BACC Chairman and the GS agreed to tell the company that there was an
agreement based on the Friday and concluded on the Monday", ie he did do it off his own bat in association with the BACC Chairman (who was acting contrary to the position of the BACC a few days earlier). CD then goes on to write "There was no clear view from
the reps what they would do after rejection". THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE BECAUSE THE LHLC REPS MADE CLEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF ON THE FLEET THAT WAS INFERIOR TO PROMISES TO THE THE FLEET BY ITS CHIEF PILOT IN NEWSLETTERS
WITHOUT A BALLOT OF MEMBERS ON THE FLEET SIGNIFYING THEIR ACCEPTANCE. There can be no doubt about this position because the IRO (Chris Aikens - and it would be worth anyone asking him why he resigned from BALPA and posting it here)in the BA section had taken legal advice from the BA lawyers as to whether or not it would be legal to run a ballot within a
specific group of the pilot force - and the answer was yes.
Assertion: ".....777 pilots were falling over themselves to do the work - without a proper bunk - then BA would go ahead reasoning that pilots would not go on strike over lack of a bunk......."
Facts: If that's what the 777 pilots wanted by ballot, the LHLC would have happily accepted it - but what they could not be party to was an agreement allowing BA to go back on agreed/declared positions without reference to the affected members
Assertion: "No rights were signed away."
Facts: The agreement 'signed away' positions already agreed or promised in newsletters.
Assertion: "... with an overhead unit(OCRF) to be installed which, btw,
will have rest seats fitted which are not stressed for take off and landing
which results in the extra pilots being on the FD for take off and landing
which results in the jump seats NOT being available for the captain's and FO's
wives, sorry, spouses (the current arrangements having rest seats in the cabin for the spouses)! Some pilots are now telling their reps to delay the OCRF as long as they can!'>"
Comment: Really - in which case one assumes you must be a rep. How about having the courage to declare who you are and just where you have got all your duff gen. Every "fact" above can be substanstiated with full documantation - some of your errors are so serious, eg regarding the conduct of the SC and how the LHLC reps were involved, that you should reconsider your attitude to the whole issue