A yes, the “doing our bit by simply voting”. As someone else has said already, that is only part of it. No need for 8000 Prime ministers, just need someone to do the work. Much as BALPA would like to have large Technical Section , the reality is it is not. We do have some very good people who are employed by BALPA to give us our secretariat ( A Tech Sec, Assistant Tech Sec plus small support staff) but the meetings etc are attended by good old volunteers who write up their own reports etc, for out of pocket expenses only, so no benefit from your subs. Of course they also lose FHR allowances whilst doing this “part time “ job, as they are only full time at flying, as you pointed out. Not to belittle their contribution as “part timers”, they are all committed, but merely to point out that if a JAA, or other meeting comes up at short notice, you cannot always get someone there, no matter how vital it is that you do, an inherent limitation. Full time paid staff would do it, but at a vast increase in cost. I will see if we can get an idea of the number of man days the Technical Section uses its volunteers for in a year. The same limitation applies to any other section i.e. industrial and CCs etc, using full time pilots to do Association work, including the Gen Secs post.
As to negotiations etc, I understand that they are all done and accepted by the CCs locally not by the Gen Sec. The advantage if that is correct, is that the CCs own the result, after all who would like as an alternative to a management imposed solution a BALPA head office imposed one ! The solution may not suit all within a company constituency and may have been agreed as a result of advice from the Head Office, but the acceptance of it is down to the CC and that is surely where the aggrieved should seek a solution. I would think that having access to Head Office advice is useful in that inevitably there is a risk of an emotional and hence illogical support developing in “local” negotiations for some courses of action. A Head Office able to look at things a little more distantly has its advantages.
As to where some spend part of their time, i.e. Competition Commission. Well it gives access to the politicians, who in the end, are the ones who decide if “flagging out” is legal or not. Probably looks good on CD’s CV, but why not if it gives BALPA another “in” to influence the politics of commerce that affect our lives? By the way BALPA is constantly writing to DTLR and raising this issue.
I only mentioned MGs bit about FTLs, for which he has spent a lot of time over the last 10 years or so, no idea about his bits on flagging out ! We , as an Association are fighting for decent FTLs in the EU, but it is not easy and needs people to go to lots of meetings arguing a rational and supportable case, all in their spare time, at a considerable personal cost in money and time.
As to the continuing change in our conditions over 10 years, sure things have changed, read what our forebears in the early 50’s had, , lots of trimmings with the job and god like status. However if that were to apply now, remember that probably only about 10% of us would have a job to service the size of industry that would exist ! Not to be complacent, but economics are a fact of life (apart from FTSE 100 Directors it seems !) and changes happen. Relative to some we have declined and to others improved. Always nicer to improve, but there are still (at the current money) lots of people wanting to do our job for less than we get paid. This gives downward pressure on our economic status, just as we do it to others we purchase services.
As to JF seemingly picking his successor, as he states,. Well, this is not healthy, as it sets a precedent. Who you have been happy with CD picking his ? I think not ! No the Gen Sec cannot logically be involved in choosing his successor, it becomes a “grace and favour” post or dynasty then. No better than the NEC supporting any single candidate over another.
As to the apparent support that CD had from MG in the letter. Well given the near unanimous support at a recent ADC that I observed, one would hardly be surprised! It took 18 months to find CD in the first place, not 2 months it is proposed we will be able to find his replacement in. I could imagine that there may have been a bit of shock at the concept we ditch the one we have, elect someone who merely wanted to remove him, ( I assume resignation is imminent as promised) and then go out and find another one, all whilst a number of CCs are about to enter battle in regaining lost money etc as a result of 11/9 et al needing good industrial relations advice and the like. Kind of like sends out the wrong message in terms of strength and unity perhaps ?
I am not saying Daddy knows best ( but we all say that to our teenagers !), just some of what circulates may not be the best information on which to formulate a position. Yes communications are important and technically interesting, but volume is no alternative to content. Some stuff is sensitive and probably best not in the public domain, hopefully your reps can be trusted and you have the confidence in what they do with it. Other stuff, just takes time to get out, adds nothing to the debate and costs someone time (their own sapre time , not popular with wife and kids !) to do it. How many do read the Log ? Some obviously don’t and yet it does at least come in an easy portable format and doesn’t crash when to you turn the page ! Just filling up the internet with more of it would not be the answer, so ideas please?
TTFN
Martin A