Maximuss - sorry to disappoint but the reason I haven't replied to rhythm methods post is that I have actually been working. Yes I know you think nobody in BA works, but you're wrong.
Rhythm method - when CFE joined BA they did just that. They joined the BA seniority list, bringing with them aircraft and routes. BA BALPA worked hard to ensure that they were brought in on the same T & Cs as other EOG pilots, with the exception of the ATR which is a unique case and has pay rates similar to the former BA turboprop routes. BACE on the other hand, are not joining BA. They are bringing nothing to this particular party. They are removing 16 RJs from the mainline fleet, removing 16 RJs worth of pilot positions from mainline and displacing almost all the pilots at BHX, MAN and the LGW RJ fleet. That is a very different situation from the CFE integration.
As the Rider of the Purple Sage mentions in a subsequent post, PILOT costs are not a key factor in profitability but the lack of overheads is. Fine (though I caution against listening to anyone whos been on long haul for too long, they get some very strange ideas). Ideal solution is to keep the RJs as mainline aircraft crewed where possible by mainline pilots, but all seconded to BACE. It has a precedent as all BAR pilots are actually mainline but seconded to BAR. BA certainly wouldn't be able to fully crew these aircraft with the incumbent pilots, so go to BACE, who then provide the remainder of the crew (and, probably, the majority) and they fly on BAR T & Cs. So whats wrong with this? It's a bit like the current deal, the aircraft stay in mainline, BACE crews on the RJ get a pay hike, stable rosters, more time off. So why can't this happen? Its because certain elements from BACE (on this forum at least) just can't wait to get their hands on the RJs and they'll fly them for peanuts, no matter who it screws in the long run.
Rider of the Purple Sage - yes I'm sure lots of long haulers do believe money is diverted to subsidise the flat-earthers in short haul. Im sure they think we should be out of short haul all together, despite the fact that Rod says it would ruin the company and deprive long haul of customers. Little snippet of info on how BA attributes revenue - all connecting flights are allocated ticket revenue on the basis of the proportion of total miles flown. Hence you fly EDI - LHR -JFK, going rate (APEX) for EDI LHR is £69, going rate (APEX) JFK - LHR is about £180. BUT, mileage wise, EDI - LHR is 300 miles, LHR JFK is 3000 miles, so of £249 revenue, long haul get £226.36, short haul get just £22.63! So who's subsidising who? And why was EOG paying Concordes fuel bill for so long (Concorde being classed as a short haul aircraft within BA of course).
To answer some of Tinytims points - Firstly, there has never been any secret in the fact (at least not from our side) that the BAR/BACE scope issue is not a stand alone issue. It has always been subject to larger, all encompassing scope agreement, but that element was completed early due to the imminent closure of the regional bases. There is no question of any CE guys flying the Rj on 'secondment' to BA as effectively they would be on a mainline aircraft on inferior terms, which is exactly what we fought to avoid with CFE. Could you also explain why your chaps will otherwise be redundant, and why your management have sought to secure peoples jobs on the basis of an unsigned, unagreed deal which might or might not have been constructed? As to the 'accomodation' on scope, you are rather overstating your hand here. Posession is nine tenths of the law and right now we posess the aircraft. There's not really an accomodation to be reached as such with BACE, its to be reached between BA and BA BALPA. If and when its decided to let the aircraft go then what you do with it is up to you subject to the terms of the scope deal between us and BA. I dont think BALPA will be massively damaged by this, BACE are large but not a huge element of BALPA and I suspect the financial contribution of the BACE community is at least one if not two orders of magnitude less than BAs. You don't need me to tell you that money talks. Finally to address your questions to airrage, I don't care what you fly below 100 seats, but if BA want you to fly anything bigger than that (and right now you don't apart from your five 146s) it should be as part of the BA seniority list on the superior BA T & Cs. The pilots for these aircraft have to come from somewhere, why not from BACE with a big pay rise?
Hulkomaniac - thanks for your contribution, I admire your ability to structure an argument without resorting to personal abuse. Firstly do not draw comparisons to the last strike situation which was sold out by Chris Darke (whatever happened to him?). I think the overwhelming victory by JF illustrated the increased mood of militancy amongst BA pilots. Lets face it, if the companys going to go bust it won't be because of us, so we might as well take what we can now before they give it to the CSDs. Secondly, I agree entirely with your comment that:
I am perfectly prepared to accept that what is good for BA pilots is good for me - but ONLY if I am to be offered the same Ts and Cs.
As the RJs switch to the regions many pilots will take advantage of being 'unfrozen' on type to go long haul or move to LHR. 50 or so BAR guys are staying plus some ex-CFE, but as you state, thats not enough to crew the operation and we still have a recruitment ban in place. So, why aren't your company council pushing for you to fly the RJ on our terms? There's never been a better time.