It is clear that BA/IAG are playing hardball over this issue. Claiming that Easy/FR are poaching their business traffic has some validity. Saying that the pilots should be the ones to foot the bill for this doesn't. If anyone should be responsible it should be the management for allowing this to occur without understanding the long term implications. The "low cost carriers" have not sprung up over night, many have predicted their fortuitous growth back in the 90's and how they would become dominant within the short haul marketplace. BA has been slow to react to this, period.
However, it is not all negative. Mr Walsh (now speaking on behalf of IAG) has clearly pointed out that the future of BA is in the long haul marketplace. The reason for acquiring bmi is for their slots and with these slots he would like to expand further into the Asian/Indian market. BA therefore are not trying to focus their business model on short haul. BA short haul is essentially a feeder for BA long haul. Yes it would be great to make profits on short haul, why not, but to claim that it is the "Holy Grail" of BA and use their losses to erode short haul pilots T & Cs due to their mistakes, is a fallacy.
If the low cost carriers can continue to make inroads on the short haul market, then why not let them continue? This would free up further short haul slots for long haul. Equally, on the flipside, none of the serious contenders in the low cost carriers market are operating from LHR. One could easily argue that this is the reason that the "cheaper fare
" carriers can turn a profit. If the low cost carriers expand and continue to offer significantly lower prices than the likes of the legacy carriers on that particular route, surely this then makes long haul more accessible to passengers, who may not have travelled to the original long haul destination with BA because of the high short haul cost to get to LHR but now can afford to because of the potentially cheaper ticket offered from their departure airport to say Luton. Having used the low cost carriers in the past, it is my opinion that many will chose to use BA for their connection after they experience the costs and mayhem that can ensue when there are any issues affecting the low cost carrier.
This then brings me back onto the subject of the current vote proposal. Everyone more or less knows that IAG do not wish to have a standalone BA Express at LHR. Yes there are cost savings between the bmi and BA but these are transient. Operating a standalone Company on a different AOC with separate crewing, ops departments and all the other paraphernalia surely cannot be successful. bmi are losing money at a phenomenal rate, yes at a lower cost base but look at the outcome. HUGE LOSSES!!!
Why would IAG want this on their balance sheets? No one can be 100% certain that IAG will not run it as a standalone but in reality we can be >95% sure that this would not be the case.
Failing that, why don't the bmi and BA CCs come to some agreement that should the day ever occur that IAG were to try and create a BA Express, that terms such as the SCOPE agreement would be set in place to prevent BA Express pilots operating any of the BA routes, should BA BALPA envoke industrial action. This to my mind would be the strongest concern that current BA pilots have regarding the standalone proposal. If no crossing of a picket line were to occur by BA Express pilots and BA & IAG were aware of this condition, I would expect that it would take a lot of wind out of the management’s sails when negotiating future conditions. Of course the same terms would have to apply to a future BA Express if they were to call for industrial action, then equally BA pilots would not operate BA Express schedules.
I think BALPA are missing a big opportunity here to call IAG/BAs bluff here. Why not create their own terms which BA/IAG cannot interfere with?
As I said previously, I really don't think that a BA Express has any merit here in the UK. Yes I agree in Spain it would be considered as an option but not with BA's and bmi's costs being so closely matched if you were to try and make bmi profitable.
So in summary, BALPA should be playing hardball themselves and dictating the terms that their pilots will accept a standalone operation, such that it is a no brainer to even consider a standalone airline at LHR. This way, it is nearly 100% certain that a full integration will take place. Any/all savings will then have to be passed on to other departments (if need be?) such as devolving unnecessary management positions and streamlining other departments benefits. Current BA pilots and future BA pilots can then temporarilly enjoy a career that is not permanently threatened by cost cutting and the "sword of Damocles" perpetually hanging over them.
Thoughts, especially from other BA pilots welcomed.