PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - BA/bmi merger (was Virgin & Balpa - bmi next ?)
Old 25th Mar 2012, 12:03
  #22 (permalink)  
No walkover
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Crewings beck and call
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let’s get things straight here, tidy some facts up here. I don't know whether some of the BA folk here are trolling or really that naive? Most of the ones that have spoken to seem a really nice bunch but there are a few that seem to be stuck on the "No BA pilot will be disadvantaged" mantra.

First and foremost, this whole situation has become shambolic, period! Communication is fast becoming a safety risk. I fly with some people that are clearly stressed by the situation, such that I wouldn't be surprised that it is affecting their sleep, lives, families and potentially their thought processing. The respective Companies should be pushing out memos, stating the same facts at the same time. Rumour, conjecture and gossip is rife at this time. This is not helped by the fact that BA cannot talk to BMI CC, yet BACC can talk to their employer, meanwhile BACC are pushing for a conclusion with BMI CC when BMI CC are reliant on BACC to pass on the necessary facts. Talk about pi$$ ups in breweries.

Now I cannot go any further without wishing ALL Baby and Regional pilots and staff the best for the future. I truly hope that resolution can be found that sees all gainfully employed in a company that they are happy with whether that be at BA, Granite etc. There is never a good time to be unemployed (I am aware of that personally). So for those that have overheard conversations by Mainline guys in the LHR CRC (or elsewhere for that matter), I apologise on their behalf. There would definitely be no intent to cause offence, just plain old insensitivity and high blood pressures. However, what follows is now going to be just one Mainline pilots impression of things from their shoes regarding the BA integration, so I do appreciate that it may sound like someone fighting their corner because unfortunately it needs to be said.

Let me start by saying that I am keen to join BA. I have no chips on my shoulders as to wanting to work for the best or especially fly heavy metal (although this will be revisited later). I would consider myself an average pilot who has invested a a considerable number of years in to my career and witnessed first hand the degradation of Ts & Cs over the years.

I do not know who first came up with the "No BA pilot will be disadvantaged" BUT it makes my blood boil when I hear this. It's such a throw away one liner and yet it has been elevated to as I put earlier Mantra status. We do not know the true context it was meant in or whether the individual that said it actually has the full authority to say it. It is divisive and demeaning to anyone else who is not a BA pilot. What should have been said was "I would expect that ALL BA pilots will benefit in one way or another during their careers from this acquisition." With the original statement there is no timeline therefore any individual can say that they are being "disadvantaged" over the most trivial of issues and completely out of context of the original statement. Where did the original spokes person expect the line to be drawn? From where I'm sat and I am trying to be unbiased, the only tenuous link for a BA pilot being potentially disadvantaged would come from someone who has left BMI to join BA, thereby surrendering their seniority to join the bottom of BAs. This I understand but can honestly say that it is a case of making your bed and lying in it. IF BMI (mainline et al?) were to merge maintaining their DOJ then I would say that this is a gamble that Mainline pilots took. Many have considered leaving BMI to BA, many have availed that opportunity and some have decided to remain. Today if any former BMI pilot at BA had their choice again, would they gamble everything and stick it out at Mainline with the potential risk of redundancy in order to possibly join BA MSL slightly higher up the list - I didn't think so. So, you make your bed and you lie in it, knowing you made the best decision you could have at that particular moment in time. I mean no ill to those that have, just that you can't cry after spilling a few drops of milk, especially as you would have enjoyed all the benefits that we are informed BA offers over the Midland coal-pit package.

WRT those that quote CityFlyer, Danair and any other takeover performed prior to the mid-2000's, they are all antiquated. They can't even be used for statitical purposes. These historic mergers were not enshrined by the many new laws that have recently been legislated, many coming from our favourite friends in Europe under European Courts of Justice that have been slowly been absorbed into UK Law. BMI mainline went through a redundancy process that a few years ago and I believe for the first time in Mainline's history the decision could not be based on seniority as LIFO, despite what our contracts said. Other criteria had to be imposed. Despite the Union stressing that LIFO would be simpler and received by probably all the pilots the HR department insisted that it could not be used, lest they be taken to a tribunal for "unfair dismissal". This is the real world as of today. If the BACC and/or BA say that BMI pilots must go to the bottom of the MSL, they are essentially signing the death warrant of seniority with the UK airline industry as we know it. From what I can tell, at all levels in the BMI camp, there are many that believe this to be the only way forward. If not, then they are prepared for Armageddon that will probably ensue. When BMI integrated BMed, we were specifically and unequivocally told that it MUST be done by DOJ by BALPA HQ or else there could be a legal challenge to the seniority system. This was done and despite a number of Senior F/Os moving down the combined seniority list, even I believe they would say that they were not "disadvantaged".

In terms of the BA pilots, what are the areas of concern regarding a combined MSL? Presumably, as has been mentioned in the past on various forums, we have the subjects of lifestyle, command/type and salary as the normal commercial pilot objectives from their jobs.

We all know that BA want BMI purely for their slots. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to protect the slots they will need immediately aircraft, crews and some ancillary staff. We equally all are aware that BA need to use these slots for long haul operations where they are currently being utilised for predominantly short haul schedules, together with a number of medium haul and long haul routes. BMI are running incredibly lean at the moment, regularly I am called to ask to sell days off as there aren't enough pilots to cover the schedule. If BMIs slots (even given the fact that 14 may be negotiated out of the deal) were to become BA's, within a short time there would be a requirement for the recruitment of further crews in order to accommodate the increased crewing requirement for the long haul routes.

Returning to the previous point, lifestyle should not change other than to improve within BA as more routes become available. Salary would not be influenced other than the improvements or concessions that BALPA make along the way. Type/Command, this area should open up as more long haul becomes available requiring a higher crewing ratio per long haul airframe than the existing BMI or BA short haul fleet. Personally, I would like to fly to further afield, I joined a company that had aspirations of long haul and I wish to maintain that lifestyle. With the former BMed routes and a roster preference for longer trips, I would prefer not to be flying 319's to day stop on the aircraft at MAN and return back to LHR, which I get every-so-often. Size doesn't make a difference to me but flying 6+ hours with a minimum of 2 nights in a hotel does. This therefore would mean a long haul bid would be my preferred option. I have been flying Airbuses now for more years than I have any other type. I do not think that it is appropriate to be type frozen in BA, as I am not type frozen in BMI. I appreciate that if I chose to resign from a company and start afresh in a new company that had no former simulator or training notes about me, I would consider this reasonable but BA MAY be inheriting this if the integration is approved. I should hasten to add that speaking to my colleagues and peers in the crew room, I am in a significant minority on this point. There is a significant number that can't think of anything worse than embarking on a new type rating, in fact the mere prospect of changing car parks is a significant cause for them to question whether now would be a good time to exit UK flying. The attraction of EK DEC and/or contracting is quite tempting to some.

If you take into account some of what has been said above you should soon see that there is great potential for significant upset by forcing the bottom of MSL at all costs attitude. I have seen the posting by the BACC on the General forum and there is some that makes sense but there is a lot that I find both offensive and scare-mongering.

I agree that BA have the larger number of members within BALPA than BMI. That does not mean that they can bully through everything they like. Trying to score pot shots at the BMI CC is childish and appears to ridicule the BMI CC. Whose team to BACC are still part of BALPA the last time I checked, BALPA stood for "to use all available resources to protect and enhance the terms and conditions of our members". I personally think that until we see a MSL with both companies merged on DOJ, together with some forecasts for airframes/commands/fleets etc, then this back biting will continue with little sign of let-up. Viewing a combined DOJ would at least let the individuals see that there is very little to be disadvantaged by a merged MSL and everything to be gained.

Of course, I could be collecting DHSS payments in the near future but I am personally confident that the EU will see that there is no great cause for concern on the monopolised routes, as Lufthansa have now applied the necessary pressure to reinforce the fact that BMI may not be in competition with BA on these routes for long anyway. i.e. fait accompli, in that BA will be the sole provider on the route no matter what EU's decision. I can't think of another carrier that would want to carry the losses of the LHR domestics. Nor does another operator have the national permissions to operate the Cairo route if BMI were to step off pre-agreed.

I think that the opening poster "upandoffmyside" was not necessarily trolling but actually putting forward a valid question. I'm sure many would question their BALPA membership based on the recent BALPA HQ statements regarding integration within BMI of BMED and the now current dictate of BACC regarding how they see the land lies. My experience of BALPA has been actually very good at CC level within BMI. However, I think that BALPA HQ are the weak link and should be working night and day to arbitrate this fairly and not down to membership numbers. As the opening poster seems to be alluding, the ramifications of not being seen to be fair, has far reaching consequences within other airlines.

In summary, I really think that all parties should start with a clean sheet of paper and most definitely scrub the idea of "no BA pilot will be disadvantaged" from the history books. Let's start with how BA and BMI pilots will be "advantaged" because I really fail to see how (if integration goes ahead) such a small number of BMI pilots (many on part-time and those that don't go to pastures new), will cause such a catastrophic collapse of the existing pilots welfare and benefits!
No walkover is offline