View Full Version : British Airways Citiexpress

6th Feb 2004, 21:23
What happened to this thread, ref. the ballot on industrial action, Danny?

I was actually rather enjoying reading one or two individuals having their pedigree described in public!

7th Feb 2004, 00:57
The thread should be back soon !!

'round midnight
7th Feb 2004, 18:14

I am insensed that you have removed the thread about BACX's consultative ballot on industrial action whithout setting out reasons why.

If you are going to censor a legitimate debate at the insistence of BACX management, at least have the balls to say so on this forum.

Show some impartiality and good judgment, please.

7th Feb 2004, 18:20
No one from PPRuNe censored anything. If you are unable to figure out that the person who originates a thread can also delete it at their whim then tough on you.

Now, in order to show you what censorship can really mean, I'm going to close this thread but feel free to start a new one about the BACX ballot but leave out the false accusations:hmm:

7th Feb 2004, 21:06
So, pray tell us Little Prince (If I remember rightly you started this thread?). Did you pull this thread or was it a skullduggerous hacker using your ID????

Now can we get on where we left off as this issue gathers momentum.......................................

'round midnight
7th Feb 2004, 21:43
Ok Danny,
Did Pprune play any part in removing the thread?

7th Feb 2004, 23:26
:ok: To continue then............and as I recall about 3500 hits on the thread have been following the story to date. Yesterday, unequivocal support for a 'Yes' vote in the consultative ballot was given by BALAP General Secretary Jim McAuslan.

The world is quite aware at the quality of the flight ops managers we have to suffer; one has gone and the position of the other, as the supposed leader of the pilot workforce, must be questioned. It seems that all of them have been through the 'new labour' teflon coating process so perhaps this disaster will slide off as all the others have done.

Report in today's Times Business section; not absolutely factually correct, I would suggest, but there is no such thing as bad publicity.

8th Feb 2004, 00:09

From Danny's post

No one from PPRuNe censored anything

Seems pretty clear to me.

8th Feb 2004, 01:09
Having read all the postings in the major thread that has since disappeared, plus those that have resurfaced, I must say that I am amazed that anyone is even contemplating any industrial action!

This will play straight into the hands of BA who cannot continue to tolerate the level of existing losses, and will precipitate either the instant closure of the airline or, more likely, a fire-sale to someone that would probably pick up some of the pieces under a totally new brand. Under these circumstances T &C's will not be anything like as good as they are now.

Several outsiders are circling the business and waiting for an opportunity to pounce.

8th Feb 2004, 01:58
Jordan, Nice first post for you! You could almost be management................(guys be gentle on him!)

A few of questions for you

1. Where is your evidence that the company is loosing money?

2. Why is it that whenever we sell (or should I say give away) bits of the business, the "buyers" always end up doing brilliantly on what we have discarded?

3. Who are these buyers circling the business offering inferior Ts and Cs (ever heard of TUPE???) and what could possibly be worse than working for our totaly incompetent discredited and useless bunch of jokers who haven't the commercial acumen to run a corner shop (one of whom goes scurrying off and abandons his mates the moment it looks as if he might have to confront the consequences of three years of his mismangement)?


Captain Correlli
8th Feb 2004, 01:59
Let's be very careful here. We don't want to offend anyone unnecessarily, so no more pointing out the incompetence of our management.
Let's have no more references to the allegedly aggressive bullying of pilots outside the scheduling agreement, and certainly no more conjecture about how it can be cheaper to spend 27 million pounds subsidising the competition than to keep our own pilots on the payroll. Certainly, we don't want anyone else inferring that that there is something a bit dodgy about closing a base because all its routes lose money, and then watching another start up airline go into profit on week two of operation on the same routes. Heavens no.
Let's not define any double standards which results in very senior training captains ending up in the RHS, and we mustn't quote management as trying to unilaterally terminate a pay protection package.

We mustn't speculate on sweetheart deals done for management pilots, even when one of them boasted about it to his co pilot; and certainly it would be wrong to wonder at the cost efficiency of paying for another management pilot to be given a TRE course even though he was returning to mainline the following month (and some would say collecting an additionally large increment in his next job because of the new qualification.

Let's not speculate on the quality of management decisions made by our current leaders, and certainly not any of their flying ability.

Let us instead give credit where credit is due. Let us acknowledge the wonderful atmosphere within BACX. Let us reaffirm our commitment to our leaders, and their effect on our morale, which has obviously never been higher. Let us applaud the change in profitability since they got their hands on the levers of power. Let us be glad for all those who, since the takeover, have been granted the opportunity to seek new employment as a result of FSASs 1 through 5, with such a brilliant redundancy package - its even statutory! We can see the results of our leaders' brilliance all around, surely there can be no better example of how to co-exist with BALPA, how to enhance the working lives and conditions of one's employees, how to hold one's head high as a paragon of the management class.

The only puzzling thing is..........how on earth could any BACX pilot want to do anything but ask for more of the same...how could they possibly be so silly as to support a BALPA CC who clearly do not have their interests at heart. Nay, surely it must be a mistake - we KNOW we are so lucky to be part of such a well led and managed operation, our hearts sing with joy at the prospect of more of their efforts. The ballot is bound to be a resounding failure, organised by one or two malcontents - it will not be supported, because we are all so happy and content in our jobs.
With TDLF leading us, nothing can go wrong can go wrong can go wrong can go wrong can go wrong can go wrong can go wrong can go wrong can go wrong............................ :suspect:

8th Feb 2004, 02:32
You are absolutely correct!! I'm as happy as a pig in............BACX!:E

The Little Prince
8th Feb 2004, 03:56
Just back from a weekend away, and now I'm supposed to have deleted my own thread!!!!!!!


However, looks like we're back now. I hope we can all see from the report in the paper that even the threat of this ballot is really having an effect. Think what a 'YES' vote will achieve, all it really does is emphasise the possibility of industrial action. That emphasis is what will intimidate the management as has been proved again and again by our mainline cousins.

It would be a huge bonus if our current lot of management have to take the responsibility for their incompetence, but don't hold your breath, as it reflects on those above and so on and so forth. However, a man can but hope.


'round midnight
8th Feb 2004, 04:28
Ok, at the risk of repeating myself...
Little Prince, you didn't delete your post, so Danny, who did?
I'm prepared to apologise unequivocally to Pprune if they played no part in deleting the thread, but surely we should all be concerned if Pprune didn't and little Prince didn't?

8th Feb 2004, 05:01
Absolutely right 'Round Midnight.

Danny...............tell us what you know. If you didn't delete the the thread and L P didn't then one might conclude reasonably that someone is interfearing.

Now who could possibly want to see an end to this?

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the BACC web site fall over during their last rumble with management?

8th Feb 2004, 05:29
OK, at the risk of repeating myself, I didn't delete the thread and as far as I'm aware none of my moderators did either. That leaves the thread starter, which you claim to be 'Little Prince'. I don't know who that is and I can only assume that Little Price deleted the thread his or herself, either deliberately or accidentally. Now, a few of you appear unable to get it into your heads that unless this thread stays on topic, and I'll remind you what the topic is: British Airways Citiexpress, then I'll be closing it. :hmm:

False Capture
8th Feb 2004, 06:38
Strike ballots, bullying management tactics, managers being witch-hunted, newspaper reports, and the mystery of who closed-down the original thread. Excellent reading, keep the rumours coming.:D

Sent my 'YES' ballot paper back yesterday, I'd love to see a landslide 'YES' result on the 20 Feb.

8th Feb 2004, 06:44
OK guys

I am fully aware that one or two of you take issue with me as soon as I post.

However, I genuinely do feel you may be starting along a very dodgy course of action (no I am not management!)

I am in a reasonably good position to appreciate, and in many cases sympathise with, your situation. All I would say is this: The threat of industrial action should be taken EXTREMELY seriously by BOTH sides! It would be rather naive to think a vague threat reported in the press will make any difference! You must only vote yes if you are absolutely, and unequivocally prepared to walk out, knowing full well that your action MAY result in the company ceasing trading!

If you don't believe that is a possibility, you might like to give some very serious thought to your vote before dropping it in the post!

They MAY crumble before that time arrives, BUT it boils down to gambling! A game of poker if you like! Gambling with YOUR livelyhoods (THEY may personally have little to lose!)

Mention has been made of mainline pilots threatening industrial action to effectively achieve their aims. I can only say that the last time I recall a ballot for industrial action was over 7 years ago! (I may be wrong!) Everything else has been achieved by reasoned argument with management, such as benchmarking. We have had our disappointments too!

I accept I am an outsider, but from my point of view, it seems like the BACX CC frequently bark up the wrong tree! The petition regarding the ' Humiliation of BACX pilots', and the rejection of limited access to mainline, being only two cases in point.

Finally, please don't make the mistake of attacking 'mainline Nigels!' Remember that the BA CC, AND mainline pilots in general, support you aspiration for access to 'big' BA!

We ARE predisposed to support you, but don't forget, it could get very messy with BA CC pilots flying RJ100s! (Secondees have been told VERY forcibly by your reps, that BACX CC do NOT represent THEM! - A little too forcibly actually!)

If you vote yes, you would have my support, but I will feel very nervous of the outcome!

Lucky Strike
8th Feb 2004, 06:58
Hang on Danny,

TinyTim has a point.

Althouigh I don't work for them any more thankfully;

At one time all the chat re BACX was done via Pprune on either the BRAL thread on this website, when it existed, at the time moderated by 'bral' I think, or the Brymon link when it existed.

When BACX was formed of course those threads were amalgamated into the BACX thread. But then the Pprune thread seemed to get infiltrated by management types. I say seemed because their was massive distrust between management and pilots, so maybe it was paranoia. Anyway, BALPA started their own website that dealt with BALPA matters, but also included a rumours and news thread, moderated by various members of the Company Council.

Because we (at least I) felt free to express opinions once more, even under my own name rather than a user name, it soon became an exchange for frank veiwpoints once again. Just about about the point of a previous industrial relation downpoint, BALPA's website crashed, losing all postings previously made. When it was fixed, it was minus all the interesting stuff, like when a fat manager seconded from BA left an engine running on a rear engined aircraft and went to the HOTAC, only to be recalled to shut it down (memory fails, but it was something like that). I only mention this because absurdly, any minor infringment of procedure or SOP became a trial without jury or even a witch hunt and the outcome of the investigation was liable to be plastered all over the monthly newsletter in a writing style that inferred incompetence of those involved. One bloke was ASR'ed for crossing a stop line on a taxiway, under ATC instruction, by a member of the managment team who at the time was on a turnround on a different aircraft type. Think popular PPL flight guide for the name of the manager, there are a few different flight guides to guess at.

If I remember correctly, BALPA reckoned their website had been hacked, so they improved security and re-instated it, minus all the interesting stuff as I wrote previously. Now all this might be speculation, rumour, slander, whatever. But about the time BALPA's website took a hit, BACX were closing various bases. At the now closed outstation I was based at, we had one BALPA member who was also an ambitious trainer. All the confidential stuff from BALPA, all the contents of our BALPA noticeboard, all the minutes of our BALPA meetings got faxed off to the fleet manager; this sentence is not guesswork, I was a fellow BALPA member and also a trainer and was privy to some of the management goings on.

My recollection of those times is fading, current BACX pilots correct me if I'm wrong at any point in this posting. but all this speculation about how the original BACX thread disappeared may be a symptom of of the distrustful relationship between pilots and managment at BACX, but maybe this website was nobbled, and you shouldn't be dismissive of the possibility.

8th Feb 2004, 09:00
I'll remind you what the topic is: British Airways CitiexpressLet me get this... the thread seems to be trying to pick up the topic again. No one is shutting this down, there is discussion about the situation at BACX and yet PPRuNe is being accused of some sort of conspiracy to undermine the BACX pilots. Oh, before I forget I should mention that I know who was on the grassy knoll when Kennedy was shot.

Upon further investigation, it appears that a moderator moved the original post into our private admin forum for review because some of the original posts contained comments that were possibly borderline slander or libelous. After some consultation (I didn't see it as I've just got back from a sim session) the thread was moved back to the R & N forum. The moderator is sure he checked that it was back in the forum but now it appears to have disappeared. What has possibly happened is that it has been deleted accidentally. This can happen when threads are moved around. So, it would appear that the thread has probably been deleted accidentally. No conspiracy. Just an accident. If some posters tried to think about the consequences of what they post instead of just mouthing off then perhaps we wouldn't need to move threads in the first place, thus reducing the risk that interesting threads like the original BACX get accidentally lost in the process.

Now, as the quote at the top of this post states, keep it on topic or else I will close it. If you want to debate the conspiracy between PPRuNe and BA management or BALPA then start another thread in Jet Blast and it can be dicussed there. I'm not going to waste any more of my time repeating that you should stick to the thread topic if you want it to stay on here.

8th Feb 2004, 16:24
Hopefully we will receive an explanation from Danny reference the removal of the original thread. We should all bare in mind that British Airways management has a long established culture of dirty tricks that dates back to Laker.

The attempts to undermine Virgin, the recent fine by the EU of about £6 million quid, the sacking and subsequent death of Captain Stuart Clapson are all examples of the manner in which BA operates.

Not only should you vote yes but I would suggest that you write to the commons select committee on transport and point out what a mess British Airways has made of the regions. The chair is Mrs G Dunwoody MP for Crewe and Nantwich.

My point being that direct regional flights deserves investment and needs competent and committed managers to deliver it. Evans and chums have wrecked what could be a very successful operation.

Why are'nt BA keen on anything working well in the regions? Because the "system" hates to see traffic diverted from Heathrow.
They would rather add to the misery of congestion and pollution at Heathrow by shuttling in passengers from places that could viably offer direct flights to europe and elsewhere.

Rememeber all those great adverts about the flat bed? Does the British Airways flight from Manchester to New York have them? NO funnily enough that service has had to struggle along with an old 767 with old seats. Despite the fact this flight operates with high load factors and cargo, no investment in new products.

A vote for industrial action is a vote of no confidence in BA Management and a chance, possibly your last, to make a stand for a commercially successful and happy regional operation.
Good Luck BP

PPRuNe Radar
8th Feb 2004, 16:48
Hopefully we will receive an explanation from Danny reference the removal of the original thread. We should all bare in mind that British Airways management has a long established culture of dirty tricks that dates back to Laker.

Looked to me like he gave an explanation in his post at 0200. The one just before yours Bigpants ??

8th Feb 2004, 16:56
Thanks BP, totally agree.
Further, think of the LCY- CDG being terminated after not being allowed to be marketed properly because of competition to LHR.
Think further and closer to home about SOU. A great base, exceptionally profitable as a franchise, but, er, competing with LHR again. Result, it is slowly being allowed to wither on the vine. Competition from other regionals, constant promises of initiatives, but how long before this base too mysteriously becomes a loss leader, and is closed.

Basically, it's not just that BACX has no confidence in its management, we don't actually believe a single word they say, because not only have they been consistently proved wrong, they have been consistently demonstarted to be LIARS!!!

Before Danny get's righteously angry about slander / libel, how elese can you interpret a statement by the head of Operations, on the public radio, that there are no plans to change services to/from the Isle of Man; yet a week later announce the grounding of about 80% of their aircraft, and the stoppage of operation of a similar number of routes.
If not a lie, then maybe stupidity, incompetence, senile dementia - you take your pick!!! :mad:

That is just one example. In the meantime, the timely suspension of one BACXCC member, the held back promotion of another, the repeat training of a third, the stress induced illness retirement of a fourth.......... there seems to be a pattern here too!

Vote YES and let's get it over with, they do not have the balls to play poker at this level, because the stakes of failure are actually much much higher for them than for us.


8th Feb 2004, 17:50

That is an absolute bulls - eye and you are quite right!

They do not have the balls to play play poker at this level and they have far more to loose than any of us collectively or individually.

Not that we are being vindictive in this, be quite certain that our esteemed leader is now right under a very large spot light and Uncle Rodney is not going to be in a forgiving mood after the sort of press this is attracting.................and will continue to do.

Vote YES and vote for a change in the style and substance of management which has brought a sound regional operation to its knees...................

Captain Jumbo
8th Feb 2004, 18:14
Totally applaud the ballot, you should vote YES on moral, ethical, common sense and career future terms.

[One other point is that if you DON'T, your CC will have no credibility for the foreseeable future, and your management will run rampant, crowing, saying
'I told you so'
imposing even worse conditions knowing they can get away with them, and generally pushing the bat in even further.]

Once you start in a game of high stakes poker, you cannot flinch - it helps a lot knowing that your opponent has blinked first and subsequently folded on every single other game they have ever played! The incompetence shown by BACX management has continued in that they have allowed your CC to pick a fight at a time and place of the CC's choosing, and on a subject where the management are clearly one hunnerd persent in the wrong.

You cannot lose, it is a no-brainer (like your management).:ok:

The Little Prince
8th Feb 2004, 21:29
Just for the final record, I did not delete my own thread, deliberately or otherwise.
Sorry Danny, no more on that from me.

bat.man - it's quite clear you don't work for BACX any more, or you would not speak of a massive distrust between managers and pilots in to past tense. Sorry, couldn't resist that one!

Now, could any BA Airbus pilot advise me what the result would be of their Technical Manager - or any of their pilots - heading off to the hotel on a nightstop whilst leaving one of the engines running. I ask purely to compare mainline's methodologies with our own.

Enough. When deciding which way to vote, we need to consider the past, our management's declared intent, and their actual actions. To compare what they said, and then look at what they did.

Having done that, calm down, and think about the latest round of promises and plans. Quite seriously, why does anyone think it will now be different.

Forecast from the Prince:

1. BA will announce a massive turnround in profitability next quarter. (No more Jetstreams or ATP retirals to fund!!)

2. There will still be no payrise, no access to mainline and no written, witnessed guarantees about base longevity.

(yep, I know employees don't normally expect guarantees like that, but with our shower of mendacious self-interested plonkers, that's what it would take to have us believe them.)

So, explain to me in simple terms why anyone at any base other than Manchester or Birmingham should vote anything but YES.

Now think about BHX and MAN. Think about the huge seniority imbalance caused by the gerrymandering of the positions. Think, if you will, with the huge volume of senior guys in junior seats just how long it will be before any normal movement occurs to resume normal career progression. The'management' hope that there will be enough senior guys resign and leave in disgust and frustration. They hope this because the cost of the abortionate structure they have created is immense, because the FO / Capt ratio is completely wrong. The joke is that if a suitable redundancy package were organised for the REALLY senior guys, they would go quite happily in some cases, leaving a more balanced structure behind, and this would actually be CHEAPER than paying all these RHS captains. AHA, yes, that's why they want to undo the pay protection - induce more 'unprotected ' skippers to leave.
In summary though, do you trust Evans, TDLF, APOPH etc to deal honourably with your and your families futures?
How many times have some of us thought - well we must turn the corner soon?

What is the prime motivation of the above individuals? It doesn't take much thought really does it?

Rider of the Purple Sage
8th Feb 2004, 21:55
Laugh - I thought my pants would never dry!

Just come from our BALPA site. Discussion mentioned McL's departure, and speculated over TDLF's future and potential enforced departure after we win. Never been one to shrink from applauding THAT, but consider........who would be Hair Apparrent?

The Boy Hutch :yuk: , without doubt. It was then suggested that some might view this in the same way as Prescott taking over from Tony Blair..................................................:E

8th Feb 2004, 23:07
I am going to tread very carefully now. This topic is obviously very important to a lot of people, and quite rightly so.

I have often wondered why British Airways stations out in the regions get such a raw deal. Is there some inherent reason why the chaps working valiantly for Citiexpress should have to put up with worse pay and conditions than their mainline counterparts?

I dont pretend to know the details of the difference between citiexpress and mainline, but the heated responses to this thread clearly show that some of the pilots at least (if not all) feel hard done by.

Now, the real reason that i am posting is to inquire as to what form any industrial action would take, and how disruptive it would be to the schedules? Is it likely that a number of flights would be cancelled? Also, what is the timeframe that we would be looking at for any strike action? If the ballot does indeed show a largely unhappy pilot workforce on the 20th, how soon would the repercussions be felt?

Being from Manchester, i really dont understand the mentatlity of abondoning the regions in favour of expansion at LHR. Surely some of the congestion down in the SE can be alleviated by making use of the facilities at the regions?

Tell me, is this Evans guy from somewhere below the Watford Gap?

I am only a lowly SLF, but seeing this thread has made me quite worried. I am flying with the good ppl at Citiexpress on the 5th and 7th March, MAN-MAD-MAN, and the thought of being told my flight is cancelled worries me slightly. Dont get me wrong, i do empathise with the pilots, but what effect will any strike action have on the image portrayed to the travelling public, especially at a time when the Citiexpress operation is facing increased competition from the likes of BMIBaby at MAN.

Just my (rambling) thoughts.



P.S. I hope to be flying up there with you guys one day. (only a ppl at the moment)

8th Feb 2004, 23:42
If you think BACX is bad then have a look at DHL Air!!!

9th Feb 2004, 01:07
Dear Alex,

You are definitely not a 'lowly' SLF. You guys pay our salaries, and we remember that, even if it sometimes seems that our management is determined to abandon you all or make you use another carrier.

Your particular flight should be OK, as the repercussions of this vote will take a while to settle through, and (I imagine) for our CC to formulate proper plans. However, a quick read of this thread should let you know just how totally p#ssed off with our management we are. Not 'some' of the pilots, but the vast majority of Flight Crew, Cabin and Flight Deck, along with most of the Engineering Staff and Ground Staff, not to mention the Admin People. If you doubt me - just ask anyone working for us!!!
I would watch it carefully to see how it develops - and if you want to help, write to David Evans, our Managing Director (a contradiction in terms!!!) and tell him how your worries about the dispute may force you fly with someone else. If you want to REALLY help, send his reply (or news about the lack of one) to the papers, and enquire as to his Industrial Relations policy and record with "People in Business".

If you aspire to professional aviation, our Company has some of the most professional and best pilots in the business, and some of the most narrow minded, pin brained, incompetent non-entities in the world of management. Lions led by Donkeys might be considered to be an appropriate phrase, but I suspect it would have most of the world donkey population filing a lawsuit for Racism!!!

Best of luck with your trip to Madrid, a lovely city. I hope it isn't too important that you get there on time, as most of our Manchester departures these days run very late indeed - a function of not replacing the handling staff on the ground. Bear that in mind when you book your appointments at the far end.

Good Luck,


9th Feb 2004, 01:21
Can't believe Jim McAuslan would be supporting our CC unless he thought they were totally in the right.

9th Feb 2004, 02:03

"Best of luck with your trip to Madrid, a lovely city. I hope it isn't too important that you get there on time, as most of our Manchester departures these days run very late indeed - a function of not replacing the handling staff on the ground. Bear that in mind when you book your appointments at the far end."

Utter bollox - you obviously know nothing about what you speak.


worry not, you will very probably have no problems with your journey. Should there be a snag, then you can be sure that everything will be done to get you to and from MAD as expeditiously and safely as possible. Enjoy your trip.


9th Feb 2004, 02:19
There seems to be some form of god-given assumption that everyone at BACX is owed a living by BA. Just how naive can you get!!

Why should there be any comparison at all with BA salaries etc. It's a different airline, and an airline that can only really flourish if removed from BA altogether.

Any threat of a strike will bring this closer; which must be a good thing.

9th Feb 2004, 03:13
Jordan................In case you hadn't noticed, there is't much sympathy for the Company line here...............or indeed anywhere that I have seen.

The most moderate of reasonable thinking individuals have been driven to respond to our CC's call for many and different reasons.

Those reasons have as their common denominator an arrogant incompetent and discredited arm - chair management who are totally insulated from the consequences of their ineptitude by BA parachutes.

We have witnessed the disgusting spectacle of one such leaping for his life before he had to face the consequences of his actions and one can only guess at how quickly he will be joined by the others.

I believe that a strong YES vote will, aside from any other result:-

1. Bring about the removal of those above individuals remaining.

2. Force BA to address what exactly it is that they want out of CX and put in proper resources to achieve it ( I do not believe for one minute that they will dispose of the operation, the political fallout would be substantial as would the public humiliation of BA having to admit that it had failed and was surrendering to the competition)

3. Force CX to afford its Union representatives in Balpa the same courtesy and respect enjoyed by their BA counterparts and end the dirty tricks, abuse, misinformation and dodgy dealing which have characterised its relationship with our CC members (to the substantial detriment of the health and careers of at least three of them)

Amazon man
9th Feb 2004, 03:35
I was told only a few months ago by one of our most senior managers that all bases would if necessary be sacrificed for fortress Heathrow.

This to my mind rather sums up BA's attitude to the regions, it's only a shame they don't seem to have realised what many of the travelling public already have in that Heathrow is an absolutely awful airport to travel from and more fitting for a third world nation rather than the world's fourth largest economy.

If anybody in senior management had any foresight they would be heavily investing in the regions instead of continually retreating back to Heathrow.

9th Feb 2004, 05:52

thanks very much for your reply, and for the reassurance that my travel plans will probably not be ruined.

I have travelled on Citiexpress four times previously (all to and from Madrid incidentally) and always found the staff to be very warm and the flights enjoyable, so from my perspective, you guys at the sharp end are all doing yours jobs incredibly well under what (seem to be) difficult times.

The very first flight i ever took with you guys certainly sticks in my mind as one of the most enjoyable ever. It was back in the summer of 2002, and being the aviation enthusiast that i am, i asked if it would be possible to visit the flight deck. For obvious reasons i was refused, however the extremely friendly FA took it upon herself to kneel down next to me and chat about aviation and what was happening at Citiexpress for a good 20 minutes. That's what i call customer service!!! She explained to me how she was based at Cardiff and had only just recently started working on the ERJ145 from manchester. I wonder what happened to her as she was worried about job security even then.

On the return flight i managed to speak to the pilots after we had landed and they explained to me how they were actually based at Gatwick but were up at Manchester for 4 days flying from there and staying in a hotel. What a way to run an airline!

I may well take you up on writing a letter to your MD. A response would certainly be interesting although i very much doubt he would have the time to write to me. Coincidentally, i am 19 and studying for a BA in Air Transport Management, a fall-back for if i dont make it as a pilot (God Forbid). Im going to remember this Evans guy, and make a mental note of how not to run an airline:O .



9th Feb 2004, 15:47
Osbo - or should I say Mr Brewitt,

I am based in Manchester - ever heard of 'push and hold'??

Thanks busz, you have a good flight, and a good day too!

Interested to hear what Evans has to say!

Cheers now,


9th Feb 2004, 20:41

whatever gave you the idea that I'm NB? I simply stated that you were incorrect if you think that the main reason for recent delays has been "a function of not replacing the handling staff on the ground". I think a little research on your part would reveal that whilst there have been problems with the operation, that has not been the predominant factor.


Uncle Silas
10th Feb 2004, 00:06
Congratulations to our CC Deputy Chairman.

Our GMFO today posted on the Company forum a very long reply to a query about what our problems are, whose fault it all is, and why he is right.

Timbo used his usual style of never giving a straight answer, of obscuring the issues, the history of the issues, the people involved. He consistently blamed BALPA for the problems, on one occasion even agreeing that the BACX pilots are trying to do no more than the BA pilots did to protect their lifestyles and jobs to achieve the secondments they currently occupy. To everyone's amazement though, he then again says it is all the fault of BALPA for not working together that is causing the difficulties.
Hurrah for GA who then tore Timmies points to shreds one by one, by using the actual history, the actual quotes of who said what to whom and when. I would copy and paste if I knew how.
Bloody well done to the IOM Turbo Capt about to be displaced for a 'tell it like it is' speech, that ends quoting Bomber Harris, it takes a lot of guts to do that with your own ID, (yep, more than I have anyway!)

Finally, to the guy who accuses BACX pilots of thinking BA owe them a living.

1. They had a very good living in a pretty good Company before BA bought it.
2. There is an obligation called a 'duty of care' towards one's employees. Asset stripping is not a pretty sight.
3. You can't have it both ways, either the Company that owns you DOES owe you basic human rights like truthfulness, honor and a decent days pay for a decent days work. I'm sure the BA guys expect that from their employer - so why the hell shouldn't we????

10th Feb 2004, 05:31
Wouldn't want this post to drop to far from the front of our (and management's) minds. Congrats to GA, hell of a discection! :yuk:

10th Feb 2004, 16:09
I see TDLF has then come back with further blurred analysis, admitting that GA is right. For example, he made the emotive statement that he was against merging the seniority lists of BA and BACX, in the full knowledge that no-one had ever suggested that, but aware of the fury it would arouse in BA. When it was pointed out that BALPA had never suggested that, he immediately backpedalled, (as he does so often) saying that statement was his own personal view. A similar point made over the pay award. He says that he never said there would be no pay award, but after GA came up with time/date/quote, had to admit he said the Company apparently 'had no money for a pay award' which was not the same thing ??????????????.
Heavens above, he could make a fortune in the used car market. He agrees there is inequity of redundancy bewteen BA / BACX, but refuses to address the issue, yet further on says that BALPA's proposals to give the most senior guys a better deal to free up command space would actually save money. We then progress to statements which allege he is not keen to release senior guys because that would lose the experience - having agreed earlier we are top-heavy with command experience generally!!!!

He twists and turn like .....hmmm, a figure swinging on a gibbet comes to mind.:}

I think he is in for a surprise - and maybe a new career direction in the not-too-distant future.

Oh, one last thought for all you guys on the 146s in Inverness and the Isle of Man. Did you notice Tim's little statement about single aircraft bases - how they are exceptionally expensive, and very difficult to justify!!!! Funny thing, I thought SOU was probably next in the firing line, but looks like I may be wrong.

The only rational and kind way to end this is as quickly as possible with a resounding YES vote. If the BALPA Genral Secretary says it is justified, support from mainline says it is justified, our Company Council - who WE elected - says it is justified - I don't need any more convincing. If I did, all I need to do is go and ask Tim why I should vote NO. The resulting slippery speech would convince me to buy that 1985 Ford Escort with 100000 miles and 37 owners..........

Baron Harkonnen
10th Feb 2004, 17:01
A very good post Yog. However you let Captain De la Fosse off too lightly.

What about GA's question over the FIRST secondees. Remember those cadets. Remember how Tim was on the record about saving them from the dole queue, about how they were on BACX terms, salries, and more important, our devalued pension scheme!!!

Remember then how it turned out, that somehow, once again, there had been a misunderstanding; but in fact it meant they were on FULL BA Ts and Cs, and part of the BA final salary scheme all along!!!!

I notice even Tim can't wiggle his way out of that one! That is basically why you can apply the first rule of politics -

(How do you know when a politician is telling lies - you can see his lips moving!!)

To avoid any legal action, let's agree that Tim can be very "economical with the actualite"

-and that, dear readers, that history of fibs and doublespeak, of broken promises, 'misunderstandings' and 'situations outwith my gift' is why we will get a YES vote, and finally change some things around here.

10th Feb 2004, 18:18
Funny you should mention single a/c bases Yog.
IOM Examiner today:

"HOPES of increasing flights to
Gatwick are being blocked by
a refusal to extend opening
hours at Ronaldsway Airport,
according to the boss of the
Island's leading airline.
British Airways CitiExpress
general manager David Evans
said the airline wants to add
another daily flight to London
but can't because of the air-
port's hours."

The thin end of the wedge??

11th Feb 2004, 16:06
Sorry Mr Evans, but you already have 4 London rotations a day within the IOM airport hours, (albeit 3 LGW & 1 LTN).
I don't think IOM airport would need to stay open until 10 o' clock as you claim to have asked the IOM government to provide for to enable a 4th LGW rotation. How about rescheduling the first rotation 20 minutes earlier and then 4 LGW returns could easily be accomodated if you wanted to Hmmm ??

The Little Prince
11th Feb 2004, 17:21
Wow, I should go into spread betting.

The mainline profit rise even bigger than my forecast!

Ref the IOM, obviously the London schedule propaganda is the latest ploy on the way to declaring it unviable.....HOWEVER an ATP mate based there now tells me management are already caving in to pressure, and suggesting a Dash 8 could well be based there as well as Glasgow, to prevent the wholesale moves they proposed earlier. Negotiation clearly works, but only if you have something to bargain wýth like a big stick!!

Worth pointing out this would NOT have been achieved without BALPA. If they were right about this, they are probably right about everything else. Timbo and Young Hutch are doing a Base tour this week to tell everyone how wicked and confrontational BALPA are. Hmmm, seems to me that a bit of firm confrontation is sadly all that our so-called management understand.

Keep the pressure up, it seems that LHR and Rodders are leaning on Timbo to sort this out by giving ground where necessary. VOTE YES!!!:ok:

11th Feb 2004, 19:12
LP...I think they've already confirmed a Dash8 for the IOM MAN route (5 daily). I can't see any logic in adding any more when Eastern have already started BHX IOM and the LPL IOM route has been struggling for a while against EuroManx; not forgetting that Emerald are about to start as well. The 5 daily IOM MAN sounds like the right response to the problems of LPL.

Riddle: With a common ERJ fleet, what do you get if you cross a troubled BACX business with an equally troubled business from bmiRegional?

Red Snake
11th Feb 2004, 22:40
Why not just merge the two threads? Same issues, same whinging.

12th Feb 2004, 01:44
Tinytim (taken from previous page of this thread)I believe that a strong YES vote will, aside from any other result:-
Bring about the removal of those above individuals remaining.
Force BA to address what exactly it is that they want out of CX and put in proper resources to achieve it.
Force CX to afford its Union representatives in Balpa the same courtesy and respect enjoyed by their BA counterparts and end the dirty tricks, abuse, misinformation and dodgy dealing which have characterised its relationship with our CC members.
I do not know Tinytim's background or present experience but my observation of British commercial life over the 25 years that I have been working is that the answers to your points will actually be:[list=1]
Bring about the removal of the people that are on strike.
Allow BA an excuse to railroad unpleasant solutions.
Allow CX to continue to restrict the Union representatives.
Dirty Tricks are the stock in trade of countless British Managments, BA + CX do not have a monoply of them and strike action will not change this.

I suggest that, at this stage, the British are not in a mood to support strike action from any group other than, Fire/Ambulance and Medical staff.

12th Feb 2004, 03:37
Paxboy I wont trade backgrounds with you.......suffice to say that I have been around a bit too.........rather longer than you!

Your point is what exactly?

When confronted with bullying incompetent and divisive management you just roll over and say "Come on Guys do it to us all over again"

One either has principles that one is prepared to fight for or one does not.

BA have a history of responding to industrial persuasion with a modicum of pragmatism and signs are that they'll do the same this time. So I do not agree with your pessimism;)

Billy The Squid
12th Feb 2004, 14:09
For what it's worth (BACX) guys I hope whatever you decide it works out for you.....and to anyone affected by base closures proposed or otherwise, I pray you find jobs quickly and in the industry you've all worked so hard in.
All the guys in ops at BACX (both IOM and BHX) are nice people and great to deal with!. That's not to say any of the crews aren't before anyone jumps on me, I just haven't spoken to any of them.

Best wishes to one and all;)

The Little Prince
12th Feb 2004, 15:47
Jordan - ref the Dash 8 on the IOM and GLA. My mate was saying this is to be a IOM based aeroplane, so meaning the IOM guys will not have to relocate to Manchester. Ludicrous company suggestion anyway, I mean, why base the damn thing in Manchester meaning TWO crews nightstopping every night, when you can base it in the IOM and have none. Purely a 'close the base' technique politically.

Tim and Co are now well established on the

"BALPA were just mistaken, we meant you to have a payrise all along, we'll discuss the details in a month or so...."


"of course we are trying desperately hard on your behalf to get BA access, things are looking good, don't let BALPA screw it all up for you, we expect to have some good news in the near future..."

side of things.

Not to mention the "there is a hardcore communist subversion element in your BALPA CC, who want confrontation at any cost, you just can't trust these officials who YOU elected, who do their jobs for no pay in their own time, unlike us well remunerated managers for whom it is our day job....."

[This is PURELY because of the mere threat of a threat of a risk of industrial action - purely because of BALPA]

Yeah, right, of course we believe Tim, he and his team have all been dead straight all along haven't they. We all know they have our best interests at heart - it's just that somtimes we can't see the big picture. Let's be fair, when have we EVER EVER known Timbo say anything and change his mind or his stance? When has he EVER said one thing for effect one week, and contradicted himself the next? When has he ever used vague language which could be interpreted later as meaning several different things?? He even has the gall now to try and take credit for things like Flight Duty Pay, Disruption allowances, Day Off payments when they were all things achieved by BALPA. Hands up anyone who believes we would have had them as a management gift?

It's knowledge like this which makes us confident as to who we trust with the future of our families, our careers, our entire lives.
I know who I believe has my best interests at heart, and it isn't anyone from bloody Waterside!!!!! :suspect:

12th Feb 2004, 17:10
I think you should go further.

Many of us I suppose have not really been affected by the base closures / fleet moves, but only because we are lucky in location terms. That doesn't mean the next great Fosse plan to relocate everything to Gatwick, or another BA locost out of STN will not affect us. Or even, let it be said openly, any (near) future plan to sell us off, or merge us with Midland as an earlier thread suggested.
The bottom line is that this affects us all. If we do not show we are serious about this, it will be far worse than if we had never tried.

1. I understand the CC will resign. (More honorable than management then)

2. A new CC will take a long time to amass any serious experience to deal with Dental and his chums.

3. Dental and the rabbithutch will be crowing for months, knowing they can do as they like in future because we will just bend over and take it no matter what.

I actually think being shafted again will be better than listening to the unctuous 'I told you sos' from all the management types.
There are not really any "I'm alright jacks' any more. This is potentially a vote of confidence in our management, and if they win it - well, what we have seen so far in their uncaring, bullying, dictatorial 'we know best" attitudes will be amplified beyond all recognition.
(they know best all right, just look at the change in profitability since Floss and his minions took over)

Really think about this one boys, think about the lack of promotion, the moves, the Ts and Cs - the dodgy dealing, the doublespeak, the self awarded management perks and special packages that for some reason they won't discuss. (It's odd, but when I was in the Air Force, you could check out a Group Captains Salary, a Leading Aircraftsman or an Air Vice Marshall with equal ease, and every knew exactly where they were.) Why do YOU all think our management guard their salary packages so secretively - do you think it's because we'll feel appalled and sorry for them if we were to find out? No, neither do I.

Read Tim's posts on intercom carefully, I would cut and paste if I knew how. See how he seems to promise and say a lot, but there is so much lack of definition, so little specific detail that it is meaningless. He has made the mistake of trying to split the pilot workforce by slagging off part of the CC. It won't work Tim, as good old GA has come back and said that the CC are as one in this - unlike some of your managers who can be heard doing a damn sight more than jus querying the party line once you get a beer into them.


12th Feb 2004, 18:05
Guys, only curious, so please don't shoot me down, but, as it seems access to mainline BA is one of the key elements to this dispute, the following questions occur to me:

1) How exactly does your threat of industrial action in BACX, actually advance your position with regard to encouraging a separate company, BA, to modify THEIR selection criteria for you?

I believe the following are some of the modifications you are demanding;

No application form,
No numeracy/literacy tests,
No building models,
No reference to training records until those undertaking selection understand, and are able to interpret correctly, the differences in the BA/BACX grading structures.

A simulator check
Psychometric tests (provided the pilot has not already undertaken them in BACX.)
An interview – based on objective criteria.

2) How do you think the fact that your BACX CC turned down access to BA (without consulting the membership!!!) only a short while ago, will be viewed?

3) How do you think the petition regarding the 'Humiliation of BACX' pilots (humiliation at having to undergo the SAME selection process as everbody else) will have encouraged BA management to reduce their selection criteria for you?

Perhaps a more measured, pragmatic approach could have achieved more?

(It's certainly difficult to see how it could have achieved less!)

False Capture
12th Feb 2004, 21:46
Steady on Tandemrotor, that takes us down the path of seniority lists, joining dates and using CFE(CityFlyer Express) as a benchmark. Could get ugly!:{

Just out of interest, how many BACX pilots are on the BACX seniority list and out of those how many are members of BALPA? The BALPA secondees were sent the consultative ballot on strike action. However, there are legal issues regarding the secondees going on strike in support of BACX pilots. Firstly, the secondees are not represented by BACX CC and secondly, the secondees are not employed by BACX. Two reasons why BALPA did this:

1) It was an admin error
2) BACX CC were hoping to boost the number of 'YES' votes by sending the ballot to BALPA secondees. (Almost all the secondees being members of BALPA)

Fortunately all the secondees sympathise with the BACX pilots on the ballot's first 2 points ie. PAY and BREAKING SCHEDULE C. To include ACCESS TO BA as the third point of disagreement can lead to a 'them and us' scenario which so far has been avoided on this thread.

I think this whole affair has been a learning experience for the CC and has to some extent demonstrated their lack of experience in this area. Therefore, to discover the CC will all resign sounds like a step backwards for the BACX pilots they represent. Furthermore, if it opens-up a BACX vs BA pilot divide then this would be playing into mangement hands with the old theory of 'divide and conquer'.

12th Feb 2004, 23:15
False Capture

I can agree with some of what you have said.

I think it's fair comment that BACX pilots probably deserve better. It's just a shame that they seem to be led by a slightly eccentric CC, who invariably seem to prefer a high risk, 'all or nothing' strategy (At least that's how it appears from the outside, so I do of course, stand to be corrected!)

13th Feb 2004, 03:06
I am a little perplexed why PH is getting quite a lot of the attack.
TDLF yes and DE most certainly but PH is only Chief Pilot Technical and therefore responsible for the technical aspects of flight operations. He has no remit concerning future company policy. His only crime seems to be that he could be a likely alternative to TDLF ( and non BA ). You could just as well blame JA, OD, NG etc all of whom like PH were senior managers before BA bought the lot.

13th Feb 2004, 04:30
Its probably something to do with the fact that TDF has already declared him as his successor...............his chosen son. Considering his judgement on every other topic, might one be forgiven for not giving the benefit of the doubt?

Might it also be something to do with the fact that PH seems to support everything TDF does and says and follows him around like his little shadow?

Some might not be reassured by his pedigree.

"By his friends you will know him..............................."

13th Feb 2004, 20:35
Well, he was the "chosen son" of the profitable BRAL and the then chief pilot before it was bought out.
He is a shrewd operator, remember TDLF is his boss so perhaps he might disagree entirely but is not in a strong enough position right now to take a stand.
It has concerned many cx pilots like myself how cx balpa have dealt with issues. The immature and over confrontational letters have left many of us frustrated and as a result people, as you will know, are resigning their membership.
Citi Express is a mess and I do believe BA are absolutely to blame.

I simply do not see why PH is to blame. He turned down BA to stay with BRAL and would be flight ops director now if BA had not purchased it.

Amazon man
13th Feb 2004, 21:53
BACX is not some family firm which is handed down through the generations, with all due respect to PH there is no reason why he should automatically assume the post should TDLF vacate it.

If anything what with all the company has been through, the thought of another pilot attempting to run the company rather leaves me cold. If and when the postion should become vacant then it should be advertised publicly or a recruitment firm should be employed to find the best candidate for the job, hopefully somebody who has experience of business and will treat the airline as such.

13th Feb 2004, 22:10
So, hoey5o, Hutch's mate comes out into the open!

Many of the 'chosen sons' of the ancien regime were annointed at very early stages in their careers by persons no longer (thankfully) associated with BACX. We all know that nepotism and favouritism was rife and there should be no place for that in BACX depite the glaring exceptions of training favours handed out by TDLF to his mates. Hutch may be able to wear the suit, walk the BA walk, polish the shoes and pay a huge amount on hair cuts every month but his overall experience of the big wide world could probably be listed on the back of the proverbial fagpacket. He is not the man to take over flight ops; I don't think there is anybody in the current management suitable at present, and then there is the MD's slot, as well, to consider.

I have seen little evidence of you and your fellow resignees offering alternative arguments or solutions to the current crisis either anonomously in these forums or on the BACX BALPA forum. Which begs the question; just where have you emerged from?

13th Feb 2004, 22:11
I agree. I wasnt aware PH had been chosen for anything other than CP technical.

No Judge 11, I have not written in the Balpa forums I wrote straight to TDLF with a strong but considered argument. I put forward my many concerns and some of my own suggestions regarding the company direction. He listened and then gave me his thoughts.
I did not agree with his answer.
I will now be voting with my feet.

I am no manager. ( grow up or are you a Balpa rep )

Crash and Burn
14th Feb 2004, 06:23
Rather that talk about a ballot, is the airline going to survive?

14th Feb 2004, 17:19
The last posting says it all. What's the point of all the whingeing when there seems to be real long term viability problem with the whole business.

Let's face it, the regional airline industry has always been very fragile and no more than now. Can't think of many airlines making any money (eg FlyBE only seem to survive by selling aircraft and slots!), and the level of competition is increasing all the time. So why all this moaning? Isn't there just the possibility that the guys running the business are having a hell of a time keeping up with competition and fighting to keep costs as low as possible whilst improving productivity. It's not a static business and anyone that believed that it would be is very naive!

No, I'm not in management, but surely the future lies in understanding what's going on, rather than all this personal sniping at individuals. Even BA aren't making the type of returns that you'd even get at a Building Society....it's vicious out there and management surely have the responsibility to change and adapt as much as possible. Unfortunately changes can be painful, but standing still is a recipe for disaster!

14th Feb 2004, 18:38
Depends on your point of view, and no, I'm neither management nor BALPA.
However, this is the point reached because of over two years of BA management interference. YYes, the Industry problems are not all BA's. However, as a pilot workforce, we are treated like industrial equipment. There is none of the consultation that the management signed up to - AND WHICH THEY USE WITH MAINLINE!! We deserve at the least the same straightforward dealing they offer to their other employees - if not, well, I would like to know why not. The trouble is the "leadership". It is autocratic, unyieleding, untruthful, and self-serving. There is no declared objective for our airline other than what we have seen over the two years, ie shrinkage and closure. So, if that is on the agenda anyway, we may as well insist on a bigger voice in it. Perhaps if we were to be treated as what we are, a highly skilled professional group with a deserved - AND AGREED - voice in the future of our Company, we would not be here now. Bear in mind as well that if it all goes wrong, our management are not in this with us. They are already slinking off back to better grazing in mainline, and this is very hypocritical. Imposing cuts on us while they take payrises - how much more are we supposed to take or believe. No, this YES vote is important. The ballot itself, never mind any result, has already caused some u turns in terminology, ie payrises and aircraft basing. The question is whether we wbelieve the latest batch of promises delivered quite clearly because of the ballot. The ballot was called by the BACX CC. ie, the BACX CC have turned TDLF's terminology around. Now, ddo we let the CC, already proved right, the chance to prove the rest of their views, or do we offer TDLF and cronies the chance to go back on their word yet again (what a form sheet). Remember, if we don't back BALPA we will probably lose their expertise as they resign en-masse. Thus we start again with a new BALPA. Would we have any Company lleft by the time they get the experience?

This is not just one man's leadership, the CC are united on it. If they were wrong strategically or tactically, the main union leadership would not be backing them. Compare that with TDLF etc, who change their tune every time a new text arrives from Rod's office.

Jordan, if you cannot understand what is going on with this Company, then I have difficulty beleiving you are not in a fat management job. Possibly on a 145 at Manchester. I wonder what you think is going to happen to YOUR job when the 145 leases start to expire and all the very senior displaced guys are given telephone calls and maybe YOUR CURRENT JOB. Because that's how this bunch operate. Individual deals done with implicitly threatening phone calls about self induced redundancy.

I support our CC. I believe in supporting a majority view, and I believe that is what we shall see come the 20th. Maybe, just maybe, we can start talking to management as grown-ups instead of naughty kids.

15th Feb 2004, 05:49
I guess the majority of correspondents here, think this is all a 'storm in a teacup', which I'm sure it is!

Fact of the matter being, if a CC shouts "wolf" often enough, (which this one most certainly has!) Sooner or later, people ignore it!

Not management, not balpa, not BACX! But not unfamiliar with the scenario!

Take care you guys, and think very carefully how you think your best interests are advanced!

15th Feb 2004, 06:02

I and many of my colleagues are somewhat sickened by your apathetic "I'm alright I'm a mainline chappie" response.

In the main BACX pilots accept our presence (despite our vastly superior terms and conditions, pay, pensions, regional allowances and futures), and accept our reasons for being here, and most of them, like us, are decent people seeking to earn a decent living working from the regions.

What I (and therefore obviously BACX pilots) cannot accept is (on this and BA PPRuNe (that they are not privy to - I am glad you have finally worked out there are three Chief Pilots)) your lies.

Get real, put yourself in their position, and you might actually realise they are behaving in a totally necessary manner. Like what our brethren did for us many moons ago (perhaps you are too young to remember?). May they prosper in their demands.

15th Feb 2004, 07:37

Well, I have not recently been called 'too young to remember' anything (other than perhaps Dunkirk!)

Perhaps you would like to educate me!

What EXACTLY are my 'lies'? Do tell.

Perhaps before answering, you may wish to review my post on page 2 (or are you a latecomer?)

If you think your best interests are served by the actions of the rather hysterical CC, ("may they prosper in their demands") Good luck to you, time will tell.

I'm not sure anyone's are!

Who exactly would many of your colleagues be??

If you would care to e-mail me, we could of course discuss the personal nature of your post!!

No? I guessed not!

Oh, I've just noticed, it's your first post!

Nice touch! Why not use your regular pprune name?

Maybe you're not what you imply you are after all wacky!

15th Feb 2004, 18:28
All comments should be read and thought about; no reason that Tandem Rotor should not chuck in his three pennorth worth, even if it is from his cosy contractual 'no redundancy' situation, and his last year's pay rise achieved by Rob Hall and the mainline CC 'negotiating' a huge increase in Ts and Cs for all BA. Anyone remember the emotive language used by BA pilots on prune then to justify their demands, about how small a part in overall airline costs the flt deck were, and how they had been overlooked for years, had been squeezed by management for years, etc etc etc.

Funny how similar the threads are, might even be worth going back and cutting and pasting a few comments. There were evn people saying that BA pilots should be grateful for their (then) current lot, and should not rock the boat our it would bring the Company down. Well, Rob triumphed in his 'negotiations', but mainly because the Company knew that the pilots had had enough of being jerked around with promises while having to work harder and harder whilst watching management expansion and business plans (Ayling's) which had proved to be costly disasters.


We are owned and managed, in the real world, by exactly the same bunch of no-hopers who had to buckle to mainline demands last year. The difference is the hypocritical attitude of the likes of TR, who in common with a small minority of mainliners, cannot bring himself to admit we are all part of the same corporate entity, and therefore deserving of, if not the same pay packet, at least the same attention, respect and working conditions as themselves.

You know, I think I shall search for that thread..

In the meantime, not de la Fosse. He has the cheek to say in his latest emergency communication to our pilots that there is a personalised agenda by our BALPA guys. Of course, he doesn't have one does he? His annual bonus won't be affected by the succes or not of the swingeing cuts he is trying to achieve?

TDLF = :yuk:

15th Feb 2004, 20:41
From my post on page 2:

"If you vote yes, you would have my support"

Not making it very easy for me are you?

16th Feb 2004, 00:44
Children children. Let's not bicker.

1. 99% of all posts on here are in support of BACX pilots.

2. Even those who don't support us are entitled to their views, and in fact often provide an opportunity to make some factual statements contradicting the Company's propaganda.

3. Only people who actually work for BACX can genuinely be aware of the staggering incompetence of our management, the waste, the refusal to listen or even learn from mistakes - in fact the refusal to admit there ARE any mistakes other than supporting BALPA!!

4. Only pilots who work for BACX can really know and understand the depths of the utter contempt that TDLF and his cronies are held in. The sheer hypocrisy of the nestfeathering going on among management and the lining up behind decisions they know are crass and crap has to be seen to be believed.

The only thing more united than the management on their anti-BALPA line and nigh on libel/slander reference our CC Chair is that of the YES vote.

Roll on the 20th.:ok:

16th Feb 2004, 02:53
Good luck 2 all u BACX pilots and ur fight against management, im a flight dispatcher at leeds and i think it has been a downward sprial for many of you when they pulled out from leeds and many other stations. I know that some of the cadets were wisked off back to the mainline to fly the jets, some left for the likes of easyjet and rest of you went to fly DASH and such like.

Ive attend a couple of flight trainning shows at heathrow and that John Monks BA recruitment Manager said that 140 and 150 mainline pilots to retire in 2004 and 2005 respectively. Now thats assuming that they dnt up the retirement age from 55 to 60 which they probable will do so they can save money on recruiting new pilots and having to type rate people.

r u lot not going to be first in line for these vacancies? excuse my ignorance if that is what you are fighting for already!!
Im sure strike action would only hinder this process??!!

But fighting BACX seems a little pointless because BACX seems like its just a liability to BA thats why no one cares, it does not make it right for them to treat you all like **** thou!!

I dnt wish to affend anyone, i dnt no all the ins and out of your situtations so correct me on any of the above if im wrong.
Good luck cos it always takes alot of gutts to stand up to management!!! :ok:

16th Feb 2004, 04:06
We're not looking for much in the way of favouritism, but to be told that the only advantage that we would gain over outside applicants would be that our CV's would be looked at first is just insulting. 3.4million flying hours, is what was recently calculated as the hours that exBRAL, Brymon and now BACX aircraft have been seen to the public as being "BA" operated. Before people start talking about BMed and the like, they are still just franchises, so wouldn't expect anything, as we didn't as BRAL etc., but we are now wholly owned and therefore the has to be some responsibility from the parent :E

16th Feb 2004, 05:46
not qualified to make a judgement between mainline and BACX, but having worked for Brymon European (remember), franchised to BA, my how we felt, flying around pretending to be BA in our museum piece twinjet fuel/noise converters. How the pax used to love us! (not). How they voted with their feet and went in their droves to EZY and the low costs. Where did it all go wrong? How could they not see that BA was the best?

Guys, the customer is always right!

don't take your eyes off the ball, you might not like your management, but don't drive your customers away. They rely on you, but you depend on them!

16th Feb 2004, 15:05
Cornflake, not everyone benefitted from Rob Halls, and BALPA's "achieverments". Some of us actually saw a large decrease in our terms and conditions along with a drop in years served and so a pension cut. So don't believe everything BALPA or Managment tell you, the truth may not be quite so green on the other side of the fence. Good luck on the 20th you all deserve a straight deal.

16th Feb 2004, 16:06
If I could second Blackballs ´ comments. Do your own thinking. Remember BALPA or the relevant reps may not be acting in YOUR best interests. We do have this naive belief that a fellow pilot wont "shaft " us in order to further his/her own interests. As many mainline pilots will tell you, this isn´t always the case....

16th Feb 2004, 18:12
Do remember also that BA management has a long and highly disreputable history of dirty tricks.

The Little Prince
16th Feb 2004, 22:42
So not too difficult to decide who to trust when choosing between our management :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:
(God, I hate that word, it gives them ten times more stature than they deserve)
and our BALPA CC.:ok:

Essex Girl
17th Feb 2004, 00:39
oh please can somebody help me please :D All my friends from BA seem to be leaving the company - first it was cuddly Alistair ;) (I think he said he's gone to drive a bus?), now dear Guy has gone to a big jumbo (I do love Guy though people are saying that his BA friends don't like him anymore because as a trainer he's now jumped the queue and taken their place). And now I've heard that Uncle Timmie has been seen at Waterside applying for a management position at Heathrow? It will be so sad without them all :{ , my friend Carl said it was because they can't stand the heat, I love hot holidays so I can't see what all the fuss is about? And Paul is going to be very lonely left all by himself...

love and kisses

17th Feb 2004, 05:12
I could not comment about the rest of your post, Essex Girl :D but I too have heard the same rumour about our illustrious (?) leader. He was seen at an interview for a new position just the other week, so maybe he is leaving us soon? Assuming he passes the interview.

17th Feb 2004, 05:22
Anyone think his cv will just "go to the top of the pile" ;)

17th Feb 2004, 05:24
Nice to see that BACX is so popular on PRUNE again BALPA site not in fashion anymore?????

Uncle Silas
17th Feb 2004, 16:11
Interview Panel:

"So, tell us - er, Timothy is it - why are you leaving your present post?"

T: " I feel I have successfully encapsulated and completed my initial mission statement, and it is now an appropriate time to allow a carefully trained successor to commence utilisation of the smooth running economic miracle I have created from a shambles of ill-run regional businesses."

Interview Panel:

"Ah, yes, we see. Could you give a brief description of your accomplishments in your current post?"

T: " Certainly. From a loss making and unhappy combination of three airlines, I have enabled my personally chosen team to meld and merge the synergies of these businesses, I have reduced costs dramatically, yet managed the introduction of union recognition and succeeded in a zero cost equation whereby all the Flt Operations personnel have benefited hugely in both financial and lifestyle terms, yet simultaneously achieved major economies within the new business by outsourcing non-core services to an in-house consultative choice-rich environment by utilising the leverages available to a wholly owned subsidiary of a world class organisation like British Airways.

Interview Panel:

"Er, quite! Could you expand on the economics of your business plan?"

T. " I would be delighted. The key, in keynesian terms, was to outsource the debt and overhead by removing the short and medium term cash outflow prognosis. Accordingly, I took the decision to ground most of the aircraft, and show the next decade's lease costs as a one-off debit to mainline accounts. This enabled me to convince - with some difficulty - an entrepreneurial airline to operate these aircraft with virtually no DOC, thus soaking up part of my pilot overmanning problem and most of my aircraft. Learning from this, my team were instructed to progress the idea, and I have recently suceeded in grounding another fleet of aircraft, deferring the lease cost to a further established regional operator by subsidiing them in the 75th percentile and showing the figures as part of the mainline overhead in amalgamous primary exceptionals. I have prepared the ground for further cost beneficial capped voluntary redundancies to save the expenses of a further pilot surplus.
In the meantime, reducing backup services such as Operational planning and engineering has enabled further huge cost savings whilst showing any operational falloff to be part of the aircraft handover programme."

Interview Panel: "Er......"

T: "This has not been without personal cost - I have made far more good friends - for whom I have to buy numerous drinks - than I ever intended, because the speed and efficiency with which I introduced a union agreement, and benefited the entire pilot workforce with a proper scheduling agreement, enhanced pay, disruption cash payouts, not to mention an industry-leading worked day off system, promotion and postings system the envy of the Industry. This has resulted in state-of the-art industrial relations within my department, and I like to think that my efforts have been personally, as well as professionally appreciated by both my employees and Rod, I mean, the Board."

Interview Panel:

"And just confirm the economic comparison before and after you and your team took over?"


"With pleasure. Manx Airlines and British Regional Airlines both posted all-time record profits, both in gross terms and as a percentage of turnover in the year prior to my appointment. Brymon Airways were going from strength to strength. Since my team started running these airlines, their profitability has plummetted year by year, dragging Brymon Airways with them, to the point where now, nearly three years later, we face record industry and sector losses of over 30 million GBP. When compared with the operations of the Lo Cost sector, it can be easily seen, following 9/11, SARS, Iraqui wars etc, that my bonuses have been well earned, as without the efforts of me and my team it would have been so much worse."

Interview Panel:

"Really. Well, in that case, why do you wish to move on?"


"Well, it has been hard seeing so little of my family during my endeavours over the past few years. Further, I really would like to watch another consummate professional like myself benefit from running the well oiled, lean mean profit machine I have created. I would not like to think anyone thought I was remaining at the helm to take the sole credit for my efforts."

Interview Panel:

" I am happy to say we feel you have upheld the finest traditions of British Airways. Your work with the profitability turn-round alone is worthy of much commendation, whilst your personal sacrifice, and skill in industrial relations maintaining such a happy, efficient, well organised Company clearly demonstrates your ability. Rod asked me before we came in for this interview to add his personal congratulations, and to welcome you to the Board."


"Many thanks. Er, I would just like to point out that in accordance with the new profile Board Interface action plan I intend to introduce before negotiations take place and are properly minuted, that you DO appear to be sitting in MY chair!"

17th Feb 2004, 17:05
Uncle Silas. Truly the most amusing and perceptive piece of satire I have read in ages. All so very true..................!!

Yes I have heard that Timmy was seen at Waterside with very polished shoes. Two gone with indecent haste, surely a third to follow. Here's hoping.

Cx will never go anywhere when there is such widescale distrust and frankly overt hatred of its key mangers. There is a desperate need for some fresh and respected blood. To replace Tim with his chosen son would perpetuate a disaster as it would be perceived as business as usual.

Marlowe. I am sure that the reason this is live on pprune is to open up the debate to the widest possible audience. In particular BA colleagues. We all know that Management are avid readers of this forum. The strength and breadth of hostile opinion must surely give some indication that the CX ballot is indeed a popular uprising against discredited and incompetent managers. It should help lay to rest the mangement lie that this is all a storm in a teacup whipped up by the lunatic chairman of CXCC who has his Council members nodding like compliant poodles.

I understand that unofficial poll results show landslide support for the CC.

If true, where does that leave Timmy having hung his campaign on discrediting Balpa and the Chairman of CXCC in particular?

Beleagured, ineffective and vanquished perhaps?

Might we expect a resignation?

Captain Jumbo
17th Feb 2004, 18:20
Satire?? Satire?? I thought it was fly-on-the-wall stuff!:}
Certainly sounds like standard BA speak.

17th Feb 2004, 21:45
Tiny Tim.
I take your point about opening the debate to a wider audience about T&C and the general state of BACX. BUT!, it has only been opened up after this ballot has been voted on by BALPA members only. There are alot of other groups in the company that any strike action that arises will be affected as well, but those groups have not been consulted.

Captain Correlli
18th Feb 2004, 01:00
There are three reasons for a Company having problems:

1. Bad Management

2. Bad Management

3. Bad Management

Tim and his cronies ought to know that it doesn't matter if they are liked or not, but it is pretty important that they are respected.
Trouble is there is nothing to respect - there is certainly nothing to like about any of them, anal retentives the lot, but that matters as little to us as it presumably does to them. The respect thing is different. Their judgement has been proved false, their business sense has been proved false, their word has been proved false - in some notable cases, even their flying ability - or lack thereof has been proved false.

Over, and over, and over , and over again.

Somebody mentioned resigning - Ha! Just like politicians, the RESPONSIBILITY is always someone else's. Resign?? Don't make me laugh.:*

18th Feb 2004, 01:28
Judging by the overwhelming majority of recent posts, it's clear.

There are no issues driving this veiled threat of damaging industrial action, more important than one of personalities!

If only that nasty GMFO, would return to whence he came, ALL CX pilots would enter the sunfilled uplands of;

1) Pay rises

2) Domination of the regional market (No base closures!)

3) Instant, and unhindered access to mainline BA

(Remind me, WERE those the 'supposed' issues - I've forgotten!)

Rarely can the threat of industrial action, have been so personal, so vitriolic, so unbalanced!

Good luck guys, I hope I'm wrong, but, one way or another, there just might be something of a disappointment round the corner!

Cruise Alt
18th Feb 2004, 06:29
Quote of the day from Captain I was flying with today.

"The management in this company have done an incredible job. They have really pissed everyone off: the ramp staff, the ground staff, the cabin crew, the flight crew and now even the air traffic controllers seem to be fed up with us."

The Little Prince
18th Feb 2004, 16:11
TR, you make a valid point I think, but consider - TDLF and the team, by their lack of common sense, never mind management ability - have got us where we are today.

(That is the benevolent view - the alternative is a genuine asset stripping strategy, which may be the case for all I know)

So, they ignore agreements, bully their staff and at the same time mismanage the Company into a more parlous state than MyTravel.
As part of this, their people skills are such that they manage to offend most their staff - well, I mean, how can you have any feeling for individuals who continuously mislead you, lie to you and as a spinoff significantly and needlessly lower the quality of your life. On top of that, the feeling of insecurity brought about by nearly three years of this tends to personalise things a bit.

So, to conclude, while it's quite fun that the BACX senior management are pretty obnoxious and nauseating individuals, the gripe is with their actions thus far, and the fear of what they will do next if left unchallenged. They are simply neither trusted or trustworthy, THAT IS THE TRUTH OF IT.

18th Feb 2004, 16:54
Well, I'm glad I left last May. Frankly, I saw base closures etc coming and anybody who didn't by the beginning of 2003 had their heads firmly in the sand~sorry guys, but that's the way it was, writing on the wall and all that.
'De management' made plenty of man-management mistakes, and from the posts continued to make them, however......exactly how much independant room for manoeuvre do you think they were allowed by BA? OK, OK, it's not all BA's fault, but the situation was not quite as simple as 'those nasty BA parachutists furthering their own subsequent careers'.
There were many inherited problems from BRAL/Manx & Brymon, and possibly the merger should never have happened. BA never have and never will understand regional operations. What's more, they most probably don't actually want them either.
But of course, that's all history, guys. You are where you are and unless the parent company wants you to succeed then you never will.
Good luck with whatever you vote to do, but don't confuse dislike of certain personalities with a viable plan of action. Frankly, if there was going to be a way in BA 'proper' then I think demographic pressure would have made it happen by now. I occupied a very lowly management position before I left and believe it or not TDLF et al actually did want the company to succeed and would have been happy if 'the shopfloor' was happy. If there is a vote for industrial action, one thing to consider is that you might actually be playing into the hands of people who might be more than happy to close BACX down. The company in any case is destined to be a full(ish) service regional airline competing against the low-cost guys. You'll have your own personal opinions as to whether or not that business model can succeed.

18th Feb 2004, 20:58
fudbelieve it or not TDLF et al actually did want the company to succeed and would have been happy if 'the shopfloor' was happy. I don't doubt that is true and it indicates the severity of the problem. They might want staff to be happy but do not appear to have the ability to make them happy. Reading all of this (and other threads) it seems that the mgmt also do not know how to admit that the staff are not happy.

However, since they are judged soley on how many pax fly in the year and how much money is made from them, that is no surprise. These days, every manager is judged on this. When things go wrong [strike/fewer customers], SOPSs tell us that the person will be thanked for doing a good job and moved out of the way for someone else. Fixing the problem they created, or repaing the downside is not what modern mgmt is about, in any line of business not just airlines.

20th Feb 2004, 04:44
Just keeping this thread in view :O

20th Feb 2004, 22:21
Well today is the closing day for the ballot. Rumours of a resounding yes vote!:ok:

20th Feb 2004, 23:49
Looking forward to some common sense being displayed by all sides, but most specifically where it has been lacking, ie with our management.

(Hmmm, "our" and "management" may well be an oxymoron.)

However, I shall not be holding my breath - I can already hear the arguments about non-BALPA members, about the lack of 100% solidarity, or 90% or whatever takes their fancy.

Can't wait to fly with my Fleet Manager and be amused by all the crap rhetoric again. :8

21st Feb 2004, 00:41
Sorry to see young Tim get this bad press - when we used to fly together about 15 yrs ago he was a great guy - with a fantastic collection of the best jokes I ever heard. Blokes dont change that much so what's happened?
I hope that you chaps get what you want & a ballot is a good place to start. This can focus the attention of management.
Please don't get personal though, remember, it's managements job to keep costs to an absolute minimum - if you have to be shafted on the way so be it. It's Balpa's job to get all of you pulling together to stop them - and then get stuck in with a good claim to improve your lot. If management lose their bonuses / jobs because of this then so be it, they shouldn't take it personally either. So good luck to you all.
I haven't read all the contributions to this thread but is it so that mainline guys can fly your a/c but you are not on their seniority list? If so it seems a bit odd - why did your cc allow this one through?

21st Feb 2004, 00:59
CC were given an impossible choice, to let some of our guys onto the BA seniority list, or none at all. All water under the bridge, but they picked none if they could not get all. Easy to be critical with hindsight. Personally, I think it would have been a foot in the door, and that by now we could have negotiated everyone on.
HOWEVER - how could the CC ever have justified it at the time to the the 75% who were not deemed suitable? Anyway, all done and dusted now.

Most interested by your comments on our Glorious Leader. Tell me, was he in management at that time? On occasion, promotion to the 'brass hattery' does invoke a change of views and perspective you know, on occasion including, greed, venery, selfishness and loss of familiarity with the real world of line flying compared to reading the Bean Counters' statistics.
Not forgetting having to toe the correct political line handed down from one's bosses.

21st Feb 2004, 10:19
Well i have read the links to BACX strike ballot and firstly i do agree with the principle, something needs to be done to make people listen. I fully agree with that.
Now in a different time i would not be writing this email
but it is not and so i continue.
I guess that one could say that the employees at bacx are between a rock and a hard plate, but one thing is for sure, and that is, if the yes vote is actioned or pushed to the 11th hour limits, we will all be serving burgers and chips with heavy loans and debts to deal with. This company is far too fragile to be taking this course of action even if it is required. I believe that
we could self distruct if we continue down this road with
unpleasant consequences.

I am sure i will be shot down with plenty of reasons why we should strike but i can only think of one reason why we should not
and that is to loose it all. If you have ever been made redundant you will know that when you wake up the next day you will recall that it wasn't that bad and wish you were back at work.
What i am saying is don't strike now but take a reality check instead, call me yellow belly but i have worked too hard and have seen a few companies go to the wall to want a repeat.
If BACX does fold it will be a disaster for us and the industry including those guys that are still requesting a touch and go at that small field. It's not that bad!!!

P.S. i am not management

21st Feb 2004, 15:03
Yes interesting comment indeed about our man. I can quite believe that as a bloke he is a good chap to have a beer with.

So that raises the question as to what it is about the system which promotes a decent enough bloke into an office that turns him into the man we have had described here.

There are a number of possible explanations:

The corruption of power.

He is just not up to the job but his superiors are equally incompetent and will not remove him.

The idiotic assumption by our industry that managers have to be taken from the pilot ranks. Why should a good pilot make a good manager?

The BA system appears riddled with the Old Boy network (read Barabara Cassani's book?). This throws up unsuitable guys who are considered "the right stuff" because their face fits.

These guys seem to have received no formal training whatsoever and have honed their skills by emulating their superiors who had the same vices. In CX we now have another disaster in waiting as the GMFO in waiting is another such example. A decent enough bloke but a pilot first and foremost, no formal management training or qualification and skills honed at the knee of a tyrant who makes the present office holders look like pussy cats.

Considering the budget for which these guys are responsible it is mind boggling that we have such ineptitude/inexperience at the controls...........

21st Feb 2004, 18:07
TinyTim: seems to be the case throughout the industry. Compare and contrast with the world of air traffic control, where managers are drawn from the ranks of controllers, and are either those 'whose face fits' or those who simply cannot 'cut the mustard,' and Bullshot, although I do not know the person in question, they DO appear to undergo a character transformation the minute they are given a little power.

Usually very small minds and often very limited experience of the world outside their own little corner of the dunghill!

I am very interested to hear the outcome of the ballot, but I cannot help wondering if the support that is expected from the BA pilot community, would have been forthcoming from the CX pilot community for their own Ops staff if they had decided to ballot? They are in the process of being shafted with the move to Birmingham.

21st Feb 2004, 19:26
70% of BALPA membership returned the ballot form. (Apparently in these sort of ballots it's unusual to get that many forms back).

69% of those voted YES
31% voted NO

Balpa has 77% membership within the company. Would be interesting to know what percentage of the non-balpa members feel the same way.

22nd Feb 2004, 19:54
You have got to be joking.

If non members want to take all the disruption payments etc. that BALPA worked so hard for that is one thing. That I should see my subscription increase because these parasites want me to also pay for the postage and stationary cost of distributing thousands of news letters each year is quite another.

Outbacker - two years ago you may have been right but the industry and our company is now in a much better position.There is rarely a good time to strike;now would be as good as most.That said after much consideration I voted NO ; not because I was worried by the managements "end of the world" rhetoric (which is taught in most decent management schools). I read Tims letter ,went to his roadshow and decided to give him the benefit of the doubt one last time. If we do not get a cost of living increase then I will hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.

22nd Feb 2004, 21:31
Seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this vote.
i.e. do you support the BACX CC
The title was NOT "STRIKE BALLOT"

Quite simple really if you bothered to read the attached newsletter. For those who did not, a couple of quotes:

"It annexes a consultative questionnaire which is an important step towards a possible Industrial action ballot. We ask that you return it and indicate support for your colleagues on the Company Council who have been working tirelessly, in an effort to resolve these issues to no avail." and

"The attached Consultative Ballot is not a mandate for Industrial action. It is however a step in the process."

False Capture
23rd Feb 2004, 01:02
70% of BALPA members returned their ballots.
69% of those returned votes were YES votes.
Therefore, only 48% of BALPA members voted YES:ouch:

Arelix as you say this was a Consultative Ballot ie. do members support the BACX CC? With only 48% of BALPA members voting YES it sounds like the CC has lost a vote of confidence.

23rd Feb 2004, 02:42
False Capture - I voted no (and I am well aware of what I was voting for) but I do have confidence in the BACX CC.

My no vote was because I decided to give TDLF one last chance to come good.

I speak to the guys who voted yes day in day out...be in no doubt that this was not just to give management a bloody nose;a lot of these guys are sick of the way the company is being run and do actually want to start a co-ordinated series of one day strikes. Let us hope it does not come to that.

23rd Feb 2004, 05:01
"I speak to the guys who voted yes day in day out...be in no doubt that this was not just to give management a bloody nose;a lot of these guys are sick of the way the company is being run and do actually want to start a co-ordinated series of one day strikes. Let us hope it does not come to that."

Let us hope so indeed, since only one third of the BACX pilot workforce seem to want it! (Though I agree, one third is a very significant, if vocal, minority!)

Filtonman, I suspect, if more people had gone along to the roadshows, they may also have been persuaded that the GMFO is not quite the personification of evil incompetence, the CC may have them believe!

Anyway, there it is. All done and dusted. Perhaps grown up discussions can now resume?

I did say, perhaps!

23rd Feb 2004, 16:34
False Capture....conversely less than 22% voted NO, however you cut the cake in ballot terms it was a resounding YES, it would be naive to suggest otherwise.

23rd Feb 2004, 22:20

Not sure where you are based, but there was a copy of the 8 page newsletter on the BHX crewroom wall, and one or two floating round the crewroom desks.:ok:

False Capture
24th Feb 2004, 09:18

"conversely less than 22% voted NO, however you cut the cake in ballot terms it was a resounding YES, it would be naive to suggest otherwise."

I'm not being naive and I am suggesting otherwise.
48% voted YES
52% either voted NO or couldn't care less

I bet TDLF isn't too upset with the result, his post on the BACX Intercom seemed to be fairly up-beat. At the end of the day the ballot has demonstrated the BACX CC's inexperience in conducting itself (through normal discussions and through ballots). I sympathise with BACX pilots. To this end, as Tandemrotor said there is a danger with crying "WOLF". After the first cry surely there should have been more support than 48% of BALPA members. How much support will your CC have next time it cries 'WOLF'?:uhoh:

24th Feb 2004, 20:59
Oh dear :rolleyes:

Actually 48% voted YES
22% voted NO
The rest couldn't care less or chose not to vote

24th Feb 2004, 22:39
Tandem Rotor

What exactly is your connection to BACX as you are very dismissive of the Balpa members concerns?

25th Feb 2004, 01:43
Tandemrotor is one of our 60 odd cousins on the RJ at BHX......

25th Feb 2004, 02:37
Perhaps Tandemrotor's 'Nome de plume' should be 'I'm alright Jack' :yuk:

25th Feb 2004, 02:54
Tandem Rotor and False Capture, you can play with percentages and figures till the cows come home, for example, one could argue that more than 62% of the ENTIRE pilot workforce were either prepared to support the action of the BACX CC or let it go unopposed . This figure would have been higher had the 21% of the BACX pilots who are non BALPA members been eligible to vote.

Whatever your take on it, and which way you want to spin it, the vote has highlighted that for the first time in the history of BACX or in either of the founding companies ( MANX/BRAL and BRYMON ), that moderates have been driven towards militancy to such an extent that they have been prepared to stand up and say enough is enough. It would be foolishness of the highest order to interpret the result in any other way.

The problems need to be accepted as real. Like a recovering alcoholic, the end of denial is the first stage of recovery.

Finally, I really hope that both of you are not involved in the Management side of our Company, because if you are, we’re not going to get anywhere.


25th Feb 2004, 03:07
Dunno if this will work, but I researched a thread from a couple of years ago. It discusses among other things Tim's management style, and how he and his 'team' (hysterical laughter) are really regarded.

Yog-SothothGuest posted 30th May 2001 18:35 Captain Tim - To Hell with Him. Captain Timbo has started as he means to go on. Less than a month into CitiExpress, he has unilaterally ignored/torn up the Pilot Policy Document, and the Seniority List.Our ex-BRAL colleagues should be aware they need to get their act together quickly. Tim has decided he can promote who he likes if it suits him; he has just initiated this policy on an F.O. promoting him to Captain to reward him for his obsequiousness, and to make the F.O.'s new management position more credible. I just hope someone, somewhere, sometime in our BALPA organisation is watching. He couldn't get away with this in BA; he couldn't have got away with it in Brymon before we amalgamated, and I don't see why or how he should be allowed to get away with it now.Does anyone agree??------------------Tekeli Li, Tekeli Li.Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

Judas PriestGuest posted 30th May 2001 19:28 Yog,I sympathise with you if this is true. It's happened in BRAL before. The FCM at Manchester, who has quite a little empire built up for himself, is the Chief Pilot's brother in law. Don't get me wrong, he's a good pilot and he deserved his command when it came up, but then he got a training position over very many more experienced and very much more capable Captains, and far to quickly after getting his command. He's not been taken seriously since. Especially since his "trouble".But worry ye not. Their days of plenty draw to a close...------------------Each bad day is one day closer to a good dayReport this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

BillabongGuest posted 31st May 2001 04:34 Mudflap has censored this original posting of mine. I shall rephrase accordingly.However, for future reference, Mudflap, you creep, bear these points in mind.Before you go editing my postings Mudflap old bean, I suggest :1. You fly with the guy yourself. I only comment on what I've seen. I've flown with him. Have you?2. Read the Company report on this incident. You will note it confirms there was nothing found wrong with the aeroplane.3. Speak to the F.O with him when he had his 'trouble'. I have. Have you?And before we go any further, come clean. If you're going to moderate this forum, then tell us what management position you hold yourself.Just treat this like any other chop ride.......[This message has been edited by Mudflap (edited 31 May 2001).][This message has been edited by Billabong (edited 31 May 2001).]Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

Arty Fishul-RisonGuest posted 31st May 2001 07:31 Who is this new bloke then, and when are our own BALPA guys due to be elected? Surely ALL the BALPA reps should be able to do something about this. It'd never happen in Airtours, I can assure you of that!Less than a year and counting, yippee!!!!!------------------There's only two things smell like fish - and one of them's fish!!Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

Al T MeterGuest posted 31st May 2001 08:20 Don't despair Yog-Sothoth this type of thing is not unusual in aviation, well at least not in the 35 years I have seen. Ability, experience and the keenness to progress within the company count for little. Of course there have been the odd exceptions such as 'our Nigel.' In BRAL we had a Bid form that we could note our interest in various position. Invariable when a vacancy did occur the person who got the job was not on the list.No, if you want to get on in this company you will probably need to be related to those with power, have a funny handshake or a large tongue. An interesting point, a large tongue is a feature of Down's syndrome, cretinism and acromegaly. Final point. Why are there so few women at the top of our management structure?Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

JackdawGuest posted 31st May 2001 08:38 For Billabong: Mudflap keeps himself as close to management as you can get without actually being there. His tongue is huge for licking a**e. He is probably a bit peeved at the moment that he failed to get either training job on offer. There is justice.Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

MaxReheatGuest posted 31st May 2001 10:31 Thread has gone off topic in a way, but don't they all. So, not for the first time, Mudflap jumps in with both feet but just who is he? There was a request a few weeks ago for him to 'out' himself which he refused, a disappointing decision as his predecessor was known to us all. It would appear that some/many of you out there are pretty sure of his identity so are you prepared to tell the rest of us? Or, come on Mudflap, what have you got to lose?As far as the 'top of the thread' story is concerned, would Yog like to expand on the details of this apparent 'out of sequence' promotion? Please don't think BRAL is pure in this department; face, handshake, patronage, family, non-advertised/competeted appointments have been all too prominent keys to career success with us. It would be good to think that all that was going out the window in the new organisation - but apparently not.-----------------------Apres moi le deluge!Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

Yog-SothothGuest posted 31st May 2001 13:58 Just back at work after a couple of days off - the world is a happy place again. It would seem one of our men with a legal background has grasped the nettle. Tim had a writ delivered to him, and the chump has backed off.It is great to see the BALPA organisation delivering; if this had gone through, then a very dangerous precedent would have been set. Tim has certainly got the authority to promote whoever he thinks fit into whatever Management jobs he wants - but he can't abrogate the Pilot Policy agreement and award Command status out of turn, not unless he wants to see legal and maybe industrial action taken.I only hope our BRAL colleagues take note of this, because it demonstrates very clearly what sort of man Tim really is. Don't be fooled by the laid back "I'm your mate, we're all on the same side" claptrap. His brief is to raise productivity and profits. That is the criteria he will be judged by. It is not likely to be synonymous with improving - or even maintaining our quality of life and remuneration.On this occasion, thankfully, I understand he has been stopped, albeit at the eleventh hour. Get the BRAL side of BALPA sorted out soon colleagues, you'll be next!------------------Tekeli Li, Tekeli Li.Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

First Officer HorrendousGuest posted 31st May 2001 14:54 Glad to hear all has been resolved satisfactorily, and in this case I agree with the outcome - so far !I don't really see what place these highly personalised attacks on the moderator, or the Flight Crew Manager at Manchester have though, apart from dragging us all into the gutter.Give us a break chaps, and give Mudflap one too, it ain't an easy job.------------------Yours,HORRY.Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

The Airy FairyGuest posted 31st May 2001 16:56 If our new Management was trying to pull a fast one by promoting one of their own, then thank goodness for BALPA. It's bad enough coping with our own Management (assuming they aren't all shortly looking for new jobs, lol,) without worrying that what passes for a Seniority List is going to be made a laughing stock. BALPA could just be the wake-up call this Company has needed. Thank you very much all you exBrymon guys, for showing us the way.As for getting personal, well, remember that this is an anonymous forum specifically so people can unload. It's foolish to imagine half of us would ever publicly say things we expound upon on the pprune - but in itself thats a good pressure relief valve. As for people getting hurt, well, its a bit like adult tv after 2100 isn't it. If you don't want to watch it or read it, then don't switch it on!!! As to specific incidents, I couldn't comment without seeing Billabong's original post..............but lets face it, there's nothing I've seen on here that hasn't been discussed a dozen times on half a hundred Flight Decks. We all know what happened, so does Carl (Tee Hee Hee). It's just life that if you acquiesce in being nepotised, (let alone actively seek that preferment) then you can expect to take some heat. Mudflap, you impute that Carl is not big enough to sort this out himself, don't be such a nanny!!!!!!PURELY personal attack is different, and should be banned.Cheers Muddy, have one for me next time you're drinking with your mates at the Whitestone.------------------Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

tcpGuest posted 31st May 2001 17:22 quote: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Give us a break chaps, and give Mudflap one too, it ain't an easy job.</font> You will get less respect the longer you take to come out MF. Am I perhaps reading too much into that sentence or is F/O H also Mudflap? Tell us F/O H, do please tell us! Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

buttonpusherGuest posted 31st May 2001 17:51 i would like to point out that to make the world a 'happier place' again involved a very nasty, vitriolic attack on the F/O concerned. Tim is a legitimate target but stooping to graffitti on the crew room wall is another thing altogether.Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

MudflapGuest posted 1st June 2001 04:26 POST BY FLYCATCHER"a very nasty, vitriolic attack on the F/O concerned"dream on pal. promotion criteria are clearly published and the fact the writ stopped it shows who was right and who was wrong. Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged Posts: N/A | From: | Registered: Not Yet | IP: Logged

So, you get the drift. Leopards and spots.

25th Feb 2004, 06:22
Do I REALLY have to keep referring you guys back to my previous posts on this thread for you to 'get' the context of my remarks?

Try page 2 for example!!

Wow, wait 'til I tell my mother I have 500 cousins!!!

28th Feb 2004, 03:45
The long summer of discontent is warming up nicely.

Countless pilots are already being asked to work days off during leave periods.

Sectors are being cancelled.

Morale is rock bottom.

Crewing has moved to BHX and is out of control.

Where will it all end?

28th Feb 2004, 05:58
Since you give no clues in your profile, and this is only your third post, could you give us a clue as to where exactly morale is 'rock bottom,'

"Countless pilots are being 'asked' to work days off during their leave" (I guess that's overtime?)

And where would you LIKE it to end?

Amazon man
28th Feb 2004, 17:33

With all due respect what a load of B------t so some pilots are being asked to work days off so what, I think they will be very pleased with the extra money in their pay packets. Its well documented that at the moment there are not enough pilots on the right fleets, this is being addressed you can't carry out a conversion course in five minutes.

Moral well it has been pretty low but tell me what airlines are not suffering moral problems at the moment. Forward bookings are actually looking very good and there is every reason to be a little bit more positive about the future.

Summer of discontent I don't think so, BALPA and the company are talking like adults again and there is a fair to good chance that some positive moves will come out of these talks.

Crewing has moved to BHX and is out of control, well have you bothered to visit BHX and speak to the people in the department you mention, its most certainly not out of control, teething problems no doubt but transferring a whole department in weekend and making it work straight away was a big task and in the main it has worked very well, yes there are issues to still be resolved but overall its starting to shape up.

Word of advice (if you do indeed work for the company) from somebody who has in all likelyhood been here a lot longer than you and seen all these ups and downs before. The company does not owe you a living, you will have to get used to the idea that a full weeks work isn't two days of flying and the rest on standby, stop talking the company down try talking it up and if you don't enjoy the fact that you come to work in a unique enviroment that many others would give their right arm for then give it all up and go and work in an office, you might find that suits you better.

Otherwise stop talking out of your bottom and start contributing something positive that will help turn this very viable company around.

And before you ask no I am not management and never likely to be so.

False Capture
28th Feb 2004, 18:38
The bottom line of Condor's post says:

From: who knows or cares?

Excellent, that sums it up perfectly!

28th Feb 2004, 19:04
Hate to be pedantic, but what is all this crap about a "moral airline"? Is that like an ethical foreign policy???



LOSE, not LOOSE!!!!!

I always thought there was some sort of minimum education standard for pilots (managers I except from that statement!).:confused:

29th Feb 2004, 01:10
More to the point, does anyone know what happens now? :O

29th Feb 2004, 05:41
I think part of the answer to your question will be found in the next business plan. The regional management will be under intense pressure to cut costs and return a profit. How they seek to do this will no doubt be at your expense.

Putting aside personal attacks I would point out again that the management dumped on the Jetstream Fleet and a number of pilots either lost their jobs or their seats. This was justified I suspect because either the fleet or the bases were not making money.

I would be extremely wary of BA managers and their figures. They are so easily manipulated by the various ways in which costs are applied as to be almost worthless.

I can however point out that according to the last full year results BA set aside £27 Million against onerous lease conditions on the Jetstreams that went to Eastern.

How can it make sense to slash a fleet and then subsidise another carrier to operate it? Had BA offered the £27 Million to Citiexpress might it not have helped to improve marketing and ultimately sales to the point where the Jetstreams earned their keep?

I continue to doubt the management abilities of your current team. I also believe there are other agendas at work here and you should all be on your guard.
Regards BP

1st Mar 2004, 15:40
P.V. I think what happens now is quite clear.

However anyone wants to portray the figures a significant number of "moderate" line pilots have said very clearly that they support their CC.

Democracy is such that few (if any?) governements in modern history have ever been elected with more than 50% support from their electorate. There is a strong message for CX management and more importantly their BA bosses and they ignore it at their peril.

CX mangement have committed to deal properly with the issues of pay, Reduction in operation (with incentives for early retirement ) and access to BA.

There is a time scale to each of these issues and if they either fail to deliver on promise or delay then I understand that there will be a full ballot for targetted Industrial action.

1st Mar 2004, 17:37

You are of course correct to say that, some of those people who voted yes, were voting to support their CC. I think it also fair to say that morale is not, as was described earlier, "at rock bottom."

Let's not get into why so many people were unable to support the CC's call for support.

Let us all hope that all CX pilots receive a fair and equitable pay rise (recognising the sacrifices many have made over recent years)

It is also perfectly reasonable for the schedules dealing with base closures and pilot displacement, to be handled in the best interests of those most affected.

The only issue that may be tricky to deal with, is the one of access to mainline. I still do not see (as I believe I said earlier in the thread) how BACX management, CC, or it's pilots, can change whatever BA decide is THEIR selection criteria? Though I STRONGLY suspect the threat of industrial action CERTAINLY will not achieve it!

You mentioned a timescale. What if BA don't recruit this year?

If a full on merger was being proposed, as with CFE, then fair enough, the issue of 'selection' simply would not occur. All CX pilots would join the master seniority list, and free movement would be available for ALL pilots, TO, as well as from, the regions. This of course would be strongly resisted by management (both BA and CX) since it would, at a stroke, destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!

Finally, I would suggest that, employment by mainline would be fairly unattractive for a very significant proportion of CX pilots. For a start, anyone older than their early forties, would be unlikely to see a command of ANY description before retirement, which currently (unlike CX) would be at 55, and no longer on a final salary basis! Any legislative change in retirement age (2006?) will simply result in a total freeze on career progression for 5 years!

Meaning no command opportunities for anything up to 15 years!

Those hoping for a longhaul command would need to join before they were 35!

I wouldn't imagine any captain in BACX would be too happy with the thought of a pay cut, (FO PP1!) and 9-10 years back in the RHS!

Also, how many people living in the North of England, Scotland, etc would be happy to relocate to 60 minutes drive from London?

And if you think the idea of shorthaul out of LHR sounds fun, think again! Why do you think secondment to CX was so popular??

So there it is, copilots relatively new to BACX, under the age of 35, who can live in the South of England on a relatively low wage, who aren't phazed by the idea of 9-10 years in the RHS, operating out of LHR, should do well!

Oh, and I didn't mention the joy of life at the bottom of a bidline fleet!

Only playing devil's advocate you understand!

Given the number of CX pilots this career path is likely to appeal to, I think you may be tempted to agree that the BACX CC's rejection, some while ago, of limited access to BA, may in hindsight, have been something of a misjudgement?

Which brings us, I suppose, back to the 'vote of confidence.'

2nd Mar 2004, 01:11
I agree with all you say, even the rejection of the proposed limited seniority list merger - although BALPA / Management business is, as you know politics. Politics is the art of the possible, and any CC would find it difficult getting support for a measure which disadvantaged 75% of it's members!

Further, while being happy to use the CFE merger as an example, you conveniently omit the facts. As presumably you know VERY WELL, CFE captains retained grandfather rights on the RJ, and onto similiar sized aircraft at the relevant base (LGW). Granted there was a job for job adjustment factored in there, but by and large all Jet captains retained a command, and received a payrise. They did not become PP1 FOs, which is your somewhat slanted description of what would hapeen to BACX.

I have doubts about your supposed non-management status. Using a small amount of truth to obscure a "BIG LIE" is a well known BA management technique.:*

Da Dog
2nd Mar 2004, 02:01
pompuspilot you are wrong when you say" by in large all jet captains retained a command." Rough figures were 52 Captains from 110 on the RJ fleet a few of which decided against exercise their right to "grandfather" rights, only 1 Captain I belive from the ATR made it across.

These figures I think are accurate to within +/-2.

2nd Mar 2004, 04:46

I did not intend to imply that, in a merger, any BACX captains would do anything other than retain their seats, on any similar sized aircraft based in the regions, paid as PP1 captains (unsure as to whether £54K ,minus London weighting, would be a payrise?) I apologise if I misled.

Absolutely right it should happen that way. (Though I think the non 'GF' CFE skippers may have done rather better than their 'protected' colleagues!! - Paid as skippers in the RHS of a 400 would probably put a smile on most faces!!)

I believe a merger, however limited, could work well for both pilot groups.

This is the discussion the BACX CC should be engaged in! I feel certain BA BALPA would support it, though management would require some SERIOUS persuasion. With the greatest of respect, BA BALPA appear to share a very pragmatic view with big BA management.

However, as I understand it, that is not what the CC are seeking. They are simply trying to ease the selection process, with I agree, a little justification.

However, and please correct me if I misunderstand, once a job is accepted into mainline, under some 'enhanced' scheme, any applicant would be slotted in at the bottom of the seniority list, paid as a PP1 FO, along with anyone else joining at that time. ALL should expect to be RHS for a minimum of 9-10 years! (Perhaps 14-15 years if the retirement age is raised!)

For that reason alone, I suspect the idea of a job in mainline may not appeal to too many BACX pilots!

Hang on, I've just had a thought!

Pontius Pilot

Were you meaning to imply that BACX skippers could join mainline, but remain in the regions as mainline secondees?

Wow, that went right over my head!!

2nd Mar 2004, 17:34
Da Dog - fine, but the skippers who went to the RHS were not taking a paycut. As TR pointed out, in many respects they too got a good deal financially.

TandemR. Thanks, yes, that is exactly what I mean. There is not the job for job adjustment like LGW since the type is not (yet) being replaced. It may well be there would be some who might see a bid onto larger metal being attractive; however most of us are where we are because that is where we want be - just like mainline secondees. So, why should we be treated any differently. Again, you're right that as far as I know, the current plan is to persuade Waterside to ease the entry requirements to mainline to soak up the current surplus. Ref BACC, all the aims and objectives for both CCs are not identical, so its difficult - I imagine - for our CC to plan effectively with both management and BACC.
What really causes the headaches however is our (mainline) management's continued insistence on moving not just the goalposts, but the entire playing field again and again and again.
We do not believe there IS any plan, objective, goal (ha ha), call it what you will. Hence our dunderheads live in a world of crisis management (actually, the crisis IS their management!) where sweeping major changes occur every other week. The CC is flat out just trying to remind them of last weeks/months/quarters/years commitments which they change like a cardsharp at their own whim in direct contradiction to previous formal SIGNED arrangements. This wastes so much time dragging out signed documents and previous agreements etc that the world has changed yet again by the time they have to backpedal. If there were any genuine attempt to show leadership, or an objective that lasted longer than a week or so - they would probably have us all onside. Sadly, they resemble a bunch of monkeys, dancing to an organ-grinder who actually wants nothing more than his own safe passage to his next management sinecure.

By the way, even a PP1 jet command pay grade coupled with mainline allowances would indeed represent a significant pay rise for all but our most senior guys - who would naturally enough be pay frozen. Retirement age may be an issue, but I suspect the organ grinders in Brussels will soon be having an effect on THAT!:oh:

2nd Mar 2004, 21:48
"destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!"

Would TR or anyone care to remind of what that reason was? Do you feel that CX has actually delivered on its promises TR? I would suggest that the incompetence of CX management has done the most damage to the business.

As for the fair and equitable pay deal may I suggest another approach. We appear to have two sets of flight crew performing the same tasks for vastly different pay and allowances yet both are ultimately employed by BA. In my opinion you are being discriminated against by your employer.

Why don't you approach BALPA and ask the union to provide legal resources in order to obtain an opinion on this? If there is a view that according to employment law you are being discriminated against then you could obtain compensation through legal action. Even the threat of it might change attitudes.

BA has a duty to act within the law and employment law has changed a great deal over recent years. Regardless of whether TDLF or any of the managers claim it is BALPA's fault they are still liable as employers.

It is ironic however that the union does seem to have made matters worse by allowing a system of pay and rewards to be introduced that set one group of members against another.

Anyway it is worth a go and it will not cost you anything so get on to the CC and ask them to obtain an opinion from an expert asap.
Regards BP

2nd Mar 2004, 22:55
That seems to be a bloody good idea BP.

I hope our CC are reading this. For sure, the threat of legal action would be interesting to watch, because currently, even the threat of the threat of Industrial Action has had our management (ha ha) running round in circles and giving some ground on points where we initially told there was zero room for negotiation!

Power to the pilots!

Da Dog
2nd Mar 2004, 23:17

There are various sets of terms and conditions because at the moment BA can and do pay different rates for the same job across the whole of BA and are doing nothing wrong in this.

Look at CFE post 1999 when it was wholly owned by BA, their pilots were doing the same job as a 737-500 driver at BA EOG yet the pay was different.

Look at all the people who work at LGW, they do the same job as their counterparts at LHR but for less money and worse T&C.

Look at the Cabin Crew pre and post 1997 yep same job different pay.

For the time being CX CC would be pi$$ing money against the wall consulting with a barrister on this topic.

3rd Mar 2004, 02:26
Da Dog and others were you comparing like with like at CFE and EOG?

At CX you have two groups of pilots flying the same type of aircraft on the same routes with a common employer, BA. but very different rates of pay. I would suggest this is discrimination.

I am somewhat bemused that as a member of BALPA (?) you don't feel that the association owes you something for your monthly contribution.

Taking advice would not cost BALPA much and it can afford it and it owes you all something.

Lastly a successful Tribunal (which does not require a barrister unlike say the high court) can award back pay. In short legal action although more time consuming and less macho than a strike may be far more effective.

Regards BP ;)

Da Dog
3rd Mar 2004, 02:59
I wish you well........... I don't however expect BALPA to waste their time and my money on a fruitless task, the CAB would tell you your wasting your time, but I don't expect you to belive me.

Pre pay deal the company wanted 737 rated pilots(earning more cash and with better T&C) based at LHR to work albeit on a temporary basis at LGW, the only thing that stopped the company was BALPA intervention, after various discussions it came to light that what your alluding to is perfectly just.

If you do not like my CFE V EOG example, then I draw your attention to the various cabin crew pay scales at LHR where a junior on the new contract will earn £6800 less than a junior on the old contract same job ,same base ,same $hit different pay.

3rd Mar 2004, 03:56

Don't know what your motivation is (yet again!), but you're talking utter garbage mate!

Short haul at LHR not suiting you?

3rd Mar 2004, 04:00
Well has anyone recently challenged BA on this issue from either the cabin crew or flight crew?

Have a look at article 141 (European Court of Justice) or the Equal Pay Act 1970 and other recent cases Equal Opportunities Commission etc.

Neither BALPA or the cabin crew unions might be keen to pursue this because so many of their more long serving members benefit from the existing pay structures.

I would repeat that it is at least worth getting an opinion on this issue however unlikely some might feel it to be.

Regards BP

TR you are entitled to your opinion however rudely you choose to express it but I belive my posts are reasonable and considered.

I have been in BA 7 years served in the regions twice and was directed out twice. My motives remain to see a healthy regional service run in a fair and equitably manner by BA. For that reason I choose not to exercise my "grandfather rights" and stay because in my view the deal was quite unfair to others and would make for enormous difficulties in running the operation.

The fact that BALPA played its part in setting up the arrangement does'nt make it right. Their record on treating people from outside BA has not always been a very happy one (Dan Air etc)

Now can you answer perhaps my questions from the previous posts and state you own motives?

Lastly, I prefer to see every avenue explored before industrial action is taken and I believe my suggestion is worth at least a phone call to BALPA.

Regards BP

3rd Mar 2004, 06:36

"destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!"

BA has now achieved a 'low wage' work force in the regions, flying the same operation as it's mainline (high wage?) crews were 2 years ago.

Presumably you would agree, that was the Group's entire motivation?

Never mind that BAR was making a profit, and BACX, currently at least, is not!

Management is therefore likely to fight tooth and nail, to prevent any merging of seniority/T&Cs etc, since that would....

"destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!"


I should say that I am deeply impressed by your altruism...

"For that reason I choose (chose?) not to exercise my "grandfather rights" and stay because in my view the deal was quite unfair to others and would make for enormous difficulties in running the operation."

You say you have been 'directed' out of the regions twice in the last 7 years! Whilst technically feasible, you did of course, on BOTH occasions have the option to stay!

Sorry all, if I have strayed too far from the thread, which is of course BACX, but BP seemed to want an answer!

3rd Mar 2004, 14:13
Bigpants, I for one agree with your thinking. It is morally wrong to pay different pay to different groups of people doing the same job.
However you assume that BALPA has morals and that big companies also have them. BALPA is according to themselves is a Democratic organisation, where the majority win.
The majority of BA Balpa members work out of LHR, therefore BALPAs inerest lies there. They will sell anyone or any group down the swanee to protect those people and their jobs and salaries. Remember 1% of 100 is more than 1% of 10 to BALPA.
Lastly you cannot blame BA for exploiting this issue they are after all just doing their job for the shareholders by maximising any opportunity given to them. BALPA have unfortunately given them this divide and conquer on a plate.
Still if people feel strongly enough about it they can always vote with their feet. there is another Union called the IPA who don't charge a % and offer similar protective service.
Maybe however people prefer to continue to throw good money after bad. Multiply your 1% over a career its an awful lot of money.

3rd Mar 2004, 16:12
TR thank you for the reply. As I am sure you are aware there were a number of times last year when as a result of poor rosters and other management mistakes a number of seconded mainline Captains grossed in excess of £10,000 in one month.

Quite how this fits into the low wage regime that you speak of I don't know but it does at least partly explain why CX is not making money.

When I was directed from the 75/76 at MAN in 1997 I was not offered the chance to stay either by the union or the management.

Regards BP

This may be of some help to those of you at CX who wish to improve pay and conditions without going on strike. I apolgise that it is a bit lengthy.

BA Standing Instructions Number 15 Subsidiary Companies

"Unless clearly inappropriate, subsidiary companies will follow British Airways Standing Instructions whether or not they contain specific references to a subsidary company or to subsidary companies in general"

BA Standing Instructions Number 6 Code of Business Conduct

sub topic People Relationships

"We will Treat our employees fairly, respecting their individual and collective rights"

"Promote equality of opportunity and encourage diversity in our workforce"

Employment Guide

"It is British Airways policy to promote equality of opportunity in employment regardless of sex etc etc This will apply to the recruitment and selection of work to employees in all parts of British Airways and at all levels"

My point being you need a test case to prove discrimination. If you have a female pilot at CX doing the same work as a male secondee from mainline then I believe she would have a claim against BA. If the claim succeeds then you all are in line for improved pay and conditions.

The procedure for doing this can be found at the Equal Opportunites Commission website. It consists of a very straightforward questionnaire that is partly filled out by the complainent and then sent to CX.

For those of you who think this hogwash I would like to quote from the BA intranet "Policies and Legislation"

Equal Pay Act (1970)

"The equal pay task force has recently recommended that the existing legislation on equal pay be amended to make it easier to use.

An equal pay questionnaire was intorduced in April/May 2003 with formal time limits for the employer to respond.

Revised codes of practice on Equal Pay came into effect on 01 December 03.

If any manager receives one of these questionnaires, they should forward them to the legal Department as soon as possible."

Legislation also provide a very robust defense for females who are bullied or intimidated as a result of submitting such a questionnaire.

Regards BP

3rd Mar 2004, 18:55

We really should stop this! However:

"As I am sure you are aware there were a number of times last year when as a result of poor rosters and other management mistakes a number of seconded mainline Captains grossed in excess of £10,000 in one month."

Whyever WOULD I be aware? In my experience it is only LHR where people wander around talking about the size of their paypackets!!

The figure you mention could be the result of 3 or 4 days of overtime! Shock, horror! ("Poor rosters"? "Other management mistakes"? Mmmm...) Ever heard of 'sickness?'

Of course this kind of thing NEVER occured when those shiny airbuses were in the regions! Which is OBVIOUSLY why they made so much profit!

The motivation for the content of your posts (including those from some months ago) really does puzzle me. Particularly since you were offered the chance to stay!

You made your choice, now go and enjoy the cat lounge, and bidline!

Now, back to BACX?

3rd Mar 2004, 19:28
I did not make my choice out of altruism, I felt that despite the fact that there was some merit in the Grandfather rights issue it would result in a deeply divided workforce. I did not see how I could run a safe and happy flight deck under these conditions, your view may be different.

You claim ignorance that some individuals may have grossed over £10,000 per month flying an RJ around Europe. Are you accusing me of making it up? Do you believe this reflects a sensible situation or are some milking the problems of CX for their own ends?

This all reminds me of a previous accident suffered by BA about 30 years ago when they lost a Trident. The Captain on that occasion had been in the crewroom and was involved in a row over industrial action.

He left the crewroom clmbed into his jet and got airborne. Very shortly after take off someone made a critical error that was not noticed, possibly due to distraction and the aircraft stalled. All on board were killed.

The current problems at CX are a concern to all BA employees. There must be major CRM problems within the flight crew community arising from disparities in pay and the possibility of industrial action. Unless they are resolved CX runs the risk of suffering a serious incident.

If you don't learn from history you are forced to relive it. The lessons from the PI accident remain valid today and should not be ignored.

3rd Mar 2004, 23:50
Ladies and Gentlemen

This is all very interesting. Tandemrotor you are spending a lot of time on this forum advancing the management reasonable - Balpa misguided line.

I understand that the BACX management are already stalling over some of the commitments they had made to BACX CC in the last week. I don't blame them really that's their job.

But they should be in no doubt that for many of us, our patience is exhausted and many of my colleagues no longer care if the Company succeeds or fails as they have become so disinvested.

TR - keep your arguments coming that's your right, but at the end of the day I doubt your vote will count.

4th Mar 2004, 18:06
I think perhaps it is time to broaden this discussion somewhat. After all, I did title the thread BACX, and we have now many pages of (presumed) aircrew discussing their own very narrow perspective.

Take a broader view, look at the ‘bigger picture,’ and no I am not suggesting that the complaints described here are not important, or should not be addressed. They are however only a small part of the whole, and I think we should not simply focus on our own narrow viewpoint, but remember that an airline does not only depend on its aircrews.

Consider this:

We are working for a company whose pilots have recently voted to support strike action.
The operations department is being relocated to Birmingham.
The majority of the experienced operations staff will NOT be going to Birmingham.
The crewing department has recently moved to Birmingham and we all know what chaos that has caused. Now consider that the crewing department has moved most of the existing staff from the IoM to Birmingham, so that it is mainly the same people doing the same job in a different place.
Then consider that very shortly we will be faced with a new Operations section in Birmingham, with mainly new and inexperienced Ops Controllers, a Nav Services department with new and inexperienced staff, and that the Nav Services Manager departs the company in a couple of weeks (due to an unwillingness to relocate, reinforced by the thoughtless, stubborn actions and short-sightedness of ‘management’).

Faced with this soon to be chaotic situation, it seems particularly thoughtless and insensitive and ill-timed, or maybe just completely uninformed and unaware, for the MD to send out a letter to all staff reminding them not to remove company property. Or is there another agenda here? Access to mainline, seniority and secondees may soon be minor considerations.

I leave the further responses to speculate, but I suggest a bit of brushing up on flight planning, fuel calculations and get used to looking at charts!

4th Mar 2004, 22:47
Heard a rumour last week that the company want cabin crew to clean the cabin on each turn around and offering the grand sum of absolutely nothing for the privilige of doing so for the first year, then £3.00 per DAY after that!!!! so route planning and sutch like could be the least of our problems!!!

5th Mar 2004, 04:33
Surely in today's environment it's got to make sense to combine Ops Departments and to centralise crewing...it should have been done in the first year of BACX, rather than wait till now. What's the point of moaning about it.

And what's wrong with cabin crew cleaning aircraft? It happens in other airlines; why should we be any different.

I don't think many of the contributors realise the seriousness of competition out there, and the absolute necessity of keeping on top of costs and efficiencies. Surely the airline industry is no different from other businesses; which means that if you don't like what's happening there's absolutely nothing to stop you from going elsewhere. It's a free market.

Management, however, must work much harder in communicating the extent of the business environment to all staff. What's wrong in taking everyone into their confidence and openly discussing the detailed financial state of the business, hiding nothing. Real figures; real numbers. I guess big brother BA won't let them because of Stock Exchange regulations. It's a great shame because only a complete and full sharing and understanding of the financial performance will stop the cynicism, and is one of the biggest problems facing the Company. This lack of open and no-holds-barred communication is driving a massive wedge of distrust between them and us. And I can't see it getting any better.

5th Mar 2004, 14:13
Jordan BACX is still part of the BA empire, surely in the one empire all should be treated the same? Maybe though one should believe in the morals of "Animal Farm" all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others?
Yes by all means get cabin crew to clean a/c but lets have it across ALL of BA , not just BACX.
The low cost airlines do not want loyalty from their cabin crew, they want a fast turnover of crew to keep costs down. Does BA need the same in a Full Service airline?
Logic states that if you tread this path your staff will loose their loyalty and morale with the customer suffering the consequences.

Hotel Mode
5th Mar 2004, 17:30
If that had been the case, then BA could have kept the regional bases. It doesnt work like that. LHR has high yeilds gatwick and the regions dont. therefore the costs must be lower. Its not like the RJ100's or the ERJ's are as comfortable as a A319, but the market cant take the 319's costs, just as it cant take Mainlines costs (and i'm not supporting them at all)

Ref Cabin Crew loyalty, BA doesnt have loyalty it has Cabin Crew who wont move because they wont get the money elsewhere which is not a good situation, and in my experience the BACX CCrew in the regions are much better at Full service than the BA ones because they know the world doesnt owe them a living.

5th Mar 2004, 17:57
WHINGE WHINGE WHINGE...This country in turning into a bunch of whingers... When i go to france the majority of cars on the road are french, the same can be said of Italy and itallian cars and in germany also...The supermarkets are full of their own national products...So much of the best of British is either gone or going. BA and that includes BACX is still held up in the eyes of the general public as something to be proud of. The problem i think is one of British Arrogance and a resistance to change. The England Rugby team is a shining example of adopting policies and engendering change in the traditional ways of operating in order to compete and become leaders of the world. If something is going to be a success everyone needs to take responsibility and make an effort to compete and understand the need to change and evolve. As an outsider to BA, id say that is also a requirement of its management also. Managers can talk about the need to change downline...Great...but if they are unable to change the way they manage staff also then the requirement for change downline is going to hit choppy water. This whole thread is riddled with the cancer of complacency. If you get a job then i think you should try to be the best at that job, if you dont want to be the best and do the best for yourself then why do the job.

Thanks for reading! :ugh:

6th Mar 2004, 14:38
Strummer ; As BA mainline you are spot on we are at times stuck in a cul de sac not wishing for any changes what so ever. That in itself is reflected in our loss of most industry in the UK. Aviation and government policy seems to have no direction at all.

6th Mar 2004, 14:54
HM, querry high yields on short haul? What about thge added costs of the CAT Lounge? Transport Costs? It goes on and on which must detract from your High Yield. The out stations don't have that. also LGW is needed by BA not only to stop Easy from gaining too big a foothold but also to provide our One World alliance partner "American Airlines" with a feeder network.
Nothing is simple, nor straight forward LHR is not the be and end all. Though there are those in BA who consider it so.

7th Mar 2004, 18:57
I have to agree with Jordan on some issues. When CF some years ago moved across to BA AOC and in stages to BA ground handling it is a fact that costs escalated as it is common knowledge that BA ground cost are as much as three times the opposition. The TGWU ramp reps will tell you that at LHR and in fairness to them are engaged in reducing the costs. LGW is probably worst having lost the large number of flights. It is also the case at BHX and MAN that our ramp/ handling and dispatch costs are higher.

With due respect it must follow that BACX costs were higher and at the present they will struggle to reduce them which is the problem for the other areas within BA.

It would seem to me to be without question that there are any number of LCs waiting for us to fail in the UK regions. Let us hope that for all involved this does not happen.

Da Dog
7th Mar 2004, 22:09

You wer,nt there then when a well know director said that all the costs at LGW were in the right place.

Please save us your managment claptrap I hear enough of that at work!

The Little Prince
8th Mar 2004, 01:02
The bottom line with CityExpress is still that our leaders are not.

That is, they are not 'of' us, and are neither interested or committed to any result other than their next target in the BA management career ladder. All this requires is a short term ability to 'present' an apparent cost-cutting measure which meets their KPIs, regardless of the medium or long term future of the enterprise. When things were BRAL/Manx/Brymon, the senior management were there because they believed in the Company, or at least, their own future in that area. The truth of that can be seen by the pretty much zero number of senior management in all departments we had leave. Some had their faults, but their own interests coincided with Company progress, so they were not interested particularly in a quick fix, or a scam.

Now! Ha!

We are just the low point on the slippery pole of BA advancement for management creatures like TDLF and McL etc. Noticeably, those already left/leaving have achieved a better position. Where next for the Dental Floss man I wonder?

8th Mar 2004, 05:54
the management seem to have lost the plot since BRAL and others were mergerd. Used to run very well or maybe i have my goggles on

The isle of man has and will ultimatly be the big loser as more of the loss making routes are cut