BALPA BA Ballot 94% In Favour

[Stoic]

94% BA PILOTS VOTE YES TO COST REDUCTION PACKAGE

Commenting on today's ballot result, in which 94% of BA pilots voted in an 83% poll in favour of a cost-saving package which will save the Company £26m per year, Jim McAuslan said:

'This is an unaccustomed position for a union to be in but we have pressure tested the company's trading position and cost base and are satisfied that this step is necessary to help BA recover its position as one of the world's most successful airlines.

'Our members have backed that judgment and are leading the way in contributing to the turn-round plan. The package of measures will be implemented as soon as BA demonstrates delivery of the cost saving targets across the whole company.'

[rwy_hdg]

Bit of a shame the rest of BA staff won't do the same!

[Flyluke]

'Our members have backed that judgment and are leading the way in contributing to the turn-round plan. The package of measures will be implemented as soon as BA demonstrates delivery of the cost saving targets across the whole company.'

And therin lies the key - their members incomes could well be pretty safe as they are. For the time being, at least.

[Sir George Cayley]

By sidelining themselves, the pilot work force have bought themselves a future and a possibility of "jam tomorrow". But, with little or no cabin crew to run the services if they go on strike, have they factored in the loss of flying pay any stand-down might bring?

Plus, if both sides of the strike stick chins out to the 'bitter' end, will there be enough pilot jobs in London Airways (2009) plc to go round?

And, if the company folds, to pheonix into Ldn Awys, what will become of the pension schemes various?

I think in the long run BALPA and its members have played a shrewed move, but only if the scenarios based on their strategy play out correctly.

"Bing Bong, British Airways announce the arrival of their summer of discontent made inglorious by that son of Eire and BASSA"

MGHMOYS

Sir George Cayley

[TheKabaka]

Sir George,

What's the point on a strategy that is based on BA going bust?

[overstress]

Blimey, a thread I'm not banned from! :hmm:

have they factored in the loss of flying pay any stand-down might bring?


How on earth do you do that?

What makes you think that any BASSA ballot won't collapse like a pack of cards when it comes to the nitty gritty? :rolleyes:

[yotty]

The pilots will still get the increments... so their pay will only dip for a year or so ...:rolleyes:

[Charlie Pop]

The flying pay reduction is permanent, as is the increase in productivity. Probably a little difficult for yotty to grasp.

[yotty]

We're all working harder at BA. So what will happen to the pay in 2 years time? up or down?

[Charlie Pop]

It's a bit simplistic to say is pay up or down. The issue is pay vs productivity. The pay will hopefully be up, but if the productivity increase exceeds the pay rise then pay is down in real terms and my opinion is that that is going to be the case.

[rockandroll1]

Misunderstood previous post

[Buter]

No idea how to quote on this thing but this one's for you CP.

Flying pay reduction permanent - yeah, that's sh!te.

Increase in productivity - sorry, is that a problem? if it were my train set, every department would be as productive as possible. End of discussion.

yotty's statement about pay dipping for 'only a year or so' is dead on. Quick math shows me not actually ever being worse off than now - I do stand by for correction, however, as I have an incredible knack for being wrong.

Still a job for life? Not a chance; my condolences if you think that it is.

Cheers

Buter

[Charlie Pop]

Buter - go work out what you would have been earning over a career at BA compared to what you will be earning now. Then put your party poppers back in the box and recognise a pay cut for what it is.

PS As you are already contracted to fly 900 hrs per year think about what an 8/12 hrs CAP increase actually means.

[Buter]

Career? You don't read so well then.

You might be contracted to 900 hours a year - I ain't!

A pay cut is a pay cut and it's shi!te, as I've said.

I've got a place for your poppers.

Cheers

Buter

[Charlie Pop]

Aaah Gatwick based then? I'm guessing you're new to the company. New to flying too?

[overstress]

ScottFlyer you are missing something. A lot, actually. Your £10m doesn't relate to the previously posted losses at all, if you think about it.

[Ancient Observer]

Whilst I think the BALPA ballot result is good news, and whilst I hope that Unite can take over from the lhr geriatrics CC union, and make a good deal, I do worry a bit about BA pricing.
Others are lowering prices on what looks to be a permanent basis - or at least until the global economy picks up.
BA appears to be running campaigns.................which I'm sure are carefully targetted and marketted, but which don't meet my/my family's needs. How many other families out there might give their spend to competitors if BA keep up these higher - than - the - competition list prices?

[merlinxx]

Sorry folks, you've got to look at the pension liabilities:mad: I took mine many years ago. I'd hate to be a working member now:{

[cjd_a320]

BALPA BA Ballot 94% In Favour

Hmmm, showed their hand to early.....

They should of waited for the "forced merger" with the other well know Euro airline before giving away any concessions....

Those who believe BA will be still be around with out some sort of merger will be in for a surprise.... :(

[Flyluke]

this company has, I believe, had a pension deficit greater than its capitalisation value for several years now.
Whether it is making £401M or losing a similar amount ON PAPER, it hasn't had the cash to do anything about this deficit fior years.
Nor will saving the odd £10M here or there do much to help the defificit - this amount probably equates to less than a week's fuel.

So saving the airline, and fixing the pension issue are two independant issues.
An open and honest acceptance of their position combined with radical cutbacks may possibly achieve the first - but how they rectify the second seems to have been beyond them for years.

[M.Mouse]

cjd A320

Care to explain where BALPA should have found the time to not respond to the company's demands for savings?

WW is taking the golden opportunity to take on the dinosaur unions and deal with their obstructiveness and lack of realism once and for all.

Fortunately it is plain that he realises the pilots usually have a career long commitment to BA, are intelligent and are represented by people of intelligence. Hence the way it was left to the pilots to decide HOW the savings were made with the AMOUNT set by the company. Both WW and Keith Williams, the Chief Financial Officer have both given numerous presentations in person to the pilots.

In recent years hard and prolonged negotiations over work coverage issues and the pension deficit and now lower pay and higher productivity have resulted in changes acceptable to both sides. Long may it continue and I wish all the BA unions were as able and resourceful as BALPA.

[gdiphil]

Ancient Observer.
You are absolutely spot on. I am flying everyone (well almost) other than BA since the difference in price in economy is huge compared with other carriers. For example on Monday I'm flying with my family with Etihad to SYD for £619 return, booked 6 weeks ago. BA at the time wanted almost a thousand pounds each! They don't want my business evidently. BA's current business model based on business passengers does not work any more, and who knows for how long. So, put in more Y seats and fill them up. The planes are going to wherever anyway so I say BA should make the effort and make me an offer I can't refuse. My mother is off to SYD next March for £425 return with SQ. Can she fly with BA for that? Pick a figure that BA want, it is isn't remotely near SQ.

[Ancient Observer]

My experience is the same. If a BA "campaign" co-incides with our travel needs, then fine, but they seem to want to maintain the "rack" rates and the integrity of their price list. They need to get real - that was yesterday's model, it won't work again until the global economy picks up - and it might not work then.

[TheKabaka]

I think most aircraft are full at the moment, certainly the ones I am flying around. So I assume the pricing is spot on- if the tickets are cheaper elsewhere the cabin is full and BA has maximised the revenue for that flight. I agree more economy seats may be a good idea, but it takes a long time to change that.

[Flap62]

Load factor in economy last month was over 99%. You might decry BA for charging more than other carriers but people are prepared to pay the price. If you can fly from UK to SYD and back for less than £700 the airline are making no money from that (it barely covers fuel cost for the sector!) so why should BA try to compete with those prices?

[PC767]

Bit of a shame the rest of BA staff won't do the same!

Offer the rest of BA staff a similar deal, rather than an opportunistic smash and grab of their livelihoods and all will be peace and tranquility.

[Flap62]

PC767,

Your location is strangely apt.

[JazzyKex]

PC767 wrote:

Offer the rest of BA staff a similar deal, rather than an opportunistic smash and grab of their livelihoods and all will be peace and tranquility.


From the AGM:

British Airways AGM: as it happens - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5824848/British-Airways-AGM-as-it-happens.html)

12:37: This is a bit feistier. An employee asks why BA is refusing to do the same deal with cabin crew as with the pilots. "You are showing disrespect to the cabin crew," he says to loud cheers.

12:42: Walsh counters: "Our cabin crew and pilots do not have the same agreement. They have been different for many years. It would be beneficial if we did have the same agreement."

[manrow]

Flap62 and others posting on BA seat pricing.

I can assure you that BA may seem to stick rigidly to their quoted prices as far as retail sales direct to the public are concerned. However under many circumstances travel agents can buy-up a block of seats at considerably below retail price and sell them at whatever value they can achieve, much closer to the low cost airline model than you would realise.

Hence quotes about full aircraft will not reveal anything about the true revenue achieved. All airlines need to be achieving high load factors to survive, and to do this requires fast footwork by the airlines/agents such that the actual price the airline receives per seat is very similar.

[Flap62]

I accept that revenue may not be great just because a flight is full but if BA have full economy cabins with higher straight up ticket prices then their revenue is probably still slightly stronger than someone selling a ticket to OZ (before the bucket shops take their cut) for an amount that barely covers the fuel costs.

It's also a slightly more positive sign that the cabins are fuller than some of BA's close compeditors who are going through the same cycle of huge discounts to travel agents and corporate clients. They are slashing prices too and still can't fill the aircraft!

[pinkaroo]

So here we have the deal, the big earners take a slight hit in return for a share deal which will pay off handsomely in a couple of years when those pesky teamakers have all had their cumuppance and the likes of M.Mouse sneer about his immense mekon-like brain being the secret weapon that won the day. You may get to keep your Golf membership but those working days will be interesting if you need a cup of tea and display an attitude like that.

[JazzyKex]

Is that a threat Pinkaroo?

edited to add:

At what stage in this are you actually going to look at the proposals yourself and stop relying solely on the BASSA rhetoric?

If you can find time to do that and have the ability to apply some basic arithmetical ability you may wish to re-write your above comment.

The power of independent thought is one which is occasionally valuable!

[pinkaroo]

Jazzy, pleeease! Just think about it before you jump. This matter is a disaster for crew family relations.

[pinkaroo]

I was reading a financial article today comparing past performances of equities where companies in similar situations had bounced back, tripling in two years and by as much as six times in four years. Your turn to reach for the pencil and paper. Oh, no need, Just read your BALPA memo.

[JazzyKex]

Please post a link or reference to the article Pinkeroo.

I'd love to hear about another company with a similar cost base and business model, recovering in that time frame.

As much information from valuable and reputable sources is always greatly appreciated.

Cheers

[overstress]

Pinkaroo, that was an interesting posting, I quote it in full:

So here we have the deal, the big earners take a slight hit in return for a share deal which will pay off handsomely in a couple of years when those pesky teamakers have all had their cumuppance and the likes of M.Mouse sneer about his immense mekon-like brain being the secret weapon that won the day. You may get to keep your Golf membership but those working days will be interesting if you need a cup of tea and display an attitude like that.

(my bold) - what could you possibly mean?

[Carnage Matey!]

So pinkaroo if you're so sure that BAs share price is going to increase three or even six fold you'll be ploughing every penny you've got into BA shares, won't you? Or are you less willing to put your money where your mouth is?

[stormin norman]

BALPA have shown they have been correct on Open Skies (Even though the association is rumoured to have lost in excess of £1m taking it to court).

The cut of 2.6% in pay and allowances is going to pale into insignificance in comparison to the loss in future and past pensions for pilots if Walsh doesn't get a move on and get the financial position under control.

Lots of talk but no action.

[Re-Heat]

pinkaroo:

those working days will be interesting if you need a cup of tea and display an attitude like that.
So, are you advocating interference with the food and drink of the flight crew, operating in a safety-critical function and holding your life in their hands?

Please, do make yourself clear on this point once and for all.

[Dutchjock]

Pinkaroo:
So here we have the deal, the big earners take a slight hit in return for a share deal which will pay off handsomely in a couple of years

I can't be bothered to get the agreement out and copy paste it here, but let me highlight a few facts bassa have forgot to tell you.

We only get all of these shares if the company is making a profit margin of 10% and on time performance is within certain targets.


So if you keep working with that attitude I'm shure you don't need to worry about us getting any shares

[JazzyKex]

Don't expect any reasonable response. Both Pinkeroo and Poof in Boots on another thread seem to have a wonderful ability to read information given to them, ask no questions as to its validity and then selectively reproduce elements taking the information out of context. Such as the pilot agreement.

Given the fact they seem so proud of their professional abilities I truly hope they have a better comprehension of the documentation they read for their day jobs!

ps. Still waiting to see the link to that financial document you mentioned Pinkeroo.

[pinkaroo]

Calm down ladies. I'll drag the article out for you. Read it on the train yesterday.Think it was in the Evening Standard. Give me a minute. You have all been very defensive about your tea. Forget the interference, just don't hold your breath if you display the arrogance of MM. (All CC are thick bastards and FD are intellectual giants).

[M.Mouse]

pinkaroo

Your comments are as wildly inaccurate as your offensive interpretation of what I wrote. From what I have read of the BASSA briefings to its members it is my opinion that many good people are being led by utter morons to a certain catastrophe.

The rot started years ago and BASSA has cast anything which wasn't based at the golden runways to the devil, just look at the abysmal contract at LGW. Had BASSA leadership demonstrated any ability and foresight it would have negotiated inevitable changes in an adult and constructive manner which would not have ended up with the LHR CC in the position which they find themselves today i.e. overpaid and with outdated, rigid and unsustainable working agreements.

The world has moved on for us all. If I compare my career with that of colleagues retired at 50 with an APS pension probably over double my projected pension having flown circa 400hrs p.a. enjoying week long slips in exotic places it is chalk and cheese. While accepting the changes to my working life I am fortunate that I have a qualification and experience level which relatively few have and a job which a company can not fill with a new recruit after 3 weeks training. Hence our position in no way compares with that of a cabin crew member no matter how good they are at their job. Hence BA CC will, whatever you may hope for, be brought rapidly down to market rates.

It is apparent to all but the imbecilic that Willie Walsh has a master plan and BASSA are oh so predictably walking straight into the oblivion which he has carefully planned for them. It is unfortunate that the membership are being so misled.

You statement about tea, upon which you have backtracked, is wonderfully illustrative of the contemptible attitude a significant minority of you and your ilk display towards pilots. Fortunately I know from experience that you are outnumbered by the many decent, and currently very worried, members of cabin crew.

[pinkaroo]

M. Mouse, No back track. I updated my comment, marked incomplete, in order to pointedly ensure it was not cynically intrepreted. If you seriously think food interference is the my way think again. What I am saying is the atmosphere will be bloody dreadful hence my comment about family relations. If you did not mean to imply Mekon type abilities you have certainly come across with that message. If you are offended by my comments your skin is not as thick as I believe it is. Your online persona implies otherwise. You certainly imply cerebral superiority. I won't bother with the quotation cut and paste. You know what you wrote.
CM. If I had the resources I would certainly make such an acquisition once the dispute dust settles. BALPA believe the price will certainly rise and so do you or you would not have agreed to it.
Jazz, Cannot find the article but am quite sure it was a comment in the ES. I note you have sought to specify your argument by twisting my own words. I stand by mine. If you doubt BALPA's financial accuity best you light your brazier outside their offices. In the meantime let's watch the share price rise shall we?

[Locked door]

Pinkaroo,

All talk but nothing substantiated when challenged. Sounds just like galley FM and is no way to approach negotiating the future of our company.

[pinkaroo]

Locked door, how apt a handle. It further evidences your attitude to CC colleagues together with your last post. As for your comment. My word would appear not to be sufficient then?

[Locked door]

Nope. Your arguments are based on emotion and half truths and you lash out at others to disguise your inadequacies.

Fact - The airline industry is it trouble.
Fact - BA needs to pay the market rate for its employees in order for it to convince the city it is competitively managed in order to obtain further financing

Fact - Instead of negotiating reasonably before the June 30th deadline your union stonewalled and then cried foul when BA didn't turn up to a meeting that was never even scheduled on July 1st. They missed an opportunity BALPA grasped by failing to understand the situation and devising a solution instead of shouting 'NO' and insisting it's all a con.

Fact - Your union has consistently misrepresented the pilot agreement to its members despite having been handed full details. It will cost each member a lot (circa £6k for me) and the profit share shares are dependent on a 10% operating margin, good customer satisfaction and punctuality results.

I dispair for my c/c friends and colleagues who are being herded to disaster by a union who are feeding them half truths and lies and who are undemocratically insisting they know what's best without asking the general membership. I suspect if you held a genuine blind ballot asking what the membership really wants you'd get a very very different result to the one at Kempton Park. Big kahoonas to the few who voted no at that rally. I think BASSA is a good union for protecting fixed links, days off after trips and disruption payments. They don't understand and are unable to deal with the big issues such as pensions, open skies and the 'credit crunch'.

I await the future with interest.

LD

ps The handle is an ironic moan at how my job has changed for the worse since 9/11. It is not a dig at crew, but you wouldn't understand that.

[Caudillo]

Fact - BA needs to pay the market rate for its employees in order for it to convince the city it is competitively managed in order to obtain further financing

Fraid not. In fact, what you get paid is small beer and won't have more than a negligible impact on any market uptake. That the cash cow on which you rely is faltering right now is far more relevant, as to a lesser extent would be a season of strikes and industrial heartache.

Remember, times are tough right now. It's a blip, everything will go back to normal - eventually. Nothing fundamentally changes, the thing is that people have a herd mentality and often can't see beyond the ends of their noses. If you forsee a world without banks, the internal combustion engine or indeed a pre-eminent airline at Heathrow, so be it. I'd say you'd profit from betting otherwise.

The cabin crew are to be applauded. They have manoeuvred themselves into a highly comfortable and lucrative position when they in fact are essentially, replaceable, given the nature of their work.

The pilots, IMHO, being by nature somewhat neurotic and liable to frighten, have accepted a paycut to the tune of £26M? Were this paltry amount able to make a meaningful difference to the survival of BA, I'd recommend polishing up your CVs - the truth is that it doesn't, however, the decision is yours.

BA will be here in 5, 10 years. CC agreement or no CC agreement. If the CC stand firm, they will continue living high off the hog for a while to come, as have you all to date. The pilots flinched and they will quite literally pay for it.

[Hotel Mode]

No we won't, the pilot deal requires all other departments to reach their savings target or it simply won't be implemented. By dealing early BALPA avoided the risk of the target increasing.

[Walnut]

The company has recently proposed that the pension scheme gives up a bank guarantee of circa stg 300 million to help it through its current crisis. Whilst I hope this sum will never be called upon, what are the implications for the APS & NAPS pension schemes? Can someone please explain what is the bottom line for both the schemes if this money is drawn down.

[pinkaroo]

Oooh Locked, I bet even your perspiration is acidic! Anyway I guess the financial journalists are conspiring with me then. Perhaps you'll squeal when the cheap 250 hour pilots start queuing for your job. Didn't you all get abit excited when a certain french operation sprung up? Treading on your toes were they? How did you respond to that? Oh yes, you threatened IA. OK for you but not for others!

[Classic]

Caudillo wrote:

The cabin crew are to be applauded. They have manoeuvred themselves into a highly comfortable and lucrative position when they in fact are essentially, replaceable, given the nature of their work.


Very perspicacious Caudillo, in fact just as Willie is!

He too recognises the overgenerous terms and conditions, inflexible agreements, and the fact that it takes 3 weeks to train to become a steward/ess.

Now that the cabin crew have had their applause:D, it's time for them to face the music:ouch:. And it's going to be so much fun watching Bassa cat fight with anyone within range to defend their position, and to sell everyone down the river who isn't old contract LHR crew, and then to blame their subsequent demise on anyone and everyone but themselves.:{

Can't wait!:ok:

[M.Mouse]

caudillo

By extension if all departments stand firm, all departments will continue to live high of the hog and BA will survive anyway.

You point out that our revenue has currently faltered and everything will return to normal. I would suggest that your grasp of economics or even basic arithmetic is on par with your analysis of the worldwide economic situation.

[Caudillo]

Hotel Mode, it's just my opinion but it seems obvious to me that you have. That the deal relies on others making cuts is of no consequence at all. It's a red herring, an inducement, nothing more. It makes it more palatable for you to accept a pay cut because you feel you're not being singled out. I'd suggest that for some it may also be satisfying to feel they're hastening Bassa and their harpies being brought down a peg or two.

Here's a fact, BA is an airline. As far as I'm aware it's not much of a diversified airline. That's to say, it doesn't have a great deal in the way of sidelines - for example, a big package holiday branch, hotels, branding etc. The business and the money is in flying places.

It's also widely held that BA is in trouble. I would imagine, short of raiding the pension fund, that BA will rely on flying places to get out of this trouble.

Have you noticed that your position within the equation is absolutely indispensable? You mention Balpa dealt early to avoid a worse target - and if you'd decided not to play, what then? Would you be replaced with a wet leased operation, an army of pilots they've got hiding up their sleeves somewhere? Perhaps a fleet of pilotless aircraft parked in a desert near Hounslow?

The answer's no. Certain things are indispensable and believe it or not, you're one of them. You're in the position of power and instead of behaving like bastards, you've let your feelings, emotions and worries get in the way of what should be a cold business transaction - their pay for your labour.

I'd like to mention that I have a great deal of respect for the astute manner in which BA pilots recognised and attempted to fight the Open Skies affair, so I am surprised in how easily you rolled over here.

I appreciate that the union looked at the books and declared itself satisfied the cuts were needed. My question is, if they're needed then what are they needed for? What does your £26million buy? A reprieve, temporary survival with disaster imminent?

If that's the case, and you're serious about saving your outfit you should be taking a cut of several magnitudes larger. All hands to the pumps.

If however it's the toss between a profit or loss, or a loss and a bigger loss, then what you've achieved is permanent in response to something temporary and passing.

This £26 million, negotiatied away when you hold every card in the pack is either too much or nowhere enough.

[yotty]

As I've worked for BA for some 22 years now.. I do feel slightly qualified to comment on flight deck and cabin crew. I work on the line, and it's been my pleasure to meet some of the nicest people I've ever met inside the cockpit.. there have also been a few I'd like to forget! But more importaintly the pilots are a clever bunch, they pay a significant amount of their wages to their association (money well spent IMHO) and they know how BA play the game. The cabin crew on the other hand are a different kettle of fish. Having 3 tiers of pay terms and conditions makes things difficult. I don't think there is much sympathy for CC within the company at large, mainly because we all see those csds and pursers on the old contract earning such a high rate of pay compared with the new contract and those at LGW. BASSA appears to have their heads collectivley in the sand .. or somewhere else! :ooh: I hope we can get things sorted and keep our jobs and pensions ..:ok:

[Caudillo]

M Mouse, not all departments are as central to the business of an airline as the one that I'm guessing you're in. I accept you all have your worries but as pilots you've got to recognise that you're not the fairies on the top of the Christmas tree. (You're the manly trunk that keeps the whole shebang up)

Everything will return to normal yes. And if you keep tossing a coin it will eventually land on a certain side. It's all just a question of the time it'll all take, but it will happen, of that you can be assured.

[Locked door]

Pinkaroo - there you go again quoting your imaginary journalists. Back up your statements with a reference or quit posting.

Caudillo - The law as laid down but the CAA states that apart from a few minor exceptions the holder of the AOC has to employ pilots directly.

[Joetom]

This is like a Ping pong match, but not as much fun to watch.

The CC unions have gained/maintained a great life/work balance for their members, others should respect that CC would like their unions to do as they have done over many many years.

Market Rate, Market Rate, and some mention the figure of 37% savings required by the company, the CC unions would prob not want to go past 5 or 8% at a max, so this is only going one way, if the company is having unhappy CC after the changes, they will need big savings as the long term effect of unhappy CC will be unhappy passengers etc etc.

Good luck to all the CC, you will need it.

[M.Mouse]

caudillo

You mention the pension fund. How can BA raid the pension fund (not to mention it has a £3bn deficit)? BA needs every saving it can find and it speaks volumes about where we sit as a group that the Flight Ops target was set at the figure it was. If I accepted your argument about Flight Ops savings being so small as to be pointless, which I don't, I can just hear the howls of complaint from other groups that 'greedy pilots have got off with no changes again' when BASSA are already claiming that in their mis-information to their members.

You seem to believe in industrial might, and we are a powerful group, would win the day. I seem to recall Arthur Scargill thinking the same or how about Sabena?
Remind me what happened to Swissair, Pan-Am, British Caledonian and others too numerous to mention.

Willie Walsh screwed us over Open Skies although subsequent world events have stuffed that company anyway, it will be gone in not many months. WW will sort the obstructive unions and the BA's cost base once and for all and it will be leaner and fitter for it. Your inference that we (pilots) rolled over is an insult to the people who give up their time to represent us and whose judgement I trust. You plainly disagree.

[Walnut]

M Mouse.

BA are raiding the pension fund, where else is #stg 300M coming from, is this legal? and should not the Pension Regulator be looking at this.? see my post number #51

[Caudillo]

M Mouse, I've just taken a quick look at the latest annual report (which is very well presented by the way) -

Your £26M comes out at about 1% of total employee costs.
Less than a percent of fuel & oil costs.
About 5% of accomodation, ground equipment and IT costs.
It is less than one third of a percent of yearly revenues.

By that token it's chicken feed.

In return for you forgoing £26M, if certain conditions are met you will be given a one time payment of £13M of shares in three years time - by which time, I note, the bulk of any capital gain will have already accrued. That is to say, you will receive a single compensation for today and you will miss out on the growth between now and then by receiving a fixed value of shares. In the meantime your annual pay, and that of your future colleagues is permanently lowered. So rather than a diet for weight loss, you've opted for stomach stapling.

Current liabilities come out at £4.1 Billion vs cash of £1.4 billion.

By that token you'll all need to work for free for a year. £26M in this context is irrelevant.

I don't believe in industrial might as it happens, if I were WW I'd be looking at every way of bringing my costs down. You and CC would be high up on my list - you are both paid way over market rate for negligible added value. I'm simply stating a fact when I say you are powerful and that you hold all the cards. If your aircraft doesn't have fuel it can't fly. If it doesn't have you in it, it can't fly, simples. They employ you not for your company but because they absolutely and completely need you. You can afford to be intransigent and refuse because let's face it, they can't wholesale replace the pilot body a la the Lindsey Oil refinery. What they can do is whittle away at the bottom of the demographic, so that when you're long gone - that 2.6% saving will be reaping rewards way beyond £26M.

Anyway, it's your fight to fight and I wish you good luck in it all, I hope it all works out for all concerned.

[Human Factor]

You and CC would be high up on my list - you are both paid way over market rate for negligible added value.

At the risk of being moderated (again - :rolleyes:), a bit of research on this and associated threads will reveal that pilots are considered by BA to be "market rate" and good value for money. The cabin crew aren't.

The pilots have also given up considerably more than 2.6%. Previous threads refer but in essence it's a cut of 2.61% of basic pay, 20% of flight allowances, away from base allowances have been frozen and there have been a number of productivity changes. It equates to around 5%, depending on where you are in the pecking order. .:ugh::ugh::ugh:

(BASSA won't tell you that though).

[Caudillo]

That's great, it's another argument for you to draw the line in the sand at 0%.

I didn't know that they stated you to be market rate and good value for money. What do I know, maybe you are. I'm on your side 100% whether you are or not anyway.

I'd suggest that it's a sensible position to take. A publicly listed company (theoretically) answerable to shareholders would probably gain little affection by broadcasting that it pays too much for something it could get cheaper. It would also make little sense to upset the workforce with barbs and then cut their pay when it could just cut pay and leave everyone with a smile on their face.

I also wasn't aware you've surrendered more than 2.6%, I got that figure from the press..!

[Human Factor]

Thanks for your support, Caudillo.:ok:

BALPA has been sceptical of anything BA has had to say (before and) since Open Skies. For this reason, they independently verified BA's figures and came to the conclusion that their demands were not entirely unreasonable. A lot of negotiation went in to achieve the package we have and the bottom line was (in writing!!!) that the pilots will not be required to give up anything until or unless all other staff groups achieve their targets. It gives BA something to aim for. ;)

Overall, what it came down to was that everything we gave up, although permanent, can possibly be negotiated back in the future and giving up what we have is a small price to pay to keep our jobs. This was what BALPA's research revealed.

[Caudillo]

Fair enough, if it's a question of keeping you in jobs then there's no question whatsoever.

My point, which could probably have been made in far fewer words than I actually used, was that the (incorrect) figure of 2.6% didn't seem at all drastic enough for an apparently floundering company. If the curtain was about to come down, it seemed neither here nor there.

It struck me more as a nice, opportunistic, permanent cut, taken when circumstances presented themselves, with an eye to the future.

Again, if your job is on the line and that's what it takes, then it is a small price.

One final thing I'd say - this is after all not my fight, so I will leave it to those in the know and to those it affects - you mention it can be renegotiated back. That's true.

But BA is in trouble now, I'm not convinced it will necessarily be so in the future. Maybe it will, maybe it won't and I wouldn't like to make a call on this one after glancing at the report. Your cuts are in response to the effects of the last couple of years, an extraordinary time. Balpa came and looked, said yes the cuts are valid and needed - but why make them permanent? Why not agree that you take these cuts right now, and continue taking them for as long as Balpa considers them legitimate? When, fingers crossed, BA is back to full health - Balpa will go back, say the medicine has worked, there's no more need for it, and you automatically revert back to what you had?

I'd even venture that you may well have been happy to take a bigger cut if you had this safeguard of Balpa having the right to monitor and make the call?

[Human Factor]

- but why make them permanent?

This was the crux of the whole issue which BALPA had to convince the membership of. The first question is "How long is permanent?". Is it truly permanent or is it for the life of the current business plan? To be honest, no-one knows. Either way, the changes are up for negotiation in the future hopefully.

Secondly, BA needs to secure finance to survive. The institutions have indicated that the finance is there however they've evidently applied a few conditions. If you ask why BA is about to impose some severe changes to the cabin crew agreements, you start to get an indication of the conditions which the institutions have applied. They are the ones who need to see permanent changes. What is the point lending £x million to BA if they're going to run into the same problem in a couple of years and need more? Where's the likelihood of a return on the investment?

That's why the changes need to be permanent. Perhaps they can be negotiated back but if there is a finite point in time where these conditions will automatically be restored, the associated costs will be restored as well and that is what the institutions want to avoid.

The "Bond Issue" which has just been announced wouldn't have been forthcoming if the company wasn't sure it would be able to please the investors.

[TheKabaka]

In return for you forgoing £26M, if certain conditions are met you will be given a one time payment of £13M of shares in three years time

This item is important because there are moves afoot for BA to change the way they see the pilot role. The current DFO and it appears those with the purse strings want a pilot to be seen as a senior manager and the profit share targets are aligned with the SM grade bonuses.

There is also a provision for a reappraisal of the "bonus" at the end of the plan. It seems to me this is a positive step forward.

[Khaosai]

Hi,

pilots seen as Senior Managers i fully agree with and they should be paid accordingly. The trouble in BA, with the cabin crew having such a strong union is that you have a Director(CSD) in the cabin !.

Serious changes required, and its pretty obvious WW is on a mission to end BASSA's rule forever. Lets hope part of that is a job title change long overdue.

[pinkaroo]

BA 747-400.
Year 9 First Officer.
£4800-£5200 pcm after tax inc alllowances.
Close to 900 hrs per year.

13/14 days off pm
final salary pension.
Health care
LOL
Staff travel

BA Eurofleet Maincrew
Year 3
1200-2100 after tax inc allowances
Close to 900 hrs per year
10 days off pm
NO healthcare
Staff travel
NO loss of job cover

And CC are overpaid according to you fellows! CC must take a paycut to save the company?

[Flintstone]

A considerable disparity there perhaps reflected in the qualifications and commitment required to achieve each position (not to mention nine years 'in' for the FO and three for the FA)?

[pinkaroo]

So you keep your big cash job and CC get a bus pass. That's the reality. You guys have forgotten how it feels.

[Human Factor]

BA 747-400.
Year 9 First Officer.
£4800-£5200 pcm after tax inc alllowances.
Close to 900 hrs per year.

Not quite. I took at 20% payrise to go from Longhaul FO to Shorthaul Captain (now Year 11). My take home is only a little more than the above figures. If the above were correct, I would take home around £6500 pcm after tax. I wish.

For me, £5500 is about average which puts a Year 11 Longhaul FO on about £4700 average. Year 9 is paid less than Year 11. ;)

Ooops. Almost forgot! Numbers aren't pinkaroo's strongpoint.:oh:

[pinkaroo]

Bitchy! Those figures are a direct lift from PPrune for those source obsessives amongst you.

[Flintstone]

pinkaroo.

I'm not saying that at all, I don't even work for BA. The point I'm making is that if you want to put your case you chose the wrong example. You're making comparisons between two jobs that require wholly different levels of qualification, training and commitment. You need to choose your arguments more carefully.

[Human Factor]

Bitchy! Those figures are a direct lift from PPRuNe for those source obsessives amongst you.

Sorry. My figures are a direct lift from the bottom right corner of my payslip.;)

[pinkaroo]

Flintstone, not you sir. Human Factor spat something vindictive out.

[Flintstone]

Righto.

Butting out ;)

[pinkaroo]

The training may be shorter but the trials and tribulations are comparable. Some Pilots seem to have a problem with other people earning anything above minmum wage. By the way the Pinkaroo household is new contract so basic is just over 10k. Any suggestion of a paycut is thus hugely resented. Any person earning 5 times as much observed baying for the financial blood of new contract personnel is just going to rile me a tad.

[yotty]

I recon the new contract is about right ...I think the old contract is the real talking point ..

[Human Factor]

...but the trials and tribulations are comparable.

How exactly? :confused:

[Juan Tugoh]

Comparing CC remuneration with that of pilots is irrelevant. Just as comparing a consultant in the NHS with that of a nurse - the jobs are very very different as are the routes you travel along to get there.

What counts is what the company thinks you are paid in relation to market rate. At the moment BA obviously think - and there is ample evidence to support such a view - that their cabin crew are, on average, paid over the odds. Any company director would be negligent in failing to react to this information.

[pinkaroo]

No JT, They are being opportunist. They are screwing you and they are screwing CC. Happens in every recession. Talk the company into the ground whilst operating full aircraft with bulging coffers in the hope you will be able to chop back those pesky crew costs in order to raise profits and get that fat bonus before you retire. What's next? Six month contracts such as Iberia crew endure. This is just the start.

[plodding along]

Pinkaroo...

If all crew were on 2000pm and "close to 900 hours" we probably wouldn't have a problem.

Are you not aware that a top scale Eurofleet CSD has a basic of £45,000 and does nowhere near 900 hours?
Who do you think does all those one sector days??

Stop worrying about pilots and take a closer look at your own collegues, they are the ones that should be making the sacrifice to prevent you from Having to.

Would you care to add an old contract CSD and Purser's earnings/hours to your little table to get a more balanced picture?. No, thought not.

[Plan 10]

Pinkaroo.

BA 747-400.
Year 9 First Officer.
£4800-£5200 pcm after tax inc alllowances.
Close to 900 hrs per year.

13/14 days off pm
final salary pension.
Health care
LOL
Staff travel

BA Eurofleet Maincrew
Year 3
1200-2100 after tax inc allowances
Close to 900 hrs per year
10 days off pm
NO healthcare
Staff travel
NO loss of job cover

And CC are overpaid according to you fellows! CC must take a paycut to save the company?


Many years ago, back when the command course was residential and held in leafy Surrey, we spent a day being lectured on aviation law by Russ Kane, an Aer Lingus Captain who was also a barrister specialising in Aviation Law. It was an illuminating, sobering, and very....scary.... day. He highlighted exactly the responsibility that holding the position of aircraft commander means in law, and all of us walked out of the room, heads spinning, thinking what on Earth were we doing this for. Montreal Convention, Warsaw Convention, ANO, ICAO, but the single biggest thing he impressed home was this....

You know that big book in the cockpit Pinkaroo? The one that is red on ETOPS aircraft, called the "Tech Log." Well, signing that places certain responsibilities on the aircraft commander. Certain legal responsibilities that can be pursued through court to the end. The Aircraft Commander, by signing acceptance of the aircraft, signs those responsibilities onto his/her shoulders by dint of holding the licence granted by the issuing authority.

Do you know the bottom line of that responsibility? If you want it, given your role within the company, you can have it. However, you neither know it, nor take it on your shoulders, that is why primarily there is a fundamental difference in remuneration. After all, there is in reality only two ways that you are rewarded, it is for revenue generation( as in premiership footballers) or acceptance of serious responsibility.

Next time you venture into a cockpit, take a look in the document folder; its location varies within aircraft, but I'm sure the Flight Crew, (not Flight Deck, that is the location in which you will find the Flight Crew, not their designation) will show you.

Then, find the insurance document. Have a look at the single-incident liabiity figure. That is what you, as Captain, sign on to your shoulders every time you sign an aircraft out, on the behalf of the company. Yes, of course it is a worst-case scenario, crashing an aircraft into a convention hall full off nasty, rapacious American Lawyers would be an example, but that's the figure.

You can argue for similarity of treatment all you like, but you are not legally responsible for the $2 Billion merely by inhabiting the same aluminium tube.

If you want to be responsible for it, and all that entails, then by all means, have it. However, you don't, therefore your role, and mine, are in no way compatible. Not an emotive point, merely a legal statement of fact.

An aircraft is not a democracy. It is a pyramid. A legal pyramid, with the commander at the top, and everyone else, copilot, crew, passengers of no legal consequence when it comes to culpability. Sorry, but that is how it is. Of course, people will aim for the biggest pockets, and go for the company as the Commander is the company's representative, but that is why the differential exists.

[pinkaroo]

Plodding, if you know them add them for fairness.

GS, The figures quoted ARE Heathrow Eurofleet figures.

Plan 10, I hold a ppl and have signed the booky wooky myself. You may carry the burden upon your shoulders but you are supported by a magnificent support team of professionals. I am not screaming for your financial blood. I am on record as supporting your position. Some of you are screaming for CC blood. You just really need to know that not everyone at LHR is on the money you think. And the money I quote includes multiple nights away every week. Do take a look. I don't believe you all get 140k p.a. Just take a look at what new contract earn and what they need to earn to live in the Southeast.

[M.Mouse]

So if the money is so bad and the job so awful (nights away, etc.) why do it? If the money was that poor then BA would need to raise it to retain staff.

I have had well over twenty years to observe the intransigent, archaic industrial rules which BASSA have managed to negotiate coupled with quite extraordinary salaries. We are at the end game and it isn't going to pretty nor will BASSA ever be quite the same again.

[Classic]

Pinkaroo wrote:
Talk the company into the ground whilst operating full aircraft with bulging coffers in the hope you will be able to chop back those pesky crew costs in order to raise profits and get that fat bonus before you retire.

You actually believe the Bassa line?
No-one outside Bassa's wendy house believes that BA and the industry as a whole isn't in dire trouble.

Do you genuinely believe that BA can afford to pay twice the market rate and endure such restrictive inflexiblity in its cabin crew department, and still remain competitive with the likes of LH, AF, VS etc, even after the current recession? Premium travel has changed, permanently. Everyone, including those travellers themselves, says so. Having 7 c/crew on an A321 with no fixed links, or insisting on 16 crew on some LH flights, together with 2 local nights after an extra sector, simply don't provide the company with a competitive cost base after the market starts to recover. That's why BA has had to demonstrate that it's going to achieve these cost savings in order to get cash from the city to see us through the winter.

I realise that Pinkaroo lacks the analytical skills to recognise these facts, but it seems more and more crew that I fly with are gaining a voice, and are willing to question the Bassa line - they have to, before it's all too late and Bassa drive them into unemployment. It's to those crew I'm making this post.

[yotty]

Plan 10 ... I think you'll find Willie is on top of the pyramid! ;) and Classic agree with you.. we don't want BA to be the next Panam..:eek:

[Bucking Bronco]

Market rate and BA CC wages?

BA Cabin Crew wages bear no resemblance to market rate. The Missus used to be CC for a well known charter airline out of LGW, her pay slips (from 4 years ago admittedly) varied between £850 to £1800 and that’s full time. Around the same time one of her friends was an IFS for Virgin (equivalent to BA CSD) who told us that her take home varied between £1500 and £1900.

This explains why, generally, Cabin Crew who work for other airlines either tend to be young (living with parents or in shared house) and will do the job for 3-7 years or will be the 2nd wage earner in the household. At BA the terms and conditions for CC are such that it allows people to stay, make a career and able to be the principle wage earner.

A lot of crew who say that they are not overpaid would do well to look at other airlines and ask themselves what are the T’s and C’s like elsewhere? Pilots in BA if they were “transplanted” to another similar carrier (e.g. Virgin, Lufthansa, Air France, United etc) would find comparable Ts and Cs.

I have seen payslips and heard anecdotal figures for Long Haul Heathrow CC which state full time wages for main crew at around £1400 - £2900 depending on allowances, Pursers £1800 - £3500. So out in the real world, what sort of jobs are out there that would pay this sort of money?

A very good friend of mine is an Air Traffic Controller who has been qualified and “pushing tin” for 4 years – take home pay each month? £2,700 and this is after training for years to get into his position.

One of my brothers is a computer programmer for a Bank in the City, he has 4 A levels, an Engineering Degree and a Masters in Computer Programming. He’s been in the industry for 7 years, starts work at 7.45am, finishes at around 7.00pm and his take home pay at the end of each month is... £ 2,900.

Food for thought.

[pinkaroo]

And a doctor in Africa earns $50 per month. Shame on your brother for earning so much! That is the message isn't it?

[Human Factor]

And a doctor in Africa earns $50 per month.

I have no idea what a doctor in Africa earns. However, whatever he earns will be governed by a number of factors. One of which is "money available to pay him". Another being "market forces". Another being "cost of living".

Funnily enough, those factors drive my salary, your salary, Bronco's salary, Bronco's brother's salary .... you get the idea yet?

[M.Mouse]

I have just learned that longhaul cabin crew get a payment if the bunk rest area has any problems such as the lighting stuck in the on position! The numbers are in the order of several hundred pounds each. This was apparently agreed in recent times.

Extraordinary and illustrative of the bonkers agreements which BASSA have managed to agree with equally bonkers and supine cabin services managers.

[Bucking Bronco]

Pinkaroo

I'm not sure what your point was? In the UK a Foundation House Officer (junior doctor) will take home around £1400 pcm, which will rise up to £7100 pcm for top tier Consultants working solely in NHS hospitals. Newly qualified Junior Dr's in South Africa take home £540 pcm and when I was in Tanzania last year, pilots who were flying us around on internal flights were on £300 pcm.

There were a couple of points I was trying to make: as Human Factor pointed out, wages are influenced by many factors; that BA CC earn far more than the industry average and also to point out other jobs (Air Traffic Controller, Computer Programmer) that paid comparable wages required higher levels of qualifications than the 2 GCSEs (English & Maths) that BA require from it's cabin crew applicants.

What other salaried jobs out there pay as much for such minimal qualifications? I'd be interested to know.

Whilst on a personal level I feel sadness for individual members of our cabin crew over the impending storm, on another level I believe that BA cannot sustain paying it's CC such a large premium over industry norm and that it cannot allow BASSA to dictate the operation.