BALPA unrealistic fees?

[Oldsalt]

I've just noticed my BALPA fees have risen to about £41 a month.
My previous union membership (Nautilus) as a ship's Captain is currently only £19 a month.
My wages haven't changed so what is BALPA doing to charge twice as much for doing a similar job? Could it be the glossy magazines? I appreciate union membership is important, particularly in the current climate, but I'm struggling to justify such expense. Anyone else with views on this?

[Bruce Wayne]

They've been doing a lot of 'negotiating' this year so of course the lunch expenses bills have come in.

Doubles all round !

[The Real Slim Shady]

Holy Expense Account Batman........you could be right :ok::ok::ok:

[Flyingstig]

Hi Bruce Happy New Year!

BALPA is once again demonstrating that it is keeping in touch with industry trends !
Everyone else is screwing the pilots!!??
:ok:

[fireflybob]

I thought BALPA membership was 1 % of salary (per month).

When I recently called them to confess that my salary had increased, a nice polite lady told me that due to the economic situation there would be no increase in my sub for this year (2010). So maybe it would be an idea to check.

That said you get what you pay for. BALPA do a lot more than just publish a glossy magazine. Also, to paraphase Kennedy, ask not what BALPA can do for you but what you can do for BALPA! As a member of BALPA you are a part of IFALPA - the International Federation of Airline Pilots. Many aircrew fly internationally where one is guilty before proved innocent. I would not dream of doing my job without having this protection.

Will leave you with this clip, enjoy!

What have the Unions ever done for us? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=184NTV2CE_c)

[Rainboe]

Completely agree. BALPA carries out more studies and technical matters than any other association on behalf of its members. And it represents them well. When things go wrong, BALPA is behind you offering support. They have instigated support when it was needed. Just remember the tiny membership base and the massive work that goes on behind the scenes. For 1%/year from the limited membership, massive VFM!

I can tell you the members are thoroughly sick of the sudden applications from desperate troubled non-members who suddenly discover the reasons for membership! If you decide you want none of it, fine, keep out, but don't use this thread as a means of flinging insults or abuse at the people who do want to be members, as so many threads about BALPA become thanks to the same noisy minority.

[SAXONBLOKE]

As usual Rainboe, you tell people how things are and what they should and shouldn't do, if not what they should and shouldn't think.
Although actually, I think you'll find the very purpose of a site like this is for people to express their views, however different they are to your own.
Sad obnoxious :mad:

[The Real Slim Shady]

Bob, you have probably been a member since you were at Hamble and it did you proud for those years: tempus fugit and there are better ways of securing legal help, not dependant on BALPA generosity - check the Ts and Cs - but on payment.

PS I was a member of the RAF Club, paid my subs, never got a chance to use it so gave up.

[fireflybob]

The Real Slim Shady, yes to an extent I agree with you. There isn't a perfect union/representation just as there isn't (to my knowledge) a perfect employer (if there is then please let me know!).

I don't just want legal help. I want a professional organisation which will represent my interests on all aspects of my profession. Just because I have hardly ever used their services is hardly relevant to me. The mere knowledge that I have someone independent I can turn to on a whole raft of different issues makes me feel more comfortable.

I don't mind paying for this either. I would rather pay a bit extra so that BALPA can attract the best people to work on my behalf with suitable Ts and Cs.

Thought I just check the Nautilus website and I note that they have 25,000 members maritime professionals including ship masters (captains), officers, officer trainees (cadets) and shipping industry personnel, such as ship pilots, inland navigation workers, vessel traffic services operators (similar to air traffic control), harbourmasters, seafarers in the oil and gas industry, and shore-based staff.

I imagine this number far exceeds the BALPA membership hence the fact that their subs are a lot less! Here is their link:-

Nautilus Union (http://www.nautilusint.org/About-Us/default.aspx)

BALPA website says membership is "currently more than 10,000" and growing each month.

Lastly, membership fees are tax deductable. I quote from the BALPA website:-

Members are now entitled to tax relief on two thirds of their BALPA subscription. This means that if you pay an annual subscription of £500, you will be entitled to tax relief on £334, saving £73.50pa for a basic rate tax payer (22%), and £133.60pa for a higher rate (40%) taxpayer.

[Barden]

So what's happened here? The old salt, worried about his union dues going up, and apparently ignorant that his increased BALPA fees are caused to an increase in his basic pay, posts on the internet.

Found FFB's Youtube interesting and the other links that followed. They are quite right. There is active union busting going on through this website.

I think far too many Walmart-types frequent this website and are taken in by slim-shandy types.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Barden, no one is "taken in" by fact.

All you have to do to see what your union subs are spent on is to look at the accounts (http://www.balpa.org/Document-Library/Publications/Reports-(1)/BALPA-Year-End-Accounts-2007-12-31.aspx): it is quite clear that more is spent on lunch, dinner and swanning around than providing legal assistance to the membership.

The pro BALPA contigent cannot or will not provide valid arguments to justify the stance taken, for example, on the easyjet cadets - with 20% easyjet representation on the NEC and the BALPA Chairman an easyjet Captain, which is being done to death in another thread, nor can they provide any answers to market forces or support when your company contracts. Again done to death on other threads.

What you have is a entity that needs your money to survive but does little to provide value for that money: strident birdcalls of "the pilots in your company are BALPA, BALPA is the the pilots in your company" etc etc don't wash anymore. We can all think for ourselves and see that you are getting zero value for your tax deductible subscription.

[Barden]

Now then Shandy, for a non-union member you take an unusual interest in the accounts of an organisation you so evidently despise.

Fortunately vast majority of members problems, at least in my company, are sorted long before the lawyers get their greedy hands on the member's shekels.

And as far wining and dining, I imagine most of this is down to the reps, who are serving pilots from all corners of the country, unpaid and elected by their colleagues. Their service on behalf of their colleagues means they miss out on lucrative trips and consequent flight pay and allowances - shouldn't their HOTAC, travel and eating expenses be paid? I don't begrudge that at all.

We do agree on one thing that the silence of the NEC regarding cadet-type deals being foisted on those entering the industry is deafening. These deals are a cancer and need stamping on.

Finally, all your talk non-unionised pilots being the only ones who can think for themselves reminded me of this little clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-w1nqzYTS4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-w1nqzYTS4&feature=related)

Walmart airline = Walmart pilots.

[Bruce Wayne]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/img/themes/society/industry/arthur_scargill_446.jpg

[al446]

Perhaps you would like to share with all the intellectual processes that led to your posting a pic of an NUM president of the early 80s. You may like to bear to in mind that a BALPA official, shortly before his election to parliament, was Norman Tebbit who was rabidly opposed to Scargill and espoused the laissez-faire practices now being employed within the locos and rapidly gaining ground.

Come on old chap, you can do better than that. It wasn't even good propaganda.:yuk:

[The Real Slim Shady]

Now then Shandy, for a non-union member you take an unusual interest in the accounts of an organisation you so evidently despise.

Fortunately vast majority of members problems, at least in my company, are sorted long before the lawyers get their greedy hands on the member's shekels.

Of course I take an interest: I like to see where the priorities lie. Fat salaries, company cars,final salary pension schemes - maybe even the BA stalwarts will wake up and smell the coffee. I would like nothing better than to finish them off permanently. I don't just not want them at FR: I want to see them gone.

I always found it unpalatable that when the small minded and small of stature Chris was running the organisation, that he was quite content to take a 38% rise in the year that his precious organisation negotiated a cut for the workers in BM. Before you start on the "it was the CC etc" think on who advised them and ratifiied the deal: BALPA.

Of course the members problems are sorted: BALPA just won't dig into the member's shekels to help them. Legal assistance is NOT an automatic right if you are a BALPA member - read the small print: with my legal insurance, organised by another dis-illusioned former BALPA member, for the princely sum of £11 per month, I get on the spot advice at the end of a phone 24/7 and guaranteed legal costs paid. Who needs a fair weather friend?

Another reason the member's problems are sorted is that the fat cats, senior captains a la easyjet Chairman - are looking after themselves, not the poor downtrodden CTC cadet or expendable FO. How can you possibly sit there at your keyboard and be so patronising and condescending when it is totally transparent that the BALPA chairman and 20% easyjet representation on the NEC are doing nothing, rien, nada, zip, zero to stop or change the rot - because it isn't in THEIR interests to rock the boat. Union - what a joke.

People, glass houses, throwing stones........keep going Barden.

PS your WalMart analogy is quite amusing: I have a very good friend who is an easyjet captain. Last time we had a beer together I took one look at him and completely involuntarily said " F8ck me mate, you look exhausted".

He is: permanently worn out. Not just by stupid scheduling, BALPA CC approved, but by being messed around by crewing, BALPA CC approved, and overwhelmed by trivial emails from management, BALPA CC approved.

You keep your 40 Thieves membership: I'll buy the missus another handbag with what I save by not being a member!

[al446]

Legal assistance is NOT an automatic right if you are a BALPA member - read the small printUnusually, you are quite correct on this point but it is common across unions. Legal advice is automatic, or should be, and if the problem needs to be referred to a lawyer it will be. However, if the advice of the lawyer is that the case is a lost cause the union will withdraw support. As would your insurer.

[The Real Slim Shady]

However, if the advice of the lawyer is that the case is a lost cause the union will withdraw support. As would your insurer.

Sorry mate, not the case: the insurer will pay the legal fees. Anyone who pressed on regardless, in the face of overwhelming advice, would be off their trolley.

However, your mates in the 40 Thieves will give up before they even start.

[gatbusdriver]

Save your breath chaps. TRSS is not worth it, he is a vile little man who cannot enter into reasoned argument. The last time I tried I had a load of abuse.

I see from your responses that he is still spouting the same rubbish he always does, going on about accounts and the fact that so little is spent on legal fees as opposed to hire cars/food/hotels etc. What he refuses to comprehend is that all the time spent training the reps on the CC helps reduce the number of incidents where lawyers are required. He also refuses to acknowledge any of the good Balpa does, this is just ignored (just as I now ignore him).

He has been banned several times from this site The last time for posting some bile on the GSM thread. He is clearly a very unpleasant troll.

If you're reading this TRSS, I did try to PM you with regards your idea about a Christmas fund for the GSM pilots, funnily enough I found your PM's switched off (why am I not surprised). Anyway, no matter, I have made a donation by other means!

Happy New Year to all.

[Barden]

Shandy,

I'll take my hat off to you - you were obviously listening in the 'how to muddy the waters' section during your union busting course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qajBfEdzoE&feature=PlayList&p=D9055CB87FB8221F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=21).

Very little of what you say is worthy of a response and I hope any professional pilot would have the intelligence to recognise this, other than to say yes, you are correct that BALPA has been silent for too long on the subject of cadets. Now for the first time and very recently an Easyjet pilot has just become BALPA chairman, maybe, just maybe they'll be stirred into action. Don't however be so churlish to suggest that you or your ilk give two hoots about the plight of cadet pilots.

[The Real Slim Shady]

gatbusdriver,

I can assure you that I am neither vile, nor little.

I do not, however, subscribe to your overwhelming devotion to what is patently a flawed, in the extreme, collection of mediocre,self serving sycophants.

Moreover, if your sycophants are spending your money training company reps I submit that the training is failing: negotiating redundancies at Thomson, baby and Virgin patently requires a skill base sadly missing from the majority of the pilot population.

Perhaps you would enlighten me, and everyone else, what this "rubbish" is that I am spouting about the BALPA accounts: it is there, in black and white, untarnished by me, MOL, LHC or anyone else.


Affiliation fees and conferences £409,503 - 144 times more than they spend on training CC reps
Travelling and out of pocket expenses £396,499 -more than double the cost of defending members
Lunches and entertainment £80,239 - 28 times the training costs
Cost of defending members £191,212
Salaries £1,529,787
Pensions £ 512,351 - close on 30% of salaries
Training £2,829 - less than 4% of the cost of lunches and entertainment, NOT EVEN £10 a day
Motor Vehicle depreciation £18,715 - close on 9% of the cost of defending members and nearly 8 times more than training
Computer Costs £244,307 - almost 90 times more they spend on training
The remuneration of the General Secretary £138,199
Pension - The Employer's contribution was 26% of salary.


I'm sure that your choice to ignore me is borne from a resolve to remain ostrich like, head firmly in the sand surrounding the 40 Thieves, rather than acknowledge common sense and look at the facts in the accounts.

Incidentally, my PM's aren't turned off: I had a query about FR recruitment from someone only the other day.

Finally, if you dispute my assertions take it up with BALPA's auditors: you are being done!

Barden, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVWtkfbV2A) one is for you :rolleyes:

[Herod]

As I said on another thread, I needed BALPA twice in my career. Both times they pulled the rabbit out of the hat. Sub money well spent.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Herod, I'm delighted that you were assisted.

Now would you tell us who you worked for, which seat you flew from, what the problems were, how they helped you and when this happened?

[al446]

However, if the advice of the lawyer is that the case is a lost cause the union will withdraw support. As would your insurer.

Sorry mate, not the case: the insurer will pay the legal fees. Anyone who pressed on regardless, in the face of overwhelming advice, would be off their trolley.

How does your statement argue against mine? If tilting at windmills insurer or union will both withdraw on lawyer's advice. Just like posting do you?

I do hope your insurer is affiliated to IALPA to get you out of the sh1t down route if needed.

Affiliation fees and conferences £409,503

I have NOTHING to do with BALPA.

[The Real Slim Shady]

al446,

Do keep up, dear boy: the issue is who has the choice.

In your case the choice to defend or withdraw is the union's: where one pays for insurance the choice to fight or flee is the individuals.

[al446]

Sorry mate, not the case: the insurer will pay the legal fees. Anyone who pressed on regardless, in the face of overwhelming advice, would be off their trolley.

And you think an insurer is going to go along with that, throwing possibly millions at a hopeless cause? You're off your trolley.

No problem keeping up here.

[Bruce Wayne]

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/images/cabinetpapers/tuc-radicalisation.jpg

[Bruce Wayne]

Herod,

Good to hear that the rabbit was pulled out of the hat for you when needed :D

Consequently there have been posts by various ppruners that were let down severely when they needed assistance. They paid for representation and were failed.

The point that seems to be missed by a few is that while the likes of Slim, or myself may have an inherent dissatisfaction over over BALPA's activities in the past it must be recognised that there are significant areas in which they have not in the past, or at current, given adequate attention.

[night_flight99]

TRSS, you stated in response to a previous poster:

"Do keep up, dear boy: the issue is who has the choice.

In your case the choice to defend or withdraw is the union's: where one pays for insurance the choice to fight or flee is the individuals."

Perhaps you would care to give us the details of the policy (and the insurer) so we can all join. If you really think a commercial organisation would give you (or any other individual) the sole discretion in pursuing an action against the lawyers advice then they either charge large premiums or they won't be around very long.

You and your colleagues (Leo, Bruce Wayne) are forever throwing around sweeping statements and generalisations but forever failing to come up with the detail. Back up your statement by showing who your insurer is, what is the premium you pay and what exactly is the wording that allows you to choose whether to "fight or flee".

I'll bet you £50 (to the Balpa GSM fund) that you are wrong.

[al446]

night flight - Post #15 states he pays £11 p/m. That must mean that his sheme has millions of members for them to so accommodating as to allow the litigant to proceed rather than the trained and experienced lawyer. My union, Unison, would never authorise what TRSS suggests. Indeed the fees paid are not mainly towards members legal fees, costs in successful cases are generally reclaimed from the other side. The main legal cost borne by any union is in taking advice on what can be fought collectively and what cant, this may explain BALPA's apparent inaction on CTC etc, they may have been advised that legally they have no part to play or voice in the matter.

Bruce Wayne - Are you doing a course in TU history at college in preparation for a future career or what? Always handy to have if you loose your licence I suppose. You are however scraping the barrel a touch, even I only recognise Barbara Castle (if it is she) out of that lot. How's about an etching of the chartists or the diggers next?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Night Flight,

I have not said that the insurer would pay legal fees regardless: what I said was that if an individual pursued, or attempted to pursue a case against the advice of the legal eagles, he / she would be off their trolley.

However, the individual who pays a premium for insurance has the choice to fight or flee: it may be that the lawyer feels they have a case, which allows them to fight, or that they have no case, in which case a prudent individual would take the proportionate route and cut his losses. How many cases have you heard of where BALPA have declined to assist, or offered only some assistance, but the individual has gone on to win? I know of a couple and I know of one guy who gave up, even though BALPA were involved, because the advice and assistance was so difficult to get in anything approaching a timely manner.

As a member of BALPA, however,the choice falls to them, not you, and it could be that your perfectly reasonable and winnable case is traded for a sanction, accommodation or benefit they have been seeking from your employer for some time. The chance of trading you, and your case against the employer, for the "good" of the masses prejudices your right to assisted legal advice.

However, we don't have to dwell on this as you don't need legal assistance as your employer, and your union, well Barden's at least, deal with matters before it has to resort to the law.

Let's focus on the case in hand: the way the 40 Thieves spend your subs.

The training of CC reps was allegedly absorbing vast sums of the travel expenses, allowances and dining; however, the accounts don't reflect much in the way of training costs so that doesn't quite tally.

It is transparently clear that they have singularly failed in their efforts at collective bargaining and IR, maybe they should spend more on training, whilst scoring a stunning own goal by quite spectacularly foregoing the opportunity of fighting the corner of the CTC cadets when easyjet pilots are retaining the Chairman's seat and 2 further seats on the NEC. Those poor cadet souls are probably on the trainee membership scheme, which is free, hence the Thieves don't have any interest in backing them as they get nothing from them financially.

The consensus though is that they have failed: the consensus is that the CTC scheme was / is " a cancer ". So if "they" have failed, by your own arguments, the pilots are BALPA etc, you are admitting that you have failed: the admission is that the existing membership is facilitating the shafting of these cadets by inaction. The stereotypical "I'm alright Jack" attitude: hardly, comrades and brothers in arms against the tyranny, is it? So what are your subs for, if not " stamping on cancerous deals"?

We don't have to linger too long in this pit as everyone seems perfectly happy with them spending profligate sums to lobby on your behalf (a tad woolly, but it's your money) or do research on your behalf when there are other organisations far better placed to do this, the CAA as one example.

So in summary let's examine what you get for your tax deductible subs, apart from a glossy magazine every so often: collective bargaining that fails to stop cancerous practices, sacrificies FOs to protect Captains, ignores previously agreed scope agreements and gets you pay cuts and job losses. Legal protection at the discretion of the union so you have to go cap in hand to beg for help, "Please sir, I've been naughty will you help me"? Vast amounts of training for the CC Reps.

Did I mention a glossy magazine? Some vague lobbying which doesn't appear to have produced much of anything, airport taxes go up, security is ever more invasive but we won't have to carry ID cards. What is that attached to your uniform or around your neck? OOPS - it's an ID card!! Now that was a success, wasn't it.

What you get is your General Secretary pulling out his crystal ball and forecasting that this year will be a good year for the charter airlines.

LEISURE AIRLINES' PROSPECTS FOR 2010 IMPROVED
2010 will bring improved prospects for airlines like Monarch, Thomas Cook and Thomson who are in the leisure business, the British Airline Pilots' Association has predicted

Exactly 1 week after GSM went bust ! How subtle is that?

Maybe he can give you 6 numbers for this week's Lotto.

[al446]

At the risk of feeding the troll -

Stop trying to weasel out of previous statements.

for the princely sum of £11 per month, I get on the spot advice at the end of a phone 24/7 and guaranteed legal costs paid. Who needs a fair weather friend?


No conditions attached there.

However, if the advice of the lawyer is that the case is a lost cause the union will withdraw support. As would your insurer.

Sorry mate, not the case: the insurer will pay the legal fees. Anyone who pressed on regardless, in the face of overwhelming advice, would be off their trolley.

So you are agreeing that in both cases, union and insurer, legals paid so far. You then go on to distort things, as I have known you do in the past.

As a member of BALPA, however,the choice falls to them, not you, and it could be that your perfectly reasonable and winnable case is traded for a sanction, accommodation or benefit they have been seeking from your employer for some time. The chance of trading you, and your case against the employer, for the "good" of the masses prejudices your right to assisted legal advice.

Wrong. I know of no union that retains in-house litigation lawyers, not even mine, Unison, one of the largest in the UK. We pay a retainer to Thompson's and refer on a case by case basis. From then on it is the lawyers decision, in conjunction with member, as to whether to proceed or not, not the union's. At no point do the union even suggest "trading" anything. That is wilful conjecture and if you were making that statement against me, after giving you the chance to withdraw it I would be straight down to Thompsons to sue the sh1t out of you.

However, we don't have to dwell on this as you don't need legal assistance as your employer, and your union, well Barden's at least, deal with matters before it has to resort to the law.

A very sensible route to take, most sensible individuals and organisations wish to avoid the cost, time and hassle of going to law, we are not in the business of keeping the courts full.

Earlier in the thread Herod posted

As I said on another thread, I needed BALPA twice in my career. Both times they pulled the rabbit out of the hat. Sub money well spent.

And your reply?

Herod, I'm delighted that you were assisted.

Now would you tell us who you worked for, which seat you flew from, what the problems were, how they helped you and when this happened?

Condescending or what?

Then in your last post

How many cases have you heard of where BALPA have declined to assist, or offered only some assistance, but the individual has gone on to win? I know of a couple and I know of one guy who gave up, even though BALPA were involved, because the advice and assistance was so difficult to get in anything approaching a timely manner.

Supporting evidence please. In an anonymous post you can make any claim you wish, it doesn't mean it is true. Even if partially true, it is well known that many patients suffer to some degree from MRSA when in hospital, does that mean the guy with a child in ICU should take him home? Don't think so. An A320 flew into a field outside Schiphol so never fly Airbus? TRSS makes bum argument so never believe him? Now that one I may go for.

I didn't read the rest of your post, eyes were drooping. Boredom does that.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

No, not unrealistic. Entirely explicable when you consider.....

13 Pension Commitments

Employees of BALPA may participate in the BALPA 1973 Pension Scheme which, is a defined benefit scheme for its employees whose assets are held in independent trustee administered funds. Contributions are determined by a qualified actuary on the basis of triennial valuations using the projected unit method, the most recent valuation being at 31 December 2006.

It is not possible to identify each entity's share of the underlying assets and liabilities of the scheme and hence contribution to the scheme are accounted for as if it were a defined contribution scheme , the cost recognised within the statement of Income and Expenditure account being equal to the contributions payable to the scheme for a year.

The pension charge for the year was £614,757 (2006:£526,335).
From 1.7.04 all new joiners to the Pension Scheme pay a contribution of 6% of salary.

From 1.1.06 employees who were members of the Pension Scheme prior to 1.7.04 could opt either to continue paying 8.5% and receive pension indexation of RPI up to 2.5%, or increase their contribution to 9.5% and receive pension indexation of RPI up to 5%.

The Employer's contribution was 26% of salary.

They've been a bit shy in publishing their accounts since '07 for some reason, but if they did, you'd see in an instant, Oldsalt, that BLAPA are broke and desperate for new revenue streams wherever they can find them.

The truth is that BLAPA are like a castrated, three-legged elderly lion. Decrepit, useless, incapable of a kill, and far prefers basking in the memory of glories past.

[al446]

They've been a bit shy in publishing their accounts since '07 for some reason, but if they did, you'd see in an instant, Oldsalt, that BLAPA are broke and desperate for new revenue streams wherever they can find them.

If they are unpublished how come you know so much? Burgle their offices? Or is it just (yawn, yawn) wild speculation?

[The Real Slim Shady]

al446

Fisrtly, you keep banging on about Unison: we are not dealing with Unison and their means of dealing with matters, we are talking here about BALPA fees. Now if you aren't aircrew and / or not a member or official of BALPA your views and opinions on how another separate union does or does not do something don't really matter.

However, to humour you, this is a direct quote from the BALPA members Rules:

. The extent of the Legal Assistance granted, and the means by which it is provided, shall be at the absolute discretion of the NEC,

Whichever way you look at it the choice to provide assistance is the union's, not the individuals.

I have never said that BALPA have their own in house lawyers: you pulled that one from a leftover Xmas cracker!

From then on it is the lawyers decision, in conjunction with member, as to whether to proceed or not, not the union's

See the quotation from the rule book!

In an anonymous post you can make any claim you wish, it doesn't mean it is true. Even if partially true

Well is it true or not? How would you know? you aren't - A. a BALPA member B. Aircrew C. A BALPA official.

I'm not going to name names here, suffice it to say one fella was given partial assistance, won his case but had to pay the bulk of the fees himself. Another gave up his case out of sheer frustration because the help was so slow and tied up with conditions and caveats, and on another thread a guy said his request for help had been rejected but he had gone on himself to win the case.

The attitude of your beloved Unison can be seen quite clearly on the homepage of the website with the words of the General Secretary " 2010 is set to be a pivotal year for public services. Cameron’s plans for a public sector pay freeze shows that the Tories haven't changed - they are still on the side of the haves. And as the general election battle cranks up, public services are set to become the political battleground".

Battleground???? Sounds like fighting talk to me: what happened to working in partnership?

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

If they are unpublished how come you know so much? Burgle their offices? Or is it just (yawn, yawn) wild speculation?
I know so much, al446, because their '07 accounts were published. Here you are (http://www.balpa.org/getattachment/66739729-f0fb-472a-a703-88489e7dab51/BALPA-Year-End-Accounts-2007-12-31.aspx), but scroll down to item 13 and you'll see the data I posted in its original are the (yawn, yawn) facts.

[tocamak]

Oldsalt, the thread has been hi-jacked by the usual suspects who have an ingrained ant-union view which comes from their employer ("join a union and we will close your base") or perhaps a bad experience in the past. I also was in your former union (although called Numast and even earlier MNAOA!) and my experience of them was not as positive as that with Balpa. When my then employer Shell was transferring all personnel to the Isle of Man and reregistering their ships it seemed that Numast stood by and did nothing. Subsequently a lot of things changed back but that was more due to the numbers leaving the IOM agency than union intervention. During 13 years at sea I cannot point to one action that Numast took which helped my employment although I do acknowledge that the nature of deep sea trade made contact difficult (by morse code!). My experience of Balpa has been reasonably positive most notably during a TUPE transfer and also when our pension was under threat.

I am going to put forward to the Balpa NEC that they charge a lot less (but then bump up the fee by charging a handling fee on bank transactions unless you have a suitably obscure pre-paid mastercard).

[Bruce Wayne]

I didn't read the rest of your post, eyes were drooping. Boredom does that.


So does dementia. Apparently.

[Bruce Wayne]

al446, you have stated in the past that you are not a commercial pilot...

you therefore do not have position to intervene in matters that involve commercial pilots.

we are happy to discuss our profession with non pilots, conversely respect the fact that your pro-union lectures are offensive.

if a commercial pilot wishes to discuss and debate a pilot union with other pilots then we can have constructive debate but for you to come here as a non commercial pilot and lecture and pontificate on a subject that doesn't involve you or your professional life is highly sanctimonious.

.. the picture by the way...
Red Robbo.

night night.

[Herod]

TRSS, The NEC, whose decision it is whether to proceed with legal action or not, is as far as I know made up of pilots from the various companies. So the decision is not the "unions", but the members of the union. As regards my own cases, no, I won't rise to your bait. The actions were between myself, my then employer and BALPA; no one else's business. Suffice to say, as I did, that my subscriptions paid for themselves many times over.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Herod, naturally I respect your wish for privacy. I simply had hoped to establish if you had been working for BA or one of it's previous incarnations and which seat you flew in at the time as both aspects may have some bearing on your success.

As you rightly say the NEC comprises pilot members from a variety of companies, but as others here repeat quite vociferously " the pilots are the union, the union is the pilots" my assertion that the choice is the union's remains extant.

So let's all get back on topic: are BALPA's fees unrealistic?

Leo and I await an activist to explain the finer intricacies of the accounts to counter our views.

Edit: al446, naturally as a non pilot / BALPA member / official you won't have anything valid to add to this.

[Jonny-no-stars]

Slim

What the accounts mask is that the seeming disproportionate expenses are the only recompense the many volunteer reps receive. I would opine that they would demonstrate excellent value for the membership if they could be accounted for against the 1000's of, otherwise unrewarded, man hours that are given to the benefit of us - the members.

Do I object to my subs going towards buying a good steak and bottle of wine for otherwise unrewarded reps? Not one bit - provided they keep coming up with the goods.

[al446]

I thank all who have pointed out that I am not a pilot (I did first) and should therefore have no hand in further matters. What a compliment!! Especially from Bruce Wayne whose best shot at this is to post some very, very old photographs of long ago.without contributing a single word to the subject in hand, the Oxford Union would be proud of you Bruce, take a bow.

LHC - You did not explain your wild conjecture over the future defecit which would require more up to date figures. Please elucidate.

TRSS - If I can be bothered I will give you a detailed answer to your points, they are ALL wrong. However in relation to you a,b,c points, you are only b. Does that disqualify you?

[u0062]

Shady

The reasons why Balpa membership is increasing year on year is because of YOU. and management like you.

We as a pilot group are being treated with contempt,you know that and support the action. Your self interest in belittling Balpa is for one reason only.to further degrade our terms and conditions. Your statements are totally transparant, working for a company who take great delight in ruining the very jobs that have made your leader one of the richest people in the world.

You have one objective and one only that definetly is not to enhance the industry it is to line your own pockets just like your boss.

[night_flight99]

TRSS,

I see (as usual) the detail that was requested to support your argument is not forthcoming. I see from further dialogue on this thread you are now changing the substance of your argument.

Your actual wording was

"Do keep up, dear boy: the issue is who has the choice.

In your case the choice to defend or withdraw is the union's: where one pays for insurance the choice to fight or flee is the individuals."

Now you are saying that this is subject to the legal experts decision. That is a qualification you had not made before. For the benefit of your integrity your £50 contribution can be made to Julie Rutley, Treasurer, BALPA Christmas Hardship Fund, BALPA House, 5 Heathrow Boulevard, West Drayton, UB7 0DQ

As a current pilot (11,000 hours, B757 Captain) I would certainly prefer that my livelihood is protected by the mechanism employed by Balpa, rather than some minimally legally qualified individual working for an insurance company. Indeed all of this discussion is a good reminder of the limitations of other organisations and their "legal protection". Any insurance based legal protection scheme will have limitations on pursuing an action.

At least with Balpa (which is not insurance based), the decisions are being made by people who are actively involved in flying. Indeed their decisions have the added incentive of affecting their own careers potentially. I know which I would prefer to look after my licence and my career.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Morning chaps,

Nice to find a soul who is straightforward enough to say that he is happy with the profligate way the money is spent: good on you Jonny. He is quite happy that the lads should indulge in fine dining and wines so long as they keep coming up with the goods. Something of an afterthought is that. However, but there lies the rub: they patently are NOT coming up with goods.

We won't linger on this one too long, we shall all skip merrily past the nasty bits in the accounts and the even nastier reality of the 40 Thieves and focus, a la nightflight, on something else to try to deflect the ball off the cushion and away from the black.

Doesn't work laddie: unable to determine something which is implicit in a statement I will have to spell it out for him. The 11000 757 hrs, in the dark flying rubber dogsh.........., nah, couldn't have been him, that was Top Gun, and nightflight doesn't so much soar with eagles, as hang around street corners with public service union worker wannabees.

When one visits Messrs Screwem, Fleeceem and Bankit to so seek legal advice as an individual, on say, an injury claim, one sits down with said solicitor, tells him your tale, and he will, having given it due consideration, decide whether you have a prima facie case for damages, the same chance of success in pressing your claim as Shergar has of winning this years Gold Cup or some proportionate chance of winning some damages, say 60 /40. You then, having taken his advice, have to decide whether to fight, or to flee.

Not his decision you will NB but your decision: you take legal advice but retain the decision and, should you choose to fight, you still have the opportunity for flight if you subsequently decide it is not looking good. When you win, you trouser the damages and your insurers, if you have insurance, pick up the bill for the legal fees.

However, this bit is important nightflight - anyone who is advised by his legal team that he hasn't got a case is off his trolley if he tries to press on. Fact is, he will likely NOT find a solicitor who will take the case on because, amongst other issues, the Law Society does not look kindly on solicitors fighting patently unwinnable battles just to generate fee income. The bill for that advice he can pass on to his insurers, who subject to the excess and his adherence to the terms of his policy then pay the solicitor.

In comparison, when you present your case in writing, iaw Rule 26, to the General Secretary as per the 40 Thieves Rule Book, the applicant will then have the opportunity to avail himself of legal advice from BALPA's officers ( let's hope that they have a legal qualification) OR ( my emphasis as it is not AND) legal adviser. That's straight from Rule 26 nightflight.

At least with Balpa (which is not insurance based), the decisions are being made by people who are actively involved in flying. Indeed their decisions have the added incentive of affecting their own careers potentially. I know which I would prefer to look after my licence and my career.

I refer nightflight to his statement.

Decisions made by people actively involved in flying but NOT in the legal profession. Good to see that you haven't thought any of this through nightflight: why not go the whole hog and have a dentist do your annual medical?

But back to nightflight's pal who is in trouble and looking for BALPA legal assistance. Once he has had the considered opinion of the BALPA officer OR the legal adviser ( BALPA's choice, not his), the case is passed to the NEC, iaw Rule 26.2, and AT THEIR ABSOLUTE DISCRETION a decision to suppport, the extent or not of said support will be made.

I would certainly prefer that my livelihood is protected by the mechanism employed by Balpa, rather than some minimally legally qualified individual working for an insurance company.

That would, again, be the tertiary qualification of the member's of the NEC as personal injury / employment litigators.

Who has the decision, nighflight? The NEC, NOT the applicant.

You don't have to take my word for it, like the facts in the accounts you elect to gloss over and ignore, you can find the Rules here (http://www.balpa.org/Document-Library/Publications/Rules/BALPA-Rule-Book-2009-04-09.aspx).

It gets better though nightflight, because tacked on at the end of Rule 26 is this at 26.6.3

The member shall accept the obligation that, if successful in pursing their claim, he shall take all necessary and sufficient steps to recover the legal costs incurred on their behalf and indemnified by BALPA in pursuing the claim wherever, and to the full extent, possible and shall repay any costs so recovered to BALPA forthwith

So having been through all the stress of a court case and probably out of work BALPA will chase you for costs: there is no guarantee that they won't try to recover those costs from your damages.

So let's move on now to u0062: since you try to lay the blame for the degradtion, industry wide, of Ts and Cs at my feet have this from the Slavery thread:

As for T’s & C’s everybody is quick to blame the airline ‘accountants’ and these cheeky Herberts who dare to want to join our ranks at any cost, but I’m afraid your barking up the wrong tree. Unless you are completely myopic or devoid of any contact with reality – you will realise that it is almost impossible for an airline to make money – and it is not because of said Herberts. In fact your time would be better spent writing letters of complaint to members OPEC about the cost of fuel, having a row with ATC over their charges followed by a rant over the P/A to your pax about their unwillingness to pay decent fares

and

more importantly, addressing the issues with policy makers that drive up operational costs and foist policies on the industry which are punitive to economic stability.

You see, 62, your precious BALPA is doing nothing at easyjet to stop the exploitation of the CTC cadets, but it is much easier to lay the blame for that at my door, without any supporting evidence, than face the harsh reality that "the pilots who are BALPA" have failed you yet again.

Your 40 thieves are too busy guzzling good steak and fine wine to deal with the punitive taxes imposed on airline passengers: to handle the shrieks of the Green lobby on emissions or to produce cogent policies, in conjunction with other agencies to improve traffic flow around Europe.

But look on the bright side, they did succeed in getting an alleviation on the liquid rules so that pilots could carry 150ml of contact lens solution through security.

[GuinnessQueen]

I work for a small non-public transport operator and we have BALPA recognition. In the past 4 years I have had a total pay rise of around 24%. This is considerably more than those non-aircrew departments within our company (and this includes skilled professionals). The total payrise is 5 times as much cash as I've paid to BALPA in fees over the years.

I'm no mathematician, but it seems like a good return and much better than if I was negotiating my own payrise. Of course, all those non-BALPA colleagues also benefit...'I'm alright jack' springs to mind!

[Lubeoil]

Hello Oldsalt
Sent you a PM.
Cheers