UNITE for pilots?

[flyhigh2fly]

Does anybody know if Unite represents pilots? if so how do you join?
If not why not?

I am pretty sure it will be a lot cheaper than BALPA where we pay 1% of our salary if not more.

I am also pretty sure they will do a better job of representing us.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

[Brakes to Park]

My thoughts are that you're a deluded idiot. Look at what's going on in BA.

[flyhigh2fly]

Listen Pal, I am not even going to bother with you.
If you want to talk nonsense go somewhere else please.
This is a serious question I posted here

Thanks

[pottwiddler]

flyhigh2fly has a point though and surely there's a 'market' for two unions in any occupation. One being "a realistic and professional union but apparently impotent" one and "a neo-militant, but management ball-grabbing" alternative.

[Rushed Approach]

The fact is that no airline pilot would take your suggestion seriously, which is why this will be a VERY short thread.

[Bruce Wayne]

UNITE is a principle provider of funds to the Labour party..

Straight off, there is enough reason to kick UNITE 'into the long grass'..

Added to that, Labour is single handedly responsible for pushing through legislation that has significantly damaged the economics of aircraft operators and has failed to act to bring in legislation to prevent damage to the aviation industry.

You may as well throw money at the Labour party with note attached saying "please continue to screw the aviation industry please"

UNITE representing pilots.. its like a turkey voting for Christmas.

[beardy]

Why don't you ask the union direct instead of prevaricating on message board?

[deltahotel]

We got to a position in my airline of having enough T&G members to push for recognition. When T&G (now included in UNITE) were approached they said "not us pal, BALPA is the union for pilots". 3 or 4 years later we are now in negotiations over BALPA recognition.

[SiClick]

In BMI Baby the IPA are making a bid to provide an alternative to BALPA

[al446]

You ask a reasonable question, I have long been of the view that BALPA as a singular entity would be better if subsumed into Unite, at present just one legal finding against it could bankrupt it which may explain their timidity. As part of Unite it would also have access to greater resources of legal opinion and negotiators.

However, as things stand, any pilot wishing to join Unite will probably be directed to BALPA. It would be up to the members of BALPA to decide its future.

I know of the IPA but do not see them as serious players, their name is the same as an outfit from across the pond but they are not related, DHL recognised them but only to keep BALPA out, that may say something. I severely doubt that they could give greater representation than BALPA but have read insufficient.

Bruce Wayne - I am sure you meant "principal" instead of "principle" but maybe not, if not then excuse me for underestimating your ability to make a play on words. And there was me thinking you were just a short sighted dogmatist. However, re your dig at the Labour Party, was it not Gordon Brown who spoke out against the strike? Hardly the words of a rabid lefty I think.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

flyhigh2fly - you may indeed have asked a reasonable question, but it is not a sensible one. I totally agree with Bruce Wayne that Unite are not a credible union for pilots. In my experience, most pilots are more right wing in their views than left - by definition, therefore, they do not support the Labour Party. More importantly they would never contribute to an organisation who gives to the Labour Party and therefore for that reason alone they cannot ever effectively represent the pilot profession.

My first ever 'proper' job was as a bus driver in Glasgow and I was forced to join the TGWU (ie Unite) under the closed shop legislation in force at the time. It was a true eye opener to take the lid off the industrial madness that had taken over the country at the time. Love her or hate her, the day Margaret Thatcher brought in secret ballots, the T&G were finished. Intimidation on a grand scale was no longer possible and their membership shrank overnight. They have since re-invented themselves, but underneath it all are still the hard left, brain-out-the-window crowd of yesteryear. Listening to Tony Woodley spout forth to a meeting of the faithful outside Heathrow last week just took me back to the 70s and 80s. It was like a visit to the Natural History Museum, but this time a real-life dinosaur was prancing about on his hind legs and was on display for us all to marvel at. These guys are in the process of destroying British Airways and have zero grasp of the commercial realities of our world. Their company is losing a million a day (that's before the strike!) and expect to carry on with their snouts in the trough. A serious reality check is required very quickly or it will be well and truly game over. BA does not have a right to exist and Wille Walsh knows that only too well. Alas, their cabin crew, goaded on by the half-wits at Unite do not seem to realise that. I simply do not get it - how could anyone want Unite to represent the pilot community?

[BarrowBoy]

I too have personal expereince of BALPA & the T & G...... I was one of the many who BALPA sold down the river after 911...I wouldn't give them the drippings off my nose...:mad:

At my next company we tried to entertain the T & G as our representatives & were also told "no - go to BALPA"!!!!

Having said that I remained a member as on a personal level they put the fear of god into management. I had cause to use them & whilst their approach as a group maybe like dinosaurs on an individual basis they made mincemeat of the company & my situation went no further. I know of at least 3 occasions where they turned up (flat cap & greyhound in tow..only joking!!!) but on every occasion they were successful in their defence of the individuals circumstances.:D

As a group forget it....individually they are happy to represent you, forcefully & with a huge amount of resources behind them

[Caudillo]

Their company is losing a million a day (that's before the strike!) and expect to carry on with their snouts in the trough.

I simply do not get it - how could anyone want Unite to represent the pilot community?

Because if you look at where they've drawn their line in the sand for a company that is hemorrhaging cash and which offers great employment conditions - imagine where they'd draw it for a company which is making cash and which doesn't offer great employment conditions.

All the timid slowly-slowly catchey-monkey has achieved is to let the monkey grow into a silverback that is mounting you as we speak.

[B200Drvr]

My policy in life is never to be represented by someone with less than half my IQ. Being that I am not the smartest goose in the gaggle, that leaves UNITE stone cold. CMON, just listen to them

[Looker]

UNITE were briefly looked at as an alternative to BALPA at bmi Baby - but they were clearly not interested in representing a body of pilots.

I know others at Baby who are UNITE members and, as barrowboy mentioned earlier, they know their onions when it comes to representing individuals. They can go toe to toe with the HR Stasi and walk away with a result.

[Neptunus Rex]

It is true that Unite is a major donor to Labour Party funds. That comes mostly from the Political Levy that is taken from each member's contribution. What is not well known, and the Unions do not advertise, is that each member has the right to allocate exactly where their Political Levy is sent. You can opt for it to go to another political party, or to a charity of your choosing. There is an appropriate form to be filled out and signed and your union rep must, by law, supply them on demand.

[al446]

For clarification - You can also opt out of the political levy, same piece of legislation.

[UAV689]

although I am not a pro-striker I do think that aircrew need a union with teeth.

The BA CC strike over losing one member of staff on some flights is a bit pointless but I whole heartidly agree with them for striking over new comers T+C being worse than existing contracts. If only aircrew did the same, pay to fly would not exist, neither would contracting. And how much more effective would striking pilots be, they can hardly train up office staff to cover..!

Good on them for standing up for themselves. I hope the likes of EZY follow suit with their 6 months work experience type of 'work' they have been offering CTC'ers.

PS - I have greatly enjoyed honking my horn at you guys and gals round hatton x over the weekend, cheered me up seeing a bunch of lovely girlies waving flags as I was driving past :ok:

[speedbird320]

ROFL....!!!certainly made me choke on the corn flakes this am....

[Basil]

I have long been of the view that BALPA as a singular entity would be better if subsumed into Unite, at present just one legal finding against it could bankrupt it which may explain their timidity. As part of Unite it would also have access to greater resources of legal opinion and negotiators.
A good point BUT at what price to the independence of BALPA? We'd be expected to support other striking groups - no, thank you.
I saw enough of moronic left wing bully boys when I was an apprentice engineer. As has been stated, I refused to pay the political levy to the AEU.
I presume that, if BALPA were to be bankrupted, there would be nothing to prevent its members from forming another Union, say, The British Professional Pilots' Association.

[Doug the Head]

I think that Bruce Wayne, Norman and Basil are living in the past with their left vs right wing frame of mind. Be honest, aren't all unions per definition leaning towards the left? Isn't it the unions that provide the necessary status quo between the big business interests and the labour (!) force?

I don't know many pilots that want a bunch of "left wing bullies" as union representatives, yet what good is that (pro-Torys?) paper tiger called BALPA? Isn't BALPA the same relic from the past that you folks accuse UNITE of? A fat cat, raking in the fees/dues and providing f*ck all in return? What's the alternative to a weak/no union? To be intimidated by 'right wing bullies' like MOL and his henchmen TRSS and LHC?

Judging by the extremely p!ss poor job BALPA has done to even try to maintain that status quo in a profitable airline like EZY, I can definitely understand why some pilots would be interested in bringing a more militant union into the picture...

The rot needs to be stopped! :}

p.s. interesting reading: "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck! Quite a few similarities to what's going on in aviation. :sad:

[Captainkingkong]

The striking hosties did have a sign up on their picketline that said "Fee Hugs" now i think i counted 38 girls on the picket line and a very strange thought went through my mind so i honked even louder...

[Bruce Wayne]

I think that Bruce Wayne, Norman and Basil are living in the past


I remember when t'were all green fields round these parts.

[Basil]

Doug,
Bruce Wayne, Norman and Basil are living in the past with their left vs right wing frame of mind
but then you say:
aren't all unions per definition leaning towards the left?
sort of contradicted yourself there.
that (pro-Torys?) paper tiger called BALPA? Isn't BALPA the same relic from the past that you folks accuse UNITE of? A fat cat, raking in the fees/dues and providing f*ck all in return?
So not leaning towards the left?
By UK standards BALPA seemed to negotiate pretty good conditions for BA pilots.

"The Grapes of Wrath"? Well, we may have just seen Utopia come and go in one generation. I know that if I had been expected to pay for my flying training I'd have continued as an engineer; never felt I needed to be a captain to define myself.

[Doug the Head]

sort of contradicted yourself there.Hmm, not really. I see unions as a necessary evil, but I refrain from labeling or even worse, excluding them because of their political associations/views.

So what if Unite associate themselves with Labour? So what if they are "left wing?" They can be Church of Scientology for all I care (;)), as long as they get the job done! When the managing directors of several profitable airlines (mind you, I'm not talking about a loss making BA here!) pays themselves big bucks in bonuses whilst shafting pilots by 'employing' pay-as-you-go cadets with 100K debt to a bank, then there's something seriously wrong with a) the industry and b) the unions for letting them get away with it!

There needs to be a credible counter weight to balance this way of thinking, or else we all will be working for a bus drivers wages sooner than you can say: "where the f**k did my salary and T&C go?!"

Like I said, unions are a necessary evil. I do not advocate the French/Italian/Greek-style unions, but I also believe that the old fashioned way of a 'gentleman-like' (i.e. mature, soft, BALPA-like) way of dealing with management is unfortunately completely outdated. Perhaps this gentleman-like approach still works okay for pilots in BA (or the banking sector :rolleyes:), but in the low-cost sector this definitely doesn't work, just look at the various threads on this forum regarding EZY, pay-2-fly scams and other airlines... :sad:

The world has changed a lot since the glory days of BALPA and it's time to wake up and smell the coffee!

[Bruce Wayne]

Doug,

A large portion of the problem for carriers in the UK is the impact of poor legislation and taxation decisions levied by the government which all contribute to the profitability of carrier operations.

BALPA itself has fought the APD issue a supposed "green tax". A. Darling in November admitted publicly that the funds raised from APD were being used to prop up the bailed out banks.

So with government policy driving this issue down the tubes, carriers are cutting costs. Aircraft lease rates ? nope. fixed per lease term and as the UK currency slides the real cost increases (same with capital assets amortised over a term). fuel.. again poor government policy has increase the cost and again, as the UK currency slides the real cost increases, airport operating costs, increased due to taxation and policy and cannot be controlled by the carrier.. subsequently crew costs are being driven down.

Government policy that supports this industry (and other business sectors), will allow air carriers to be more profitable and as such provide better T&C's.

So what if Unite associate themselves with Labour?

UNITE funds this government, the same government that has damaged our industry.

There does exist a bigger picture here; And that is not living in the past.

[demomonkey]

I do agree with the comments that BALPA are currently 'under-performing' - alot of talking, cosy committees, dubious fee structure, expenses MPs would be proud of.

However if there was someone out there who could shake BALPA up and make it ready for the 21st Century?????

[lowcostdolly]

Quote NormanStanleyFletcher

"Alas, their cabin crew, goaded on by the half-wits at Unite do not seem to realise that. I simply do not get it - how could anyone want Unite to represent the pilot community?"

As CC I have zero idea first hand how BALPA operate but I have first hand experience of how UNITE do. IMHO they are a double edged saw.

I have been lurking on the pilot threads for a while now as the CC/SLF ones are for the most part devoted to opinions re BA :bored:. Having just had my latest "communication" from Unite which astounded me at the loaded wording I'm going to add my twopenneth here.

Firstly If you are an individual at odds with management and have a good case Unite will fight your corner. Their base reps for the most part are first class and know their stuff. If they don't (inexperience) they will go and find out. Unite's legal dept are second to none and take no crap from management or management's solicitors. I know this from first hand experience.

The BA 777 Captain who IMHO was a hero at LHR and is now out of work may not have been had he had the support and backing of Unite.....they would have done a better job than Balpa. Maybe Norman that is why Pilot's should consider Unite as an alternative?

However the flip side is that Unite will stir up a hornets nest collectively and they are underhand IMHO in the way they do it. I don't have much insight into their actions at BA but this is what I have experienced at EZY recently from them.

A few months ago a comms to our home adresses attempting to divide CC and Pilots re T&C's. It even contained copy corrospondence to our Head of Cabin Services who I have no time for (:yuk:) to incite us. Whatever we may think of her she should be assured she can have her union corrospondence kept private otherwise she may just not corrospond. The potential effect on CRM could have been really bad as well.......

Today I have received a "Consultative Ballot" paper from Unite. It asks "do I feel safe with easyjet reducing crew on the 319 and are you happy easyjet has done this". Tick yes or no. What a loaded question :suspect:

I am a mature SCCM so can read between the lines here. Am I happy? No of course not as I and my crew have to work harder....3 have to do the work 4 would normally do for exactly the same money.

Do I feel safe? Yes of course I do. Seats will be reduced to reflect the reduced crew to the CAA requirements. Procedures will be revised to reflect the responsibility of dual exits and many airlines do this anyway.

But what box will the majority of crew tick and is this how Unite conducted their ballot at BA.....by dropping the word safety into the reduced crew compliments.

I'm rambling so back to thread......Unite for Pilots? They offer a good service individually, collectively they are questionable. I suppose you have decide what is important overall :hmm:

[OverFlare]

The BA CC strike over losing one member of staff on some flights is a bit pointless but I whole heartidly agree with them for striking over new comers T+C being worse than existing contracts. If only aircrew did the same, pay to fly would not exist, neither would contracting. And how much more effective would striking pilots be, they can hardly train up office staff to cover..!

I was under the impression that, in the current legislative climate, a strike which was called over someone else's T&Cs (e.g. new joiners) would be deemed illegal and stopped in its tracks. This, I thought, is why BA's so called "new fleet" for cabin crew does not feature as a stated reason for their current dispute.

If so, I doubt problems such as pay-to-fly could have been solved so easily.

On the main question I have to say that there is no way on this earth I would be a member of Unite. I wouldn't even be a member of Balpa if it sheltered underneath Unite's umbrella.

[Bruce Wayne]

The BA 777 Captain who IMHO was a hero at LHR and is now out of work may not have been had he had the support and backing of Unite.....they would have done a better job than Balpa. Maybe Norman that is why Pilot's should consider Unite as an alternative?

Rather than take the media line, you will find a post from the very man here on Pprune, addressing the media reports.

He took VR as choice, it's on these threads in his own words.

Non sequitur.

[lowcostdolly]

Bruce

I wasn't aware I had taken the "media line". The only media coverage I've seen of that incident was the initial news reports when it happened. I've no idea of their "line" on things since

My very limited knowledge of the incident based is based on browsing the thread on here. I've just ordered Peter's book to get a better insight.

I'm aware Peter took VR through choice. I'm also aware that maybe he felt he had no choice. The thread alludes to this. When a Captain is apparently being undermined by so called SEP trainers to junior crew the rumour mill will kick in.........

What I see here (and I could be wrong) is an individual disgracefully treated by his management and even worse his CC colleagues who should have been supporting him.

His union's idea of support was drinks and a curry :ugh: Where were they when BA started behaving badly? Where were they when the slanderous gossip started? I'm assuming Peter would have made them aware of this.

My point in my previous post was that Unite would have been far more pro active and supported him individually. I'm think there would have been a legal case here. For instance if Peter felt he had to leave because of the gossip/poor support from BA there could have been a case for constructive dismissal and slander?? I don't know of course as I'm no legal expert but Unite's legal dept are first rate....they would know.

If the media "line" was that Peter and his FO were heroes I make no apology for taking that. They were. They saved many lives that day.

[Bruce Wayne]

'Hero Capt. Signs On' was the media presentation.

I have been reading some of the online newspaper articles and before anyone starts ranting I would like to make some comments. I have read various manner of negative comments over the past 18 months and I've had to sit back and simply read but not respond, I feel confident now that I can respond to today's articles.

My wife, Maria, did not approach the press. The local paper found out that I had taken jobseekers allowance and phoned for a comment. Maria confirmed that it was true and they asked if I had a job to go to. She told them I didn't have a job and jokingly mentioned about "no accident/no incident" at Korean Air. We knew I had been rejected for an interview at Korean back in May/June and have accepted that this is their policy.

I "signed on" so that my NI stamp and national pension could be paid. I think I have paid enough tax over the years and surely the least I can ask for is that there is no stop in my NI contributions?

I chose to take VR based on numerous reasons that I will not talk about now, but the decision to take it was always knowing that I wouldn't be walking into a job. I chose to take a year's pay with the gamble that I would get a job within 12 months. I have learnt since Jan 08 not to just plod along but to live and enjoy life, and as a family we decided that leaving BA and having the security of 12 months pay was worth the gamble to find a job.

I have known that EK are not recruiting DEC for a little while now and happily changed my application from DEC to F/O. I'm sure no-one can be suprised that I intially applied for DEC? I have also applied to some other carriers as F/O. It is also no secret on this site that no-one is as of yet interviewing for F/O on the 777. (if you do know of anyone then let me know so I can tell the dole!).

I expected to leave BA at the end of Aug and have some months with the family. I need and want this time to relax with them. It is my impression that various airlines should start interviewing soon and I would like to think that I should get an interview as an F/O, even thinking like this, no job would start until 5-6 months from now.

I chose to take VR. I expected to not be flying again for at least 6 months. 3 weeks from leaving BA nothing has changed from my expected plan so why would Maria whine to the papers? We have seen a comment on a couple of the online papers that state that "our finances are so tight we may lose our house", then in a later paragraph it says "if Pete doesn't work then in Aug we may have to start thinking about selling the house". Today are finances are not tight. Last year was different, after a reduced wage for a few months we noticed our finances were stretched and maybe the first quote comes from then. The second quote is valid, but if I have a year's pay and didn't work in the 11 months from now until Aug, then there would be issues with my finances, but that would be the same for anyone. And I don't expect to not work in the next 11 months (whether this be in the air or on the ground).

I do not want anyone to think that Maria is whining about money, we are more fortunate with our finances than a lot of people, I walked away from a job with a payout, a lot of people are not so lucky. We took this gamble and we will see where the year takes us, but today we are happy and positive. I am thinking of attempting to do after dinner speaking and Maria and I are writing a book - but do you think we would be stupid enough to be so extreme in this that it shoots me in the foot to never being able to get another job?

Maria is taking on extra shifts in work as a Paramedic not for the money but because she enjoys it. At the moment she works 3 shifts a month, as I do the childcare and she had to work around my days off (I've 3 boys - 4,3,2). Now that I am home she can do extra shifts as I am free to have the boys anytime.

Some people will never understand why I took VR at 45 with no job to go to. Some people may one day decide to find out why I took it. All that matters to me though is that it was the right thing to do for the family as a whole, and things are going as expected. The papers have totally gone wild regarding KAL and we cannot believe how things have kicked off today with the media interest over something we have known about for 4 months.

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm aware Peter took VR through choice.

Indeed.

I'm also aware that maybe he felt he had no choice.

Conjecture. No evidence to support that, even in his own words.

The thread alludes to this.

Does it ?

When a Captain is apparently being undermined by so called SEP trainers to junior crew the rumour mill will kick in.........


The rumour mill will always kick in, facts or not. As professional people we need to separate fact from fiction and base arguments on facts not subjective conjecture.

What I see here (and I could be wrong) is an individual disgracefully treated by his management and even worse his CC colleagues who should have been supporting him.

No evidence to support that conjecture.

His union's idea of support was drinks and a curry :ugh: Where were they when BA started behaving badly? Where were they when the slanderous gossip started? I'm assuming Peter would have made them aware of this.


BLAPA offered him drinks and a curry ? that's more than i ever got out of BLAPA's membership. So he was was wined and dined by BLAPA to discuss what issue? How did BA behave badly ?

My point in my previous post was that Unite would have been far more pro active and supported him individually.

What, in taking VR as a choice ?

I'm think there would have been a legal case here.

For what, taking an offer that was deemed acceptable ?

For instance if Peter felt he had to leave because of the gossip/poor support from BA there could have been a case for constructive dismissal and slander??

Did he ? I don't see any evidence in that from his own words

I don't know of course

Well perhaps it would be better to know before passing judgement on a subject based on speculation and conjecture.

When you assume, it makes an Ass of you and 'Ume'.

as I'm no legal expert but Unite's legal dept are first rate....they would know.


Well making allegations based on speculations and conjecture, which are damaging open the door to libel/slander. (see Justice Eady (http://www.thelawyer.com/court-of-appeal-overturns-eady-j-libel-decision/1003982.article))

If the media "line" was that Peter and his FO were heroes I make no apology for taking that. They were. They saved many lives that day

I disagree.


hero


Date: 14th century1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion


Implimenting their knowledge, experience and training to acheive a successful conclusion to a situation that could have had a different outcome.

They acted professionally. The crew are an example of how a professional crew work in difficult situation which resulted in a situation that was a lot less catastrophic than possible alternative outcomes.