View Full Version : Frohnsdorff Runs Amok (merged)

2nd Jul 2002, 13:59
What's going on? John Frohnsdorff convincingly won the election for General Secretary of BALPA. Under the rules, this means he will be appointed by the NEC at their next meeting, which is today.

However, I see from other posts that he has advertised for a new General Secretary:
and has not denied the story in the Financial Times, associated with his success in the elections, that "Senior BA union activists were last week talking up the possibility of a strike by Christmas".

As a BALPA member, I am somewhat disturbed that one of my potential employees is acting in this way. He has no authority to take either of these actions on his own, either as an NEC member or as General Secretary, assuming he accepts the post when it is offered to him today. I see one of his supporters has written to the Association Chairman saying: "Please can we stop using the ADC and our rules as an excuse to keep BALPA in its current format." Perhaps John and his followers should have made it clear that he was standing on the anarchist ticket. Mark Young saved another one of his supporters from the sack many years ago when he attempted to use his BALPA position to secure a lucrative contract for his catering company. The price for keeping his job with BA was that he would not seek office in BALPA again. Even if his fellow BALPA members had forgotten about this, I would be surprised if BA had.

I have no doubt that in the coming days we will see an increasing amount of twaddle revolving around the phrase "a mandate from the members". Don't be deceived by this. If John Frohnsdorff made promises in his manifesto that he had no chance of fulfilling, he will have to justify that to his electors. If he applied for a job he had no intention of accepting, he should answer to all BALPA members for wasting their time and money. His manifesto was that he would remain in the post until a suitable replacement was found, not accepting a penny piece for his employment, and that is what all BALPA members have a right to expect from him.

He applied for a job with an association that has a clear set of rules. He has assumed powers well above those the General Secretary enjoys, before he has been installed in the post. His supporter suggests that the association rules and governing body should be brushed aside. I hope that the NEC and the delegates will deal with them appropriately. The association needs a Delegates Conference as soon as possible.

Hand Solo
2nd Jul 2002, 14:28
What? That doesn't make a great deal of sense Pom. JF said he'd stand for election and if succesful would find a replacement GS for the long term. Now he's advertising in the press for applicants to fill the GS post with the minimum of delay. Whats your problem? Why should he deny stories that BA pilots are squaring up for a fight with management? You only have to read this forum to realise just how true that is. As GS I think John has every right to take these actions on his own. He said he'd get a new GS and hes doing it. He's asked his opinion by the press and he gives it. Do you think he should set up a 'Thought Commission', presided over by the NEC, to determine what his opinion should be?

Indeed I think the NEC should take note of what you term "a mandate from the members", a 70% share of the vote in one of the highest electoral turnouts BALPA has seen for years. A vote which resoundingly rejected the NECs preferred candidate. A vote which should tell the NEC that BALPA members want to change the way BALPA does business. The NEC serves us, not the other way round, and if JF acts as a catalyst to transform the upper echelons of BALPA into a more effective and accountable body then all the better.

Notso Fantastic
2nd Jul 2002, 14:54
Pom, JF stood on a platform of winning BALPA back for its members, and stated he would stand down on winning for a candidate who can handle the job. I would imagine this is the first part of the process of getting the members the best candidate. In the last decade, BALPA has been hamstrung from within, and it is a joy to hear the guns already being run out for action now that the great drag on any progress on our behalf has been removed. John is fulfilling his part of the bargain- trust him.

Big Tudor
2nd Jul 2002, 15:05
John Frohnsdorff
I would not be happy myself if BALPA where to be left rudderless; this will not happen. We do have qualified people that will be interested in applying for the GS position; additionally it is the intent to advertise the position to make sure we get the best person for the job. I will fill the position in the interim; please remember I have extensive NEC experience.

Do you intend to fill the position as you stated, or is Graham Fowler going to do so? Presumably, Graham has a job of his own to do.

Do you remember writing that Pom? I can't quite see your problem. JF has issued an advertisement for the post of GS. That was the promise that he made when he stood. What exactly is your issue with that?

2nd Jul 2002, 15:31
So would JF clearly like to state in public as it appears that he will take up the role of GS that he will accept no renumeration from that substantially rewarded position , will resign immediately from his long haul role in BA, reside in the UK and pay UK tax . He will clearly have to live in the UK full time to fulfill the rigorous role of GS.I think we should have our minds put at rest on this point.

2nd Jul 2002, 15:33
Your are all writing too fast and using big words.

Give little pom a break; and stop using logic to confuse him.


2nd Jul 2002, 15:59

JF has stated that he will accept no renumeration. It was in his manifesto if you bothered to read it.

He has not stated that he will resign immediately from his long haul role in BA, nor should he. I quite like the idea of a Gen Sec that is actively involved in aviation.

He has not stated that he will reside in the UK, why should he? Like you I can live wherever I wish, why should JF be treated any differently.

As for paying UK tax, what has that got to do with you or anybody else and what possible relevance has it to JF's position as Gen Sec?

As for 'putting our minds at rest', your post would indicate that yours is pretty much there already!:D


2nd Jul 2002, 17:02
Man, whose this "pom" guy? What a hot head! Bla Bla Bla.
The only thing interesting was the mention about a Christmas strike. Is that his subliminal message, or is it just an overstressed shareholding manager?

2nd Jul 2002, 17:42
I agree the Association Rules must be Followed.

The NEC would be WISE to use their powers vested in them by the Association rules to assist JF in anyway possible so as to fulfill his manifesto promises. To fail to do so would be seen by the members as malicious and purposeful Interference and the NEC member doing so would no doubt incur the wrath of the 70% of the members who voted for JF in their next Elections.

Any member of the NEC who has failed to clearly grasp the "need for change" message sent BALPA in the recent GS Elections from the Members should stand down now. This is not a time for personal vendetta's (ie. questioning where one choses to live, irrelevant spouting of unsubstantiated claims of indescretions of ones supporters, etc.)

Pom, get with the Program. 3000 BALPA members have expressed the desire for a change in the way BALPA do business, this doesn't mean it can't be acheived within existing Rules. Any reps from CC's up to NEC must do their best within the Rules to assist in this Process or stand aside. The NEC cannot be seen displaying sour grapes about not getting their proposed candidate elected or face the consequences themselves. The NEC is there for our benefit after all, and the members have spoken clearly on the matter. I expect the NEC to display a professional attitude and get down to the matter at hand........improving Pilots T&C's from the depths they have sank to over the past 10years. Any less will not suffice and they would be silly not to realise the strong sentiment present in the membership and use it to their advantage to get things accomplished.

If you're not part of the Solution, you're part of the Problem...... which side of the line are you on POM ?

2nd Jul 2002, 17:50
Here goes.

All the sniping begins. I didn't vote for JF, but I am keen to see how he will deal with an extended stay as GS.

The way I see it is:

July: Places an ad for a new GS.

Aug: Interviews for new GS. Decision at end of August.

Sept: First week and offer is made.

(definitely) Oct, Nov,Dec: JF is still GS as we wait for our new GS to work notice.

(possibly) Jan, Feb and a little bit of March: We wait as a union for our new leader if he/she is on 6 months notice/or gardening leave....

It could take a while guys. I for one hope JF spends more time at New Road than at the Compass Centre.....

My date for a new GS to join.......at the earliest 8th January 2003 (assuming that is a working day).

So, let's not bicker too much now. We have another 6 months to fill.

2nd Jul 2002, 19:51
if nothing else, personally i think the title of this thread is great....
bring it on as our american cousins say.
by the way pom, we need a GS to push his message forcefully, even if john is only in the job for a short while we can't let any mangyment (sic) take advantage of what they perceive as a "rudderless" union.

Gin Slinger
2nd Jul 2002, 20:25
Sorry. From the title of this thread I thought it might involve biting or kicking something...

2nd Jul 2002, 22:29
It appears some of you have missed the point of my post, although I did try to use short words.

John has been making decisions, spending money, sending out press statements, and advertising jobs when he had no authority to do so. He was due to be appointed General Secretary at today's NEC meeting. He chose not to accept the job.

This means he is not now and never has been the General Secretary.

2nd Jul 2002, 23:00

I think you have missed the point!

"John has been making decisions"
Oh my God! Stop that immediately; Doesn't he know BALPA doesn't do that sort of thing.

"spending money"
Nope! NEC does that; and not very well for the past four years. Excluding yacht hire of course! How many was it? Ah yes! I remember; six of them!

"sending out press statements"
Good grief! He could be proactive. Quick! Shoot Him!

"and advertising jobs"
Wrong! Post the advert here to prove it. What! Having problems locating it!

"He chose not to accept the job."
BA stated they would have to consider sacking him if he took it!

It fact John has agreed with Mervyn Granshaw( NEC Chairman), in conjunction with the NEC, for Mervyn to take the GS position whilst the position is advertised. Thereby fulfilling his manifesto obligation. John will lead the selection committee.

Not the story you portray Pom! Is it!


P.S. I unreservedly apologise for any big words or logic used in this post that confuses Pom! Bless him.

2nd Jul 2002, 23:35
"BA stated they would have to consider sacking him if he took it!"

And this is the man who was going to lead you in your "strike by Christmas".

"Nope! NEC does that (spending money); and not very well for the past four years. Excluding yacht hire of course! How many was it? Ah yes! I remember; six of them!"

John has, without authorisation, spend several thousand pounds of the Association's money during his brief period as General Secretary elect. Why don't you expand on your allegations about the yacht hire?

"John will lead the selection committee."

Check your facts.

"Wrong! Post the advert here to prove it (advertising jobs). What! Having problems locating it! "


Lowly moderator
posted 1st July 2002 13:30
BALPA General Secretary
Applications are underway for the post of General Secretary of BALPA, to replace the recently elected John Frohnsdorff, and are being advertised in the national press.

Just in case there are any suitable 'pruning' candidates for this post who may have missed these notices, please send brief contact details with your expression of interest to:-

The General Secretary
81 New Road

or by email to:-

[email protected]

or by telephone to:-

02084764000 Fax 4077

SERIOUS applications only, please.

I'm glad to see that this post has now been removed. However, the final line would have prevented a rerun of the last debacle.

3rd Jul 2002, 09:16
The number of posts here, none of which support your opinion POM says it all. The Election's over, you're obviously not happy about the results, get over it. Welcome to a democracy.

The FT article you provide, not only proves that JF is doing exactly as promised, but is perhaps even more effective than we could have hoped for. Even before having officially taken office, he has already sent a shiver down the execs of the airlines. This is exactly the kind of message that BALPA members wanted to send. A renewed activism that is going to TAKE back all we've lost over the last 10years of a$$-kissing.

Nothing of substance you have posted should cause anything but praise from members who wanted BALPA to become more aggressive. POM you are the weakest link...........GOOD-BYE !

3rd Jul 2002, 09:18
hear hear airrage.

BALPA's been pussy footing around far too long....... :mad: :mad:

3rd Jul 2002, 09:31

There hasn't been an advertising campaign in the press.

You are quoting a post on PPruNe; and it is not even in John's name.

The yacht item has been covered to death on another thread and I am not going to start it up again.

Can we just please accept the election result and move on.


3rd Jul 2002, 10:00
Our CC have made a statement that JF has quit and new elections are to be held. If so, I'm quitting too and will never return to this wretched quango style outfit. Well done JF and I pray the mafia lot don't win.
:confused: :mad: :eek:

Notso Fantastic
3rd Jul 2002, 12:34
Upperecam- have you been reading all the literature? JF stood on a platform of quitting immediately and letting the members choose a new GS. JF never wanted the job. It was largely a case of getting the incumbent out. John wants to resign and get the process underway. It is all to plan. At last the members are going to hold the whip hand. You should be rejoicing.

3rd Jul 2002, 14:34
Well MG is reported to be new acting Gen Sec. Still seems like a hijack to me.

Notso Fantastic
3rd Jul 2002, 19:08
Upperecam, I'm not sure you understand what is going on. JF has declined to take up the new position. A core group of NEC members, of whom one is MG, another JF, will run the procedure for appointing a successor (as JF always promised). Sit back, relax, watch industrial democracy in action, then help kick ass when the time comes. You really have the wrong idea. But then in this Forum, who knows WHO YOU really are? You and pom are not some amateur attempts at agent provocateurs are you? Whatever was pom thinking with the bizarre title of this thread? Methinks you two are working to some peculiar agenda- intelligent people cannot honestly jump to the conclusions you have!

Dirty Mach
3rd Jul 2002, 19:48
I had enough experience of Student Union politics to know that

1: a body will die if the head is removed

2: 1970's style knee jerk strikes (or threats to strike) generally have the effect of getting people's backs up and as a result make managers more likely to dig their heels in.

3: I would rather work for bad pay/conditions in the job that I love than have a part in bringing down the people that provide me that job and end up stacking shelves again.

However the deed is done and JF has had his 15 minutes. Lets see what he actually does before we lynch him shall we?

3rd Jul 2002, 20:43
How can JF appoint a GS, I thought it was an elected position!

3rd Jul 2002, 20:54
I would rather work for bad pay/conditions in the job that I love than have a part in bringing down the people that provide me that job and end up stacking shelves again.

That, Dirty Mach, sounds like the talk of another one of these agent provocateurs. Unfortunately, you have offered your "I'm a worried Manager - Bread Rolls - Europe and I must somehow stop the slide in our share price with this talk" opinion with a somewhat unconvincing and long winded sentence.

Please; The next time use a few commas and stop this nonsense about shelf stacking. If BA left a big hole here at LHR there'd be plenty of opportunities for pilots, just not so many for Manager - Bread Rolls - Europe


3rd Jul 2002, 22:20
Dirty Mach, perhaps you and commie ex-GS CD can go set up a Free-for-All Airline that carries students and backpackers that can travel for free, wherever they want to go. It can be funded by the Pilots and other employees stacking shelves in the evening on their time off.

Get Real. You can do a job that you enjoy and earn a good income commensurate with the level of responsibility the job entails. I suppose I'll have to explain to you why your job is considered a job of responsibility, Hint.......why do we carry a black box.........in case an ex-shelf-stacker who never understood the level of responsibilty a Pilot has, complacently crashes and kills hundreds of innocent people.

Can someone please set up a Forum for "verified Pilots only", the wind up merchants and Tesco-employees are having a field day.

4th Jul 2002, 01:04
Accurate information about the "selection committee":

To All Company Council Chairman and NEC Members.

The NEC has setup a small commitee to create an updated and fully inclusive job specification for the position of General Secretary. This group consists of the following NEC members: Mervyn Granshaw (BALPA Chairman), John Frohnsdorff, Dave Boys and Mike Delboy.

The task of this group is to gather feedback back from all Company Council Chairman and NEC members as to what qualities and responsibilities the General Secretary position should include. The group will be responsible for co-ordinating and collating all the feedback received and reporting back to the NEC in a short time scale.

4th Jul 2002, 09:15
....erm.......'scuse me...?

There's a lot of talk here about 'appointing' a new GS. Whilst I applaud JF for getting rid of the previous incumbent, doesn't there have to be some sort of consultation of the membership first? Or is that only if there's more than one candidate?

Fright Level
4th Jul 2002, 14:00
AMOK = Association of Moaning Old Kodgers, usually found in Lot Stock & Barrel bemoaning the newcomers spoiling it for all with Maestro, loss of Box D, loss of EZE to the triple etc etc.

4th Jul 2002, 14:11

Quite funny that last post with the names, is Trigger the Tea Lady?

However, let the issue rest please.

4th Jul 2002, 14:48
Why can't JF retain his elected status as the victorious candidate whilst seeking a new full time GS and at this point endorse a new appointee, if any ballot is required to confirm a new cadidate? Here's a great scenario. CD applies for the vacant post, no other candidates apply, or a trojan horse stands, (MG or POM?) and CD is back with NEC approval.

:eek: :D :( :rolleyes:

beaver eager
4th Jul 2002, 15:01
The time to judge the efficacy of recent events will be in about a year's time; when the new GS has had time to make his presence felt.

Of one thing I am sure... Things can only be better than they have been for the last ten years.

A and C
4th Jul 2002, 15:53
So far as I can see so far JF has been true to his word and his actions have been inline with his manifesto , I did not vote for him and I think that he may be taking the union in the wrong direction but he is undoubtedly a man of integrity.

4th Jul 2002, 16:16
Ouch Ouch Pom, bad luck old chap. Obvious who you supported, now don't be a bad loser.

Notso Fantastic
4th Jul 2002, 17:23
Upperecam, Boy have you got the wrong end of the stick! How can a serving GS actively seek a new GS? He would be very smartly put down by the membership! He has to resign to kick off the selection process. We had to get the incumbent out. That done, JF does not want the job. He has resigned the position, and in the meantime, so someone is at the controls, 4 NEC members are steering the ship and supervising the selection process. MG is NOT THE NEW GS! Trumpet it loud and clear. I assume one or more candidates will step forward. If more than one, the membership will be presented with their manifestos for an informed choice. It is called Industrial Democracy in action! Simple, really.....isn't it? Are you and pom with it now? I can get large Fisher-Price letters magnetic letters and put them on a nice big blackboard and spell it out slowly...........

4th Jul 2002, 20:43
I have fully supported and still do the stand taken by JF and any intelligent and educated individual fluent in English just might have worked this out.
My CC web site states that MG is now Acting GS and as such overseeing and minding the shop. Now I am not versed in union law or BALPA regs. I choose to pay my subs and vote for issues as I see fit. However I was saddened to see what I perceive to be a smug and gloating post from Pom, coupled with the info from our web site that to poor old me, seemed to indicate a putsch. I am very aware that CD had the complete backing of every CC and the NEC. So with egg all over their faces they are out for revenge methinks.
I for one would have liked JF to notify his intention to stand down on the appointment of a full time successor. I still don't understand why this is a problem. I would also have liked to see JF receive remuneration for all his hard work. Say one months of CD's enormous pay!!!!!!!

:D ;) :rolleyes:

5th Jul 2002, 07:42
I'm sure Pom is very sore, don't know why though, his outfit (or should I say its members) were well and truly stitched up by DC and co. Obviously looking at BALPA becoming BA's tool again.

Martin A
5th Jul 2002, 09:45
As atated, JF has not taken up the offer of being Gen Sec, which incidentally would have required him to resign from BA, if not by BA, then by BALPA as part of the standard terms and conditions of the employment of a Gen Sec, to ensure impartiality of action by any Gen Sec I suppose.
JF has now done te right thing and we can move on. As to the idea of having a pilot at the head of staff (the Gen Sec) , bera i mind you have a whole host of pilots at the top YOU elected them as CC s etc. A pilot as Gen Sec, well, ask youself this.
You have a haemmoriod proble, do you :-
a) go to a surgeon who is brilliant in his field also has PPL and can chat with you about flying whilts doing your interal exam or
b) Find a pilot witha first aid certificate who can chat knowledgeably about flying but is a bit unsue about your plumbing !
JF realised more than others here perhaps that the job is not flying 'planes or just being a jolly nice fellow and offering things to people which someone is going to have to pay for , as Pom mentioned. As an NEC member he is involved in the search for a Gen Sec, who has to be an industrial relations specialist, we already have enough pilots in BALPA !
Martin A

p.s. Can we try and keep a tone of reason, some times some of this gets to look like the worst of animal farm and mob rule with hopes that the loudest is right. We can do better and we should some reading this will make their judgemenst about pilots from it, so let us rise to the challenge !

Notso Fantastic
5th Jul 2002, 11:27
Martin, Time I think to end this moronic thread. The title alone does enough damage.

Martin A
5th Jul 2002, 17:23
Notsofantastic, I think you are right!
For others please do read the boring old rules before launching off at those who have. As I nhave siad before, we change rules at our peril if we change them for unique circumstances. I think none of us would want rules that gave one member of te NEC such powers as to become the "generalissimo" or the "fuherer" would we ?
Change should happen after reasoned argument. As to massive pay, well some confused cost of running Gen Sec with pay, not badly paid, but then as we always say, if you pay peanuts ..... Please don't expect to get the next one on the cheap, it is not worth it !
JF is doing exactly what he siad he would do, to do otherwise would have mean't him taking a financial hit that few of us could have contemplated, let alone the fact that he had said he only wanted to depose the incumbent. Having done that, he has resigned and now the NEC search for a candidate or two. Whether they find two who knows, but say they did, both met the minumum required, but one was brilliant, the other just OK. How exactly would the membership know the sublety in a mere election address ? Might be hard to do. You either have to trust the guys YOU elect or you don't. if you don't then find someone you can trust who will publicly lay their reputation on the line, which is not the same as writing here under an assumed name for sure !
Martin A

Son Of Piltdown
6th Jul 2002, 09:11
John Frohnsdorff, the newly elected General Secretary of the British Air Line Pilots' Association, formally declined the position at the first meeting of BALPA's National Executive Council after the election in which he defeated the incumbent, Christopher Darke.

In a letter to members, John Frohnsdorff, a BA pilot, reiterated he had stood to bring about change. He himself would not take the position and another General Secretary will be selected. Four members of the NEC, including him and BALPA Chairman Captain Mervyn Granshaw, had been given the responsibility of expediting the process.

He added: 'We hope that by adopting this procedure we will select a candidate who will become the nominated candidate of the NEC and will receive the support of the Company Councils which may make a further election unnecessary.'

Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Chairman, will in the meantime be acting General Secretary.

For further information contact Ken Stevens at Union Communications on 020 7924 7555

This was posted on the BALPA website yesterday. There will not be an election. What, precisely is going on in our Union? Just how do we know these geezers are not mounting a putsch against a democratic process?

6th Jul 2002, 10:42
Sorry mate, your questions are not worthy of analysis. :confused:

6th Jul 2002, 13:07
Au contraire. There was a ballot to remove the incumbent. All members had the choice and, for good or ill, that choice was respected. Does not democracy demend that all members again have the choice, this time to select the new Secretary ?

Dick Deadeye
6th Jul 2002, 13:22
You all know that JF is doing exactly what he said he would do, once the GS had been ousted, so stop trying to stir up trouble where none exists.

If you want another election, how about one for the post of Chairman? This position should shortly become vacant as soon as the present incumbent finally realises his position is untenable and resigns.

BALPA is changing for the better - back to an Industrial Trade Union - and long overdue it is too!

6th Jul 2002, 13:39
And since when were unions democratic?

Wig Wag
6th Jul 2002, 20:21
The posters point is valid. JF concluded his manifesto with the following:

'I believe his disdain in not proposing an election is unhealthy & undemocratic. All the reps. stand for re-election regularly. This is democracy, it must apply at all levels within BALPA.'

I am unclear as to how we will arrive at the new Gen. Sec.

Seemingly the NEC want a single candidate put forward. Perhaps they are a clique with a friend (or someone they personally feel comfortable with) in mind. Either way, it sounds like they wish to give us a fait accompli.

Surely it would be better to have a spread of suitable candidates and let the membership arrive at its own conclusion. We need to witness a healthy fight to really have confidence in a new leader.

Can anyone recall how Chris Darke came by the post all those years ago?

7th Jul 2002, 08:18
Wig Wag,

According to the rules two CC's representing 500 members or more can put forward a candidate for the position of GS. Therefore if you wish an election simply get your CC to put a candidate forward in conjunction with one other.

I think the intent of the selection committee is to include the aspirations of all the CC's and get someone for the job that is already agreed to be the best. Thereby negating the need for an election as the CC's themselves would have put the candidate forward.

The comments being made that this is an attempt to stitch up non BA members is patently untrue and unhelpful. If your CC doesn't like the candidate selected they can simply put forward their own.


7th Jul 2002, 13:01
Some quotes from John Frohnsdorff, before the election, on an earlier thread


11th May

"I will fill the position in the interim"

14th May

"I only intend to be GS, if elected for as long as it takes to find a mutually acceptable replacement."

15th May

"I would only stand down after finding someone mutually acceptable."

15th May

"I would stand down when a god replacement had been found and would not just cut and run as you suggest."

I gather that after John received a phonecall from BA management, he decided that it was not in his best interests to accept the job. Isn't it nice to belong to a union with teeth? If we can't stand up to the management on an issue such as this, what chance have we on any other issues.
So MG is now the GS purely because his airline management will allow him to do so whereas JFs will not. Perhaps this is a criteria that the team should take into account in their selection. "Is the candidate acceptable to BA management?"

7th Jul 2002, 14:50
I think there seems to be some anxiety here, caused mainly from confusion of what is happening now. I think when you read the facts below you will see BALPA is becoming,
1. More Cohesive - New Structure to reduce BA/Non-BA divide.
2. More Active/Militant - New "Industrial GS" required to be Hands-On and two New NEC Principal Negotiators to be appointed.
3. A Better Union - Realisation that Members expect and demand a better service than the last 10years of losses.

People, when you read the following facts please try to put any pre-conceived notions of airline differences aside and be objective. All Company Councils are involved in this process. I think very few here will not admit that this is the dawn of a new Era for all BALPA Members. JF has merely been the trigger for Members to "grab the Bull by the Horns" and begin our Long struggle Back from the depths our status has been allowed to sink. It's a time for All UK Pilots to celebrate, and UK Airline CEO's to update their CV's.

Below is a copy of a letter sent from JF to BALPA Members.

Airrage Summary of JF's Letter:

- JF stood down as per manifesto.
- NEC(all companies)debated how best to proceed.
- the NEC(again all companies)decided on formulating the structure and participants of the group of four.
- goal - find a more active hands-on GS, because members demand a better service.
- learning from the Election - Problem discovered in Election, the divisiveness between BA and Non-BA Members. BA and non-BA structure within BALPA should disappear. More cohesive in attaining groups goals as a whole. This should never happen again.
- Want an INDUSTRIAL GS not just a GS !!!
- GS to handle ALL industrial matters through Principal Negotiators. ie More active role/guidance in Industrial Matters. 2more NEC negotiators to be appointed (more militant than past?)
- Hoping these procedures will result in selecting a candidate who will receive the support of the Company Councils(all companies)and MAY make a further election unnecessary. (note the word "MAY")

JF's letter;
Ladies & Gentlemen

On the 2nd July at the NEC I formally declined to take up my position as the elected General Secretary. This was my first opportunity to formalise the position. My manifesto pledge to stand to remove the incumbent and then stand down has been met.

The NEC debated at some length the way ahead and decided in the interim that the Chairman would hold both his post and the General Secretary position. This has precedence during the tragic time of Mark Young’s death (previous General Secretary before Christopher Darke).

We also decided the process for choosing a successor. This will be timely and involve a core group of 4 NEC members to action and expedite this process. These members are myself, Dave Boys, Mike Delboy and Mervyn Granshaw. It was felt this group was representative of the election outcome. I would also like to stress that the NEC nominated candidate will have the full support of the NEC members.

We intend to select the best but we are principally looking for an Industrial General Secretary. BALPA is a small union and it is vital that the next General Secretary should have a hands-on role.
We are acutely conscious that all members expect a better service and a fully involved General Secretary should improve matters.

This election has been very divisive, however the NEC believe that some good has come out of this. By having a flatter structure (as outlined in Airwaves) we believe that the BA and non-BA structure should disappear which has served its time. To some extent the election was fought on this divide. It was never my intention that this should be the case but I have to acknowledge that this was a factor. This should never happen again.

Our new General Secretary will be tasked to handle/manage all airlines industrial matters. Although we have 25 Company Councils, it is perfectly possible for a person of the right calibre to manage the Principal Negotiators. The NEC in addition has determined that we need 2 more Principal Negotiators.

The NEC hope that by adopting this procedure we will select a candidate who will receive the support of the Company Councils and may make a further election unnecessary. I personally (John F) feel this is an opportunity to heal our wounds and move on. I am very pleased with yesterdays NEC – let us all adopt a positive approach. To this end I would ask all Company Council Chairmen to attend the Industrial Forum planned at New Road for 6th August to coincide with the NEC.

Yours sincerely
Capt John Frohnsdorff, Capt Mervyn Granshaw

Copy of post by Mike Delboy(one of the group of 4)from the BA Forum:

The Group of 4 consists of John Frohnsdorff (BA), Mike Delboy (BA), Dave Boys (Monarch) and Mervyn Granshaw (BALPA Chairman). The groups function is to collate feedback from the NEC and all the Company Council Chairman in order to create a new job specification for the position of General Secretary (GS) position. The Group is tasked with expediting this process within a week. Research is also taking place as which channel we shall use to find a prospective candidate, ie internal/external, adverts, professional head hunters, etc. We are very keen to stress that this is a totally open and inclusive process, however due to the numbers involved we have choosen the Council Chairman as the voice person for each airline.

So if you have a problem I suggest you contact your Company Council Chairman who will be participating in the process. Lets stop this silly infighting and grab this oppotunity we've been afforded. It's time to put any differences behind us and enjoy the benefits of a New Responsive and Pro-Active Union !!!!!

7th Jul 2002, 16:13

I agree with all of your points. I voted for John and have high hopes for the future of BALPA. However there is no denyng that it was Johns intention to be the GS until a replacement was found. Instead we now have an unelected GS.
So in the interests of honesty and integrity, could I ask John one simple question (please don't tell me that he doesn't read this site).


Did anyone from BA management tell you that you would be asked to leave BA if you were to accept the nomination of BALPA General Secretary? A simple Yes or No will do.

7th Jul 2002, 19:23
So my earlier posts were not so daft then?
:confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

Notso Fantastic
8th Jul 2002, 14:20

8th Jul 2002, 21:38

One of these days you will answer the question. It might take a while but I am sure it will happen sometime.

Stop being so defensive. You need to realise that those you support are NOT whiter than white and have already shown that to be the case. Please answer P22's questions and stop making excuses.

Nobody in BALPA has voted for the person who is currently the GS. Even JF has not abided by the promises he made. That is a great start for a new era for BALPA.

Martin A
10th Jul 2002, 11:56
I thought that this would have finished by now !
Still lots of comments here that reveal very little reading of the BALPA rule book (A very good sleeping pill alternative!) is taking place, or studying of the history of industrial negotiations, etc etc !
As to having an election via election address alone of the Gen Sec (read Head of the BALPA civil service NOT General of the BALPA SAS Storm troopers , those are the elected reps!). What do you think your chances of successfully picking a first class wife/husband etc merely on the basis of a written page of A4 would be ? Not good one would suggest! Anyway we already have elected reps coming out of our ears from each company, most of whom you have a far better chance of meeting in the flesh than any Gen Sec could possibly offer to the almost 8000 members. I suppose we could have some kind of “on line interviewing via website and pictures, but could be logistical nightmare, how much time for each member to question candidates etc?
The reality is that you have to trust your elected reps, to do what they consider is best for the organisation with an awareness of what the members want, just like parliament. Hence the practicality of the NEC effectively choosing the candidates, the group mentioned, MG JF etc, will do the process , get consensus and endorsement from the NEC and whether there e is a vote or not I have no idea, must be in the rules somewhere ! Would seem pretty pointless if only one candidate, just another expense and delay, but if that is what everyone wants, then write to BALPA via your CC I suppose and let them know.
Just like Mr Mugabe etc, you could have a coup or otherwise remove “parliament” (read NEC and CC reps), but a review of history does not suggest it would result in anything other than the conventionally shaped organisation we have now, i.e. after having had some pretty crap bits and bloodshed in the ensuing period !
Someone mentioned why CD was so interested in increasing numbers, feeling that BALPA should look after its current members. Well that was what it was doing. More members equals more income to offset the pretty large loss of revenue that will probably fall out of one large airlines changing demography. Anything BALPA or any other outfit does, costs , with many fixed regardless of size, hence drive for members and the resulting benefit of legally required recognition in non-BALPA companies that having 50% membership gives. By the way, I think that there is absolutely no way of CD reappearing, so if anyone thought that voting against him would rattle his cage and get a change, well, yes it did both, but he has gone and real world means he will not come back.
As to BALPA being responsible for loss of pay and conditions, well that is hard to prove if you are not comparing apples with apples. Where and who do you measure against ? If say, some have left existing employer A to go to a new employer B for say a command, where pay is more than as P2.at A, but less than P1 at employer A, is BALPA at fault for this ? After all, market forces rule, the choice made freely and BALPA may have had no input to terms and conditions at B and will only get any input once recognition is given.
As to the new Gen Sec, he /she is there all of the time, is often our public image and as Airrage says, has to be an industrial specialist, know what is do able and what is not, which means an understanding of the world of business and negotiation. Just as is commented in one of the other forums, you will not get much joy out of calling the other side pratts in public, and as shelf stacker mentioned quite rightly, with the good example of student union politics, REAL life is a compromise. Sometimes you will not get what you wanted, but at least you live to fight another day. Some pretty pathetic childish stuff about someone’s personal politics is irrelevant. Personally would have thought militant communist ideal material for Gen Sec, aiming to get us “workers” fair slice of cake for our skills was not a bad idea ! (Not everyone got the same pay in Eastern Europe, as they say, some were more equal than others under communism !)
Do you want militant men or not ?. I somehow doubt that any of us would want to be cannon fodder for someone trying to make his name at our expense, whilst being paid for out of our own pocket. Hence the business of CCs being in charge of negotiations, etc, not the staff of BALPA. After all, how would you feel about being called out on strike by say a Gen Sec, when you CC was against it ?
The consequence of a poorly initiated strike would make any concerns about slippage in conditions over the last few years pale into insignificance! You have to fight at the time of YOUR choosing and when YOU are ready, avoiding any desire to apply some kind of revenge. The other side know that and they will certainly try to manoeuvre any strike into a certain failure, even as far as ensuring that a strike happens so as to have the union weaken itself. It is not easy, as the miners and in our field the Australian pilots found out ! Sure be assertive about what you see is wrong, be realistic about what have you done to or not done to assist this decline and accept responsibility for your actions or otherwise. Be angry, but don’t press blindly for a strike, you may just be unleashing an emotional response that others wish to exploit. As they say, you have to keep your powder dry !

Martin A

P.S Airrage, why don’t you try and get elected, see the constraints (if any) and then come back and let us know. Much better than just writing here.

10th Jul 2002, 13:53

You wrote
As to BALPA being responsible for loss of pay and conditions, well that is hard to prove if you are not comparing apples with apples. Where and who do you measure against ? If say, some have left existing employer A to go to a new employer B for say a command, where pay is more than as P2.at A, but less than P1 at employer A, is BALPA at fault for this ? After all, market forces rule, the choice made freely and BALPA may have had no input to terms and conditions at B and will only get any input once recognition is given.

The 'market force' is one that is driven by migration of employees isn't it? If employer A finds it difficult to retain staff then he must raise his rates of pay otherwise employer B will recruit them. British Airways has virtually no-one in its' DEP pool due to its' inability to attract suitable candidates. Why? Because the T&C's negotiated by BALPA over the last few years has made the role of P2 at BA very unattractive. Had SCOPE existed the 'market forces' could have forced BA to address the issues that I have described.

So, in my opinion, market forces would have helped ALL British pilots, if BALPA had protected the axes of the supply and demand curve. Whilst SCOPE does not exist, BA do not need to address their dwindling supply of pilots and whilst demand for jobs in BA is negligable due to the paltry T&C's for junior F/O's, you (as the BALPA voice on this thread) have no right to use the term "MARKET FORCES RULE"

10th Jul 2002, 14:40
There seems to be much debate as to why JF is not taking up the GS position.
He has been unable to take up the position partly due to what would undoubtedly be called "a conflict of interest" by his employers at BA. As the GS is the final arbiter in any negotiations with the various companies in all industrial matters, you could say that he could prejudice BA's position by fulfilling his role as GS.
I don't doubt that somewhere in the flying orders/afs/contract (or whatever document it may be) it could be interpreted that undertaking such actions falls under "gross misconduct" and would result in dismissal. This is basically what BA management said to JF.
Personally i think that the argument is a load of b****cks, but that was the gist of the pressure applied.
Some have questioned why is it that Granshaw can be allowed to have his post without that being a conflict of interest- the Chairman , as with all chairmen, is a titular position- a figurehead if you will, and does not get into the negotition/compromising positions that the GS undertakes. It remains to be seen whether Brittannia will be happy with him being temporary GS.
John realised his goals of removing CD, always intending to stand
down, but perhaps not so soon- by putting his head above the parapet he was always going to attract much attention, and rather than start a full scale turf-war has shrewdly moved out of the limelight to concentrate on the plans to make the union a more cohesive force for the future.
There is little point at the moment in the union pulling a gun on the airlines, when by "healing the wounds" and having reasoned discussion more can be achieved in the interim- after all if you threaten the managements now they will just say no with that pitiful excuse of last autumn. Holding tight until we can present a more united front is a better plan- then the controlled aggression of impending strike action will have a far bigger impact.
Just think of the phrase "Smiling Assassin"!

Martin A
10th Jul 2002, 19:26
Mr Land ASAP
I see no problem with the term market forces at all, I haven’t said anyone doesn’t have the right to say anything and neither do I shout ! I sometimes emphasise words merely to highlight something, but that is the problem with electronic comms, it is not like real speaking !
Returning to market forces, if someone as a junior P2 for example left BA for say Ryan Air to get a command overnight, would BALPA be responsible for a) the pay, b) the FTL scheme they use or c) anything else of interest that I am sure anyone at Ryan Air could tell you of ? All this bearing in mind that Ryan Air are not yet in a position to recognise, or be required to recognise BALPA. So if things turned out to be less than rosy as a captain at RA versus at BA is it BALPA’s fault ? Hardly I would say.
If there are no DEPs in the pool at BA because there are no applicants and BA then decide they need Dep’s then the rate will have to go up, as it did at Go for commands, market forces. Personally would have preferred to have gotten more reward for my previous 8 years jet flying etc, but I chose to go where I did because on balance the rewards and risks made it attractive. If people leave BA because the pay is bad, then BA will also need to do something, market forces again, but as we have recruited captains from other airlines as f/os it is pretty hard for BALPA to argue that the airline is not paying market rate even though you and I would feel it not to be, but the evidence suggest people will do it at those rates. It is just the same as when you hire builder, if you can get one that “does the job at say £15 per hour, do you pay say £18 out of the kindness of your heart ? We are the same, w e have some leverage as a union, but at the end of the day it is limited because of the external forces that apply. After all, if the pay was so bad, we would have no cadets applying and that is not the case. The starting pay is not brilliant, but just look at the turbo prop rates for other operators or any starting pay for a new graduate( except the city perhaps !). For a fully sponsored cadet the pay remaining after paying back is obviously more appealing than that of self sponsoring, paying the whole bill and getting a job elsewhere, or there would be no applicants. I do understand the frustration that there is regarding the reward for the responsibility that is loaded on people, it should be more, especially for those self sponsored cadets who get the roughest deal. I do understand the frustration at the P2 being paid less than the cabin crew, but fortunately, it does not stay like that for long, especially if you take the overall package, no harm in trying to get it improved, but again market forces would make it hard to create a case for saying it is grossly underpaid, we get too many applicants !. One should bear in mind that some 25 to 30% of cabin crew are to go in BA over the next couple of years, a decimation that flight ops are not suffering.
Perhaps bringing a local touch may bring home the reality. Euro Gatwick, captains originally on 31k. Who would do it for that much? I and many other experienced F/O’s did not take up the challenge, but some less experienced took it as a chance to do their thing, neatly establishing a rate for captains in BA of 31K ! If all had held back, the rate would have had to have been higher, which it did do once all the keen ones had been used up. Same in BHX and MAN to a degree, only worth doing if you were well below pp 18, so commands well out of seniority, pay rate for a command established at a lower rate than at LHR by the actions of people voluntarily accepting the job and rate. So what should BALPA do, tell people that you cannot make a choice over these rates? If the offer is that rate or drop the base, should we drop the base and accept the inevitable loss of jobs PERMANENTLY ! It is not simple !
PS It is not BALPA view I only mentioned my name so you could collar me personally if required, coffee on me in singles next time we meet?

PS PS> You havbe to tell BA about any employment outside of BA, it is in FCO's for any BA readers. Rumour has it that some years ago an enterprising bunch of Classic pilots were bidding low to get maximum time off and flying the "Smiling Pullovers" red and white aeroplane on the now available spare days , management not amused as own fleet short of pilots due low bidding !

11th Jul 2002, 00:14

Why don't you do a little research yourself and dig out JF's manifesto, do a little typing and answer P22's question yourself instead of wasting space just crtitising my Post. I love people on this board who never show any independant thinking but lurk around the forum waiting to pounce on anyone if they so much as make a spelling error.

I am not the Forum secretary, I am contributing to this Forum (hence the name Forum) to express my Individual Opinions and discuss matters with others, others can do the same freely. Fuzzy maybe you can start up a Questions and Answers website.

MG is acting as a stand-in GS, he is not taking up the Position theres no point in saying," Nobody in BALPA has voted for the person who is currently the GS" when we all know the circumstances. Besides we all know my Opinions about MG and this Election and you don't hear me moaning.

Martin A

Thanks for the offer, but no I have no Political Aspirations toward running for GS or BALPA Rep. You seem to find it hard to accept the legitimacy of someone's strong Political views just because they do not seek Political Office. Previously you went on about how being an anonymous Poster lacked credibility compared to someone willing to attach their names to their views, so I told you who I am. Now it seems you imply that I should go out and run for GS in order to be effective.

I am starting to get the vibe here that people are directing their questions at me like I have any control over events. I am just another Poster on Pprune like most here, and just another line Pilot who wants to come in, do my job and get paid comensurate with the Responsibilities my Job Entails and not what some Accountant who doesn't understand the first thing about our job thinks we should be Paid. Put an Accountants Mother on a plane with an engine on Fire and then ask him if he would prefer a MARKET FORCES Capt Drunkov from Yakutsk, or a highly trained UK-CAA approved Pilot to be at the controls. Forget that arguement, I am not only assuming Accountants have mothers, but feelings as well.

All this talk about market Forces ignores the fact that our PROFESSION differs from the ordinary "shelf-stacker". Besides the necessary natural attributes not enjoyed by 100% of the population(have you taken London Transport lately ?), years of training, we are also fortunate that we work for the Airlines BUT are CERTIFIED by the CAA. The airlines would have no CERTIFICATION to Operate without the CAA's trust in the level of training and qualifications of that individual Airlines PILOTS(Yes US!). So Airlines CANNOT afford to have all their Pilots transfer from one outfit to the next enmass as they would like you to believe(if you don't like it.....WRONG). Seniority is desired by all, but in the end can work against us. All that to say, we are not as REPLACEABLE as MOST other MARKET COMMODITIES that suffer the so called, "MARKET FORCES". Safeway's licence to trade is not held by the Shelf-Stackers.

Why not use the "Market Forces"arguement to our vantage. If you don't pay us what we want, we will go on a Legal strike whereby you cannot sack us for the first 8weeks, but other Airlines will use "Market Forces" to steal your customers and revenue whilst you are shut down. And since you cannot buy an Operators Certificate on the "Market" you better think of something else to sell than airline seats if you don't take us back.

I'm not surprised our PROFESSION has lost so much ground over the past few years when even on a PILOTS Forum we get so much management-consultant drivel about how we are all untrained, overpaid bus-drivers. If you all accept so readily these terms that belittle our PROFESSION and it is allowed to degenerate further, then I think as my next career I'll focus on selling time-share condo's to gullible Pilot's outside airports.

My Posts here on Pprune are somewhat more extreme than they would be otherwise if Pilots here weren't so agreeable in getting shafted by their companies. We have been at cruising FL for so long we haven't looked out the window to see how other comparable PROFESSIONS have gone on to new heights whilst we join the earth-dwelling mortals.

Believe me in other circumstances I would be the least militant person here. But I guess I just decided it time to Voice my Opinions in a hope it might change something. I do not condone Miltancy for the sake of it, but I do realise there comes a time when you have to make a stand or shut-up. I would rather work hard for a company for 30years, get rewarded for that work accordingly and retire. Companies don't work that way anymore it seems.

At least by being slightly controversial sometimes I actually get to realise some of us have a Pulse on this Forum, because I couldn't tell it by the lack of action to our degrading PROFESSION. If you guys are happy with working harder for less pay then so be it, thats what you'll get. But if not then let your voices be heard too, it's ok to like your job and get paid what you should. Don't be fooled by the management jargon, if we weren't PROFESSIONALS lives would be lost daily. If they want to pay shelf-stackers to fly, then they WILL get more lives lost. Not Everyone can do our JOB, as much as the cargo-loaders, caterers, transport drivers, CC, and Accountants would like to believe.

And NO.............
- I don't have answers, that is why we seek the help of a Professional who specialises in such things. I specialise in Aviation(although my training CAPT's might say otherwise)
- I have never considered running for any Position(management, training or union), if I wanted an earth-dwellers job I wouldn't have got these shiny wings in the first place.

- I do voice my Opinions.
- I do Vote.

Revolutions are won by the commoners on the streets, not the Generals in charge. If you think Pilots in the UK deserve more, then all you have to do is let others around you know how you feel and why, and it won't be long before we get back to where we should be.

PS: In Future I'm going to try not to spend hours trying to justify my Opinions or convince others of the reasoning behind them(is that a sigh of relief I hear). I'm not running for Election afterall. I will return if there is something worthy or new to discuss but it's pointless to drone on about whats going on right now when I don't see it as Controversial. I'll leave that for those who do, good luck. And perhaps some people here can spend less time critising other peoples ideas and Posting a few of their own.

PSS: Martin
"If the offer is that rate or drop the base, should we drop the base and accept the inevitable loss of jobs PERMANENTLY !"
At some point YES ! Economists will inform you that Subsidies in any form cause Market Distortions. The Distortions that these concessions have caused have rippled throughout our Industry and contributed to our current malaise. The solution is not to continually underbid each other or accept the lowest bidders for a job. I would have liked to have seen how the airline you mention would have reacted if the answer from BALPA had been NO. Saving pilots jobs' is a noble gesture, but is that what we did really ? Or would those jobs have been there, just run by a more efficient company. Maybe the jobs we saved weren't those with wings, but those extra inefficiencies we still carry today. All we saved was the illusion of a successful Empire which is more an inefficient beaurocracy. Perhaps all we did was delay the inevitable Easyjets and Go's, who have been great for their Pilots and the public. Even with accepting the low wages, the jobs you mention from BHX and MAN are virtually gone now, LGW pilots are not as well off as Easyjet, etc. If market forces had ruled, our offices would have become a lot smaller and our workforce richer.

But then that just an alternative Opinion.

11th Jul 2002, 06:38
Lots of talk about market forces here. A market has many factors affecting it. The laws and theories of markets are difficult enough to understand when they are applied to something simple like baked beans but the pilot market is actually very small and therefore easily distorted and highly unpredictable. Whereas the effect of a 2p cut in the price of heinz beans is reasonably predictable the effect of changing rates of pay on a small group of highly specialised workers is not. The "consumer" is making a decision that effects their whole life rather than their next supper. You have to take a long term view.

The question is, who best to negotiate on your behalf and to advise you. As a non BALPA member who has gone from strongly anti-trade union in principle to wondering if I'm right and now back to curiously sceptical I find these arguments very discouraging. I presume that what we all want is reasonable pay and conditions, good quality of life and most of all some feeling of security for the future. Those things are not going to be available from an industry that is constantly in turmoil. I would seriously consider joining and taking part in a professional organisation that took a long term view and worked for stability and prosperity. I hope that the changes in BALPA will produce such a body.

11th Jul 2002, 09:01

11th Jul 2002, 09:31
What happened to John Frohnsdorf running amok?

Serious case of thread creep here !!

( and Airrage with two r's is still as verbose as ever )


Keep the blue side up !


Martin A
11th Jul 2002, 15:50
Did not intend to get at you in the way you thought, not easy this electronic comms !Merely thought that as you do have opinions and obviuosly deeply felt ones, why not use your enthusiasm effectively. It is not a crime to want to change things, thats why people do stand for reps etc. Seems like you would be a person who would get people thinking and by not blindly accepting the status quo be good for the soul !
A comment regarding the long term view was made and that is certainly the preferred way to go. For certain we are not like a tin of baked beans and are not easily and quickly moved, but once moved not easily recovered either, so any management that lets a flow commence in the wrong direction would find it hard to reverse.
Martin A

Bit of thread creep for sure, let us see what comes out of New Rd, I don't think MG is any keener to have the Gen Sec title than any other person who has a full time job to do ! Let us hope the process is as painless and quick as possible.

12th Jul 2002, 13:19
M Mouse,

Nice speech. One word. Got your point across. Made me totally understand how you feel on this subject. Captain of your debating team?


12th Jul 2002, 16:18

I was taught that if I wished to make a point be concise and stick to that point.

Martin A and Airrage's postings are so verbose that I end up skipping them after the first few lines. Defeats the object rather, especially as some valid argument is lost amongst the verbiage.

So as I said, yawn.

Son Of Piltdown
13th Jul 2002, 20:11
The latest from the BALPA website:

>>12th July 2002
At the July NEC meeting, John Frohnsdorff, the newly elected General Secretary, formally declined to take up the post.

The NEC, which includes John, of course, have unanimously agreed that the Chairman, Mervyn Granshaw, will operate as Acting General Secretary in accordance with the precedent set in 1992. He will undertake technical, constitutional and legal aspects of the General Secretary's role whilst the Senior Management Team will carry out the day to day activities.

A General Secretary Procurement and Process Sub-Committee (GSP&P) has been established by the NEC. This will be an administrative, not an executive, Committee. Its first two objectives are to circulate a job description to the NEC for comment and subsequently to Company Council Chairmen for consultation.

The (GSP&P) will also seek legal advice concerning an appropriate contract to be offered to the permanent replacement. A process will then be agreed for the procurement of a General Secretary. The Sub-Committee will appoint a spokesman who will aim to report to the NEC at least weekly so NEC members are kept abreast of developments.

It has also been agreed that all Company Council Chairmen (or their delegates) be invited to attend the next NEC in order that they can continue to contribute to the process and air their views.

Mervyn Granshaw expressed his thanks to the NEC for the discussion, which he said had been held in an atmosphere of conciliation, partnership and unanimity.

John Frohnsdorff added 'We hope that by adopting this procedure we will select a candidate who will become the nominated candidate of the NEC and will receive the support of the Company Councils, making a further election unnecessary.'<<

They seem set on avoiding another election; democracy is obviously too potent for them!

14th Jul 2002, 09:53
Son of Piltdown, there's no them, only us members.

All members have a copy of the BALPA Rules. Rule 28 says that the NEC may nominate a candidate. Any two or more CC's who represent over 500 pilots can also nominate a candidate - as happened last time.

Martin A
16th Jul 2002, 16:17
Justa little bit of interest, apparently we have an election of the GS (head of BALPA civil service) by the whole membership because Maggie T thought that the miners might be more likely to elect a non-militant GS than Arthur S than would the NUM equivalent of the NEC. Seems kind of ironic given the average voting tendency at national political level of pilots that we have voted for the aquisition of a more militant gen Sec !!!
Martin A

Fred Kite
18th Jul 2002, 15:26
Martin A is dead right about the irony of legislation intended to unseat Arthur Scargill leading to the election of more militant General Secretaries.

However, most contributors to this thread seem to have missed an important point - the relevant law (1984 Trade Union Act) requiring GSs to be elected by the membership is still in force, and there are few exemptions. In other words, if JF is not BALPA's new General Secretary then there MUST be another election, whether or not the CCs are agreed on one appointee.

If a GS is appointed without election it will take only one paid-up member to complain to the Government's trade union regulator (called the Certification Officer) to begin a process of enforcement which will end up with BALPA being instructed to run an election, or face punitive fines.

The law also applies to union Presidents (in your case the Chairman) who must also be elected by the membership in a postal ballot, unless their term of office is less than 13 months, or they surrender their right to vote at meetings.

Speaking as a trade unionist (not BALPA) who has recent experience of being dragged through the courts on these electoral issues, I'm intrigued as to who might apply for the GS position (assuming it's not an internal candidate).

Given that the last GS got dumped unceremoniously, and the new one looks likely to be installed in contradiction of the prevailing law, open to challenge at any moment, the list of TU experienced applicants could be pretty short. There is always the money, though, which is mighty generous by UK union standards and could be an attraction to some.

I'm watching with interest!

18th Jul 2002, 16:27
The job will represent a poisoned chalice and the new incumbent must expect to be stabbed in the back at the drop of a hat,as well as trying to keep the union together whilst as looks highly likely the large BA lunatic fringe destroy their employer in a suicide mission.Very sad that CD was effectively made redundant when the BA boys should really have changed their CCs who really control the direction in which they are headed,anyway whats done is done.I see little point in an election if there,s only one candidate.Hopefully if there is a vote next time the large number who couldn,t be bothered to vote last time might finally paticipate.In the end its the members who determine the direction of the union not the Gen.Sec.Chris Darke was poorly treated I hope he finds something better.

18th Jul 2002, 17:42
Martin A,
"we have voted for the aquisition of a more militant gen Sec !!! "

"Gen.Sec.Chris Darke was poorly treated "
CAN SOMEONE MISTREAT ME TO THE TUNE OF #85,000 pounds/year and company car for 3.5days work/week.

I won't bore you with the details of BA's financial liquidity amounting to #3.4 billion, disproving your theory of the BA Fringe Element on a suicidal Mission that will destroy our company. Habe a look yourself;

Come on Guys, we want a guy who is going to kick some Airline Management A$$, how can that make you unhappy. Or were you satisfied with leaving our profession in its declining state .........that to me is suicidal.

The idea of how to proceed has I understand it come from the NEC so all companies are involved. Let your grievance be heard to your CC who has agreed to this method.

18th Jul 2002, 18:39

Frankly you'd have to be a complete loony to take on the new position given the method by which CD was removed. There is no job security there whether he/she does a good job or not. I would say to anyone who might be thinking about applying to think again, also remember that you will be asked to carry the can for all the CC's who are not able to take responsibility for their own actions.

I spoke to someone recently who had the chance to speak to JF at some length about what was going on. It made him even more certain that he would vote for CD ! He had no future plan or vision for the organisation. Airrage, apart from telling me to refer to JF's manifesto which decorated my bin at the time, perhaps you could tell me why he has not been able to remain GS until a new one has been found.

As I said before, I truly hope that the BA pilots will play the suicide card and go for strike action. As airrage says 'AMEN BROTHER !' Come on guys you know it makes sense, get that massive pay claim in that we have all been waiting for and watch your employer crumble. All the rest of us will benefit from your demise so give it a go, you know it makes sense.



PS Remember that many people post on this board to solicit a response. Airrage is more that able to fulfill these needs.

beaver eager
18th Jul 2002, 20:08
Well, I'm generally a moderate sort of geezer... and certainly not prone to posting for the sake of eliciting a response (although if you don't want a response... Why post? It's called DEBATE).

However, I entirely agree with airrage's views on this whole matter... Not least of which the imminent reversal in the decline of our industry's terms and conditions.

airrage may be verbose on occasion (I'm sure even he'd admit to that) but I don't believe he posts just to elicit reaction (at least in the sense you mean) from others. He believes in his point of view with a passion and puts his money where his mouth is - to the point of giving up his anonymity in the BA forum.

How many others can claim that?

And JF was prevented from taking up the post by BA refusing to allow him to retain his existing postition if he accepted the GS job. It really isn't an issue though... He achieved nothing more or less that he set out to... Simply to unseat the incumbent.

Time to spit out the sour grapes folks. We are where we are now... Let's just move forwards, eh?

18th Jul 2002, 20:18

we BA pilots are quite capable of deciding our own actions

It is interesting that you seem to prefer the thought of having your lot improved for you by BA pilots destroying their company by a prolonged strike.

Had it occurred to you that the lot of all UK pilots would be improved by a successful outcome to an industrial dispute with BA management?

But then your postings betray your inevitable minor management position somewhere

18th Jul 2002, 20:24
Dear Old Fuzzy,

"perhaps you could tell me why he has not been able to remain GS until a new one has been found. "
There you go again asking me to act like your Secretary, I suggest you turn to your CC rep if you want answer. Remeber our, "This is a Forum" Conversation a while back? Besides why should I waste my breathe if all you did when you had JF's Historic Manifesto was as you proudly state, "line your bin"with it.

For your second comment regarding bringing BA to financial collapse I refer you to the same link I quoted to Stampe regarding BA's 3.2billion pound liquidity.
Despite many peoples not-so hidden fantasies, BA will continue to exist for many years to come and might even surprise a few low-cost Operators on it's return. Don't ever discount the Old staggering Heavy Weight.

As a long time reader of this Forum, I am sure you know the difference between people who are simple wind-up merchants and people who take the time to eloquently state their position backing it up where available with fact.

Thanks Eager Beaver, I agree on being verbose and think I've attained the slot merely out of lack of interest from anybody else wanting to be the target. I have indeed exposed myself on Pprune and BA's New Forum(my identity that is).

18th Jul 2002, 20:28
"Had it occurred to you that the lot of all UK pilots would be improved by a successful outcome to an industrial dispute with BA management?"

Yes, and I entirely agree with you - but had it occurred to you that an unsuccessful outcome would be enormously of benefit as well !!! Either way I can't lose which is why I am FULLY supportive of industrial action by BA pilots. I just wish you guys would stop talking about it and get on with it. Why waste anymore time ? Airrage is such a wonderful militant, he is typical of those that are all talk and no action.

"But then your postings betray your inevitable minor management position somewhere"

Thanks for the complement - little could be further from the truth !

18th Jul 2002, 20:33
Dearest Airrage

"Despite many peoples not-so hidden fantasies, BA will continue to exist for many years to come and might even surprise a few low-cost Operators on it's return. Don't ever discount the Old staggering Heavy Weight. "

That is EXACTLY what people said about Sabena and Swissair. Wake up for crying out loud. A national airline is NOT a certainty anymore. BTW 3.7 billion is peanuts in the overall scheme of things. Your link says nothing of interest about anything. Thanks for not answering the question - again !

With best regards

dear old fuzzy

18th Jul 2002, 20:59

I repeat,
I am NO-ONE's Secretary and it is not my job to seek out answers to your questions. Refer specific questions about the NEC's process to your CC rep.

As for BA's Current finacial situation it is not great but more survivable than most including Virgin, BM, etc, etc. So unless you're counting on the whole of the UK's airlines going down the drain I suggest you get your facts correct.

To quote Rod Eddington in a recent interview, when asked,

"Would even a mini-repeat of 11 September kill BA?

Eddington reckons BA's buffers are so strong that it would have to be 'twice as bad as 11 September or the Gulf War' - if that is imaginable - in order to scupper the carrier by blasting a £2bn hole in its revenues. He reckons BA has £1.2bn of cash reserves 'to hand', £600m in available (banking) facilities together with 'substantial assets that we could liquidate if we wanted to' - and is nowhere near even contemplating a rights issue."

BA has £1.2bn of cash reserves - How much is your outfit worth in total FUZZY ?

But then I suppose you'll tell me he's just lieing or doesn't know BA's Situation better than some guy who calls himself FUZZY on a Pilot Forum. And I suppose you can tell me how BA can collapse with 3.2Billion pounds worth of Liquidity.

Care to quote me Saben's or SwissAir's financial balance sheets when they collapsed FUZZY ? IF not then you might as well compare BA to the Titanic for what relevance it has.

Final Point FUZZY, BA is no longer a National Airline as you state, it has been Privatised. Another FUZZY CLassic Post of Irrelevance and Inaccuracies.

Martin A
18th Jul 2002, 21:02
Seeems to have livened up whilst I was away flying !
JF could only have taken up the post after resigning from BA, standard terms of employment for GS at BALPA. BA quite within rights to not have ANYONE doing work that might conflict with BA business, hence demise of paid freelance flying for air taxi operators on days off for many of us some time ago.
Would you really have wanted a part-timer any way? Hard to get advice in the middle of a dispute if he had been away in France or Singapore methinks !
Airrage, I think LCG would love an ill concieved dispute with half hearted support at BA, it would cripple BALPA for a long time and he IS busy orchestrating this for sure. He wants a permanent momento and it only needs a bunch of naive hot heads to provide one. I for certain would not recommend giving command of negotaitions to ANY GS without power of veto by CCs. I would not want to be fame fodder for anyone.
Enough for now
Martin A

PS how would becoming militant trade unionists inwilling to reason etc improve our image ?

18th Jul 2002, 21:12
Hi Martin

"ill concieved dispute with half hearted support at BA"
Have you seen the POLL on the BA Pprune Forum? Out of
80 Votes; 76 want STRIKE, 4 say NO STRIKE.
half-hearted, I think not.

"I for certain would not recommend giving command of negotaitions to ANY GS without power of veto by CCs."
Who told you this was the Intent or this your own Policy Idea ?

"PS how would becoming militant trade unionists inwilling to reason etc improve our image ?"
We have long conceded that there is little we do can ever to have an image comnesurate with the responsibility of our Position. This is about MONEY, not improving our image. My image will look much better(or feel better) when I trade my Ford Escort in for a 911 Porsche.

Lets not confuse a PAY DEAL with a Popularity Contest. For the last decade we've taken one crap PAY DEAL after the next, can you explain to me in detail how our IMAGE has improved over this time period. The 2 are obviously not statistically proven to be correlated don't you agree ?

Are you a friend of LCG ?

18th Jul 2002, 22:00
So airrage 76 out of the 4,500 pilots in BA have made a decisive vote?

18th Jul 2002, 22:32
Hi Mouse, you guys(Martin, Fuzzy) always attack in groups or what.

I have stated many times during the MG and CD POLLs my opinions about their accuracy and worth so since Mouse only likes small posts I won't repeat the debate here. I never claimed them to be a scientific study, but perhaps an indicator about how people might vote given a chance. Heck, it wasn't too far off with Old CD was it ? Didn't want to bring it up at the time as people were still in shock.

I also won't explain in length sampling and the scientific method employed by scientists to arrive at statistical accurate conclusions. However it might make it clearer for you if I say simply, the vote is 77/81 not 77/4500. You don't have to chop every tree down in a forest and count the trees rings of every tree just to get an idea of the average age of the forest. Great thing these statistic thingies don't you agree Mouse ?

One question, when did you last count 4500 Pilots in BA ?

18th Jul 2002, 23:11
So you have never heard of the silent majority?

I am as disgruntled and fed up as the rest with 10 years of falling behind on the pay front and working harder each year that passes.

You seem all fired up and ready for a strike. I am not and I know numerous others who are not. I also know that many, many people within BA do not bother with an anonymous poll on an anonymous BBS.

I wonder if BA can survive as it is now, it is my personal opinion that a strike would probably just hasten the end.

An example of the real problems facing BA is how do you tell thousands of cabin crew that they can no longer be bussed from central area to the reporting centre for a break, giving around 2 hours for a turnaround, before being bussed back again for their next sector? They would defend their existing working practices as militantly as you defend yours.

The management cannot even get the drivers to agree that two separate buses (one for flight crew, one for cabin crew) meeting EVERY LHR long haul arrival is an extravagance!

Multiply these examples a hundred fold and one gets the true picture of why BA is losing money and cannot compete in today's very changed environment.

Administration or even bankruptcy will probably be the only way that the real problems will be addressed because nobody knows how to address them at the moment.

An airline will continue but in what form and how many of us will be employed is a good question.

19th Jul 2002, 01:39
Mouse you have chosen a truly suiting Nickname. But I'm afraid it is the very honourable attitude you display that is the very reason why BA Pilots have lost so much over the years. The agreeable, reasonable, "disgruntled and fed-up" but quiet approach has not worked and will not.

I think you will find should it unfortunately come down to a ballot that the Silent majority in fact will support a strike because the silent majority are as fed up as you state even if not VERBOSE. The silent majority is becoming VERBOSE because no one has been listening. I have stated all along that I do not WANT to strike, I want to PAID equitably(mkt rate) and that may result in a strike. There is a massive difference here, not just semantics.

The Militancy or Lunacy of the transport and CC working practises you mentioned are a far cry from BA Pilots willing to stand up and fight because we are paid 40% less than other Collegaues for the same job. We could all start into how others in BA are way overpaid to mkt rate whilst it's pilots are underpaid, but at the end of the day it is irrelevant.

At some point we have to realise that BA's problems with other Employees is not our job or concern. Our declining Pay and increasing work for the past 10years certainly hasn't expediated BA tackling these inefficiencies ! In fact the more we have saved them the more they waste elsewhere. Maybe they will only start to tackle the real reasons we lose money only if forced to.

We've got to stop acting like it's up to BA Pilots alone whether our company will return to Profitability............it isn't. We aren't even afforded the means to make any changes so why do we accept the Responsibility. We are too Reasonable and this is being used against us whilst others get away with murder.

I would take a PAY CUT tomorrow if I felt I worked for an outfit that;
1. Cared at all for Us - Pilots are considered so low down the BA totem Pole we just never realised it. They don't want to even concede non-pay related Status issues. New people joining with Staff travel priorities above 20year CAPT's, etc, etc.
2. BA had already made all the Tough Decisions to become Profitable and was still failing.
3. I trusted BA Mgt.
4. I really believed BA was financially against the wall. The are NOT !!!!!! It might not be a shareholder pleaser but we are far from Bust and could withstand more than most other UK outfits.
5. I thought it would make a difference.

Mouse can you tell me which of the 1-5 above you think BA qualify.

I was not born Militant, and I was thrilled when I first joined BA. I am also not thrilled to go on strike, but I will only be taken for granted for so long, I think 12years of broken promises is patient enough.

PS: Mouse if you are BA then some of things would be better discussed on the new BA-BALPA Forum.

19th Jul 2002, 08:30
OOps! Sorry about that but thought this topic was about Frohnsdorff. Must be my mistake. You guys carry on, I apologise if I interrupted any rantings.

19th Jul 2002, 10:25
Who are you.......thread Monitor ?

19th Jul 2002, 14:18
Or should I say.......Thread Creep Monitor to be more precise.

Martin A
19th Jul 2002, 16:32
Yep, lots of peole voted in the poll as you say, quite alot voted in the GS poll, and more than a few seemed not to quite have clear how BALPA as an organisation functioed, but that is now done. Statistics are great, but do get messed up by indifference and apathy when humans get involved. I mean you can guess the age of the average tree in the forest as you mentioned, but then half of them don't go and hide from you because they can't be bothered to participate and screw up the results one way or the other!
Please identify the 40% deficit in pay we seem to suffer, discountin all additional benefits, including pension etc and removing any exchange rate effects, compared to a suitable range of other airlines internationally, both private and state owned as well as UK operators. Either I have missed something or what, but one UK carrier , whose pilots are paid less than BA has jsut settled for 2%, yes 2 not 20%, so it does make one wonder just how we are going to sell a 40% pay rise to anyone as being necessary or justified.
As to other staff, yep things are changing, crew numbers are changing and as I mentioned some 2000 or so cabin crew will not have ajob fairly soon, that being in addition to those who could redploy within BA, so it is not rosy elsewhere.
No status does not pay the mortgage, never did, money does that. If economics force an airline to lose routes someone pays with a lost job, including us ! Please select 10 or 20% of YOUR mates to lose their job in the greater good of the few that may be left behind .
As to certification of pilots, much as we would like to think that we individually are indispensable, we are not. the operating licence does not depend on more than a handful of pilots in key positions asdefined by the AOC etc. If we all needed to be replaced, then as long as you have training and checking system of you go and recruit. Just having a pilots licence will not get you an AOC I am afraid, but having all of the other stuff will let you set up an airline and employ pilots to operate under your AOC, not I am afraid vice versa.
By the way anybody know of someone who flys less safe because he did not get paid enough at the time ? A constantly daft statement. Paying less may well mean you only retain lower calibre pilots in the long term, due to market forces, but even they don't deliberateltle fly less safe because of the pay !

As someone mentioned, this is a bit of a lions den to enter. I comes across as a bit extreme and moderate views do seem to get slagged off, so I would agree that what you get here may not always reflect the full cross section of views. I never did get here before the JF vote for example, so that was at least one other view not seen.
By the way BALPA accounts winging their way to you, should interst those making the more outlandish claims about BALPA high life and costs . How would some of them fancy getting upo at 4 30 in ABZ nice trek on staff travel to LHR, all day at NR and then return to ABZ whence you came. All this, only to be told by some smart alec on the forum that he objects to you having a free sandwich on BALPA. That, whilst he is happy for BALPA to argue for his employer to provide all kinds of refreshments whilst at work, but he is not prepared to fork out for a sandwich for a volunteer who spends many free hours helping us get an improved working environment!

TTFN Martin A
Sorry about thread creep, just like to even out the arguments with facts not emotions

19th Jul 2002, 18:04

If I believed half of what you said about Aviation, I would run a hot bath and slash my wrists this evening. Why are you still flying if you think the future so Dim ?

I can't believe it so difficult to convince pilots that they deserve more Pay. Have you had a look beyond your Cap Brim for the last decade ?

You are still mumbling about the Election and how we begrudge Reps a free sandwich, what a load of Bo.....s. I suppose all the trees you talk about running away belonged to CD did they ? Indifference is a choice as well you know and not a sign of support for an incumbent.

As for the 40% PAY arguement, have a look here;
it is discussed elswhere as well in detail so no need to go into things here. If you have anything to do with BALPA, as you continually allude, then surely you are not disputing the Research carried out by your own Mates involved in the PAY Negotiations? You also say you are one for reading details so I don't think you wouldn't have read it. Which figure of underpay do you want me to quote here, productivity, as a %of total wages compared to other airlines, etc, etc.

I think you said you are Airbus BA, have a look on the relevant BA boards and you will see many explanations and comparisons, both Pilot and non-flying jobs showing how underpaid we are.

You also continue to take the world on your shoulders. What CC get paid, BA's profit(or lackof) and how the world view us is not in on control to change. You are thinking like a CEO and getting paid like a monkey. Don't be confused with visions of grand illusion that Pilots in BA have any status to effect necessary changes. We don't. If others are overpaid in BA then it is up to BA to change that, not up to Pilots to take less money so that BA can afford those higher wages elsewhere.

Your AOC comments you can't believe yourself as a training CAPT. BA's AOC also depends on experience levels. How long does it take BA to fully train a Pilot on Airbus ? How many Pilots can it train at one time ? How many Airbus Pilots would it need to train to replace the current fleet ? You get the idea Martin ? Now do the same maths for all the other fleets, and ask yourself how long before the can't replace the 3500 BA Pilots presently working. Not to mention the CC all going out of recency whilst this training occurs. If we go, BA goes, SIMPLE FACT ! They have no intention to do so, but feed on the type of FEAR displayed in your posts. When you look at the FACTS, as you say, we could probably get 50% and BA would still survive.

I am not saying Pay equates SAFETY and saying, "no-one fly's less safe deliberately because they are paid less" is a ridiculous arguement. It says nothing to justify paying Pilots less than Market Rate. You could halve my pay and I won't crash a plane, but that is irrelevant to the arguement, I am Underpaid.

Martin you really do have a negative outlook of what can be acheived by sticking together and putting together a well researched and Fair Pay Proposal. I can't help read between the lines that you are a bit upset that those around you have decided enough is enough and are starting to rock the boat. I am not saying you are colluding with mgmt, but I suspect you are quite happy with your training CAPT's pay, worried that a strike might occur resulting in BA telling you are mgmt and are expected to be at work and all your colleagues saying "why are you crossing our picket line Martin". Either that or you are approaching retirement, have less to gain being at PP24 than the 35% at the bottom in BA and are worried it could result in a PENSION problem.

Own up Martin, there is some ulterior motive to your ultra-Conservative we are lucky to have jobs that pay less than mkt-rate(including Easyjets, etc) speel. I'm sure it's not just sore grapes from the GS Election.

19th Jul 2002, 22:46
Airrage when was the last time your head had the opportunity to see daylight?

20th Jul 2002, 10:45
Mouse, I don't know why you insist on criticising people like me who are battling to secure a Pay Rise for people like you who say yourself, "I am too scared to lose". I wish you showed as much backbone on the Issues as you do criticising me.

On advice from others I have agreed to remove myself from the Gerneral Pprune Forum(cheers in the background) on the Issues of PAY so as to not display our dirty laundry in Public.


beaver eager
21st Jul 2002, 08:27
Calm down, calm down! (In Scouse accent a la Harry Enfield)

You're jumping the gun Tandemrotor.

It clearly states on the BA Council website (which would be a better place for this question), that the deal that BA wants in respect of the RJ and the BAR work, will not be done unless BA agree to the whole of the scope deal that the reps are working on! These negotioations are not yet completed and it has been stated that the whole package will be put to a vote amongst the membership anyway.

Have a little faith that those who represent us (and I don't believe JF is part of the scope team anyway, although I stand to be corrected on this). I am sure they believe that they are negotiating something that will be good for everyone in the long term.

Until the FULL picture is known, it would be better to keep your powder dry. Can I urge you to delete your post above and re-post it in one of the BA Private fora if you really feel the need at this time?

21st Jul 2002, 16:04
A few facts might help here.

There are a number of steps to become General Secretary of BALPA. Get nominated, get elected, get appointed by the NEC and finally, sign the contract.

Frohnsdorff chose not to accept the appointment or sign the contract. His choice, and probably what we all expected from his manifesto. He was only, therefore, the General Secretary ELECT.

Between election and the first NEC following, he represented himself and acted as if he was the new General Secretary in every particular (writing letters, changing letterheads interviewing staff, ordering new mobile telephone etc etc.) A slight case of misrepresentation maybe?

No doubt many of you will be howling that these finer details do not matter.

Well, we are where we are as the cliche says. Having gone through this pain (and don't think it's all over yet) we need to get the best firm of headhunters to draw up a shortlist of the very best candidates for the job. Whether this leads to another election or not is too soon to tell. If we had two sparkling candidates of equal stature, then probably yes. But this will take time playmates if you want the very best. And probably quite a lot of money as well. Your money and my money.

Thinks. Maybe, I will stand as a candidate next time - on a de-mutualisation mandate perhaps. If you add up all of BALPA's assets and divide it by the number of members - could be a tidy sum??

Keep the blue side up!!

Martin A
22nd Jul 2002, 20:48
Just a though for those wincing at the cost of the last GS. The head of the Amicus (AEUW ) Derek Simpson is quoted on one daily as setting the members back some £101,000 per annum, with total running cost approaching £200, 000 per annum. One view is we will need to pay more, probably in region off £120, 000 to get something worth having !

Martin A

airrage, sorry only pay point 16 retiring soonish, May 2006, would prefer to be on PP 24 now, but mum and dad were a bit slow off the mark !!!

23rd Jul 2002, 09:06
I would be happy to pay double CD's wages if we were to get an effective, Full-Time, Pro-Active Indutrial GS who would actually guide our CC reps in negotiations resulting in higher status/wages for ALL Pilots in the UK.

Why are we still even talking about CD ? QUIZ - Does anyone(besides Martin) remember the name of the GS before CD ?

Martin, PP16.........Then you would benefit more than I would if the pay scale were to become more linear. Of course any higher salary would also increase your pension for evermore as well(as you are not maxed on PP24). Does the idea of going on strike worry you because you are retiring soonish ? I am asking honestly not sarcastically, because I think a few people saying they would not support a strike, despite their reasons given, are actually worried at the outside risk it could affect their pension if unsuccessful.

PS: I think a lot of this discussion should now be moved off the General Members Board to the BA Pprune of BA-BALPA Forum don't you agree?

23rd Jul 2002, 11:28
Airrage (two r's, no sense)

Roger Mulberge (acting GS following the death of)
Mark Young

Next question?

23rd Jul 2002, 15:16

Your only 2posts on this thread have been;

1. What happened to John Frohnsdorf running amok?

Serious case of thread creep here !!

( and Airrage with two r's is still as verbose as ever )


2. Airrage (two r's, no sense)

Roger Mulberge (acting GS following the death of)
Mark Young

Next question?

I'm beginning to think you have some personal grudge. Do you have anything else to contribute other than childish criticism or snyde remarks, like an Informed Opinion for one ?

Notso Fantastic
23rd Jul 2002, 18:05
Gentlemen, why are you still discussing all this here? I think you have got personal and are not achieving anything. Wash your dirties in the BA Forum please! Everyone else is long gone.

24th Jul 2002, 11:58
Whoops! Think we touched a nerve here...

Airrage appears to overlook the post I made at the top of this page regarding the possible misrepresentation by JF of his position following the election.

Sorry. No further informed opinion to add.
(Thinks, are opinions ever informed?)