IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs

[EastofKoksy]

serenity,

other than all being airlines do you see much similarity between BA and Monarch, Thomas Cook and FlyBe?

BA has, since IAG was born in 2011, contributed upwards of 85% total group profit of all IAG airlines (Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus). BA has in that time made almost €10billion in straight profit for the “group”. BA has the most efficient pilot scheduling agreement of the two other legacy airlines in the group.

IAG has Eur9.2bn of total liquidity at its disposal, around €8billion of that is from profits made by the loyal workers at BA. Others may do it “cheaper”, on a pro rata basis, but very few if any airlines have created as much wealth for their owners as the employees for BA. Yet here is where the axe will fall, whilst other airlines in the group, who contribute a relative pittance, get state aid and remain intact, the highly profitable people at BA will have their lives permanently ruined (those that remain as well as those made redundant).

Welcome to Capitalism 2.0. Spawn from a global health pandemic, I hope the creators are remembered for all time alongside Hitler, Stalin, Mao and co.v

I suggest Walsh delayed his retirement from IAG as he saw a chance to settle some old scores - BASSA, BALPA and Branson.

[Northern Monkey]

Agreed. But also because he probably thinks he can secure some bonus share options that will perform very nicely in the future.

[Phantom4]

Agreed. But also because he probably thinks he can secure some bonus share options that will perform very nicely in the future.

WW exploits in the Finance Dept cost him a bundle trying to recoup the loss???

[srjumbo747]

Just having a chat about this with someone who’s non aviation.
They have asked the question that if the aircraft aren’t flying are the company supposed to keep the crew on full pay and for how long?

[Bravo Zulu]

Might of missed this... Are BA utilising the JRS - Job Retention Scheme to help pay wages?

[ILS27LEFT]

"BRITISH Airways wants its entire workforce to sign up to new contracts which would allow them to lay-off staff without negotiation.

Union leaders fear the “traumatised” workforce is being railroaded into accepting the equivalent of "zero-hour" deals which could be ripped-up in the event of turbulence in future.

Details emerged last night as The Sun was leaked a breakdown of job-losses at British Airways (https://www.thesun.co.uk/topic/british-airways/) - with 931 engineers among those getting the boot.

Yesterday union chiefs submitted legal papers to the High Court to argue that BA’s bid to make 12,000 staff redundant is illegal.

They say the 45-day "consultation period" should in fact be 90 days.

Leaders blasted the airline (https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/11214928/british-airways-pilots-three-months-unpaid-leave-coronavirus/) for jettisoning staff when BA parent company IAG was sitting on £8.3billion in its coffers.

Airline insiders said the mooted June 15 deadline is in fact the earliest a deal could be reached, with the likelihood being staff issues are resolved by December.

Workers given the boot will be offered standard statutory redundancy plus three months wages.

A BA insider said: “A negotiating process is under way. Everything is up for grabs. The airline is fighting for survival.”

The Sun was shown BA’s predicted job loss breakdown - with 1,130 flight crew getting the boot.

Also leaving BA are 1,022 from head office, 931 engineers, 219 contact centre staff, 2,420 Heathrow ground staff and 342 Gatwick ground staff.

The projected job loss total is 11,913.'DIRTY TRICKS'BA was yesterday accused of “dirty tricks” and faced a furious backlash over controversial plans to axe staff after using taxpayer cash to furlough its workforce.

Five MPs near Heathrow airport wrote an angry letter to BA boss Alex Cruz asking for an urgent meeting to explain himself.

The letter, penned by Seema Malhotra, MP for Feltham & Heston, said: “We would urge you to work with unions and government to do everything possible to find a solution and mitigate job losses.

“We would greatly appreciate if you could urgently meet with us to provide a briefing on steps you are taking to alleviate the immediate financial pressures and reduce the number of jobs which could be cut, the extent to which government schemes are assisting with the impact and the support you will be providing to those who lose their jobs.”

The cross-party letter was signed by Ruth Cadbury, MP for Brentford and Isleworth, John McDonnell MP for Hayes and Harlington, Virendra Sharma MP for Ealing and Southall, and James Murray MP for Ealing North.

Another - MP, Tory Andrew Griffiths representing Burton - wrote to constituents accusing BA of “dirty tricks” and a huge “over-reaction”.

He said: “If I was a cynic I would speculate that BA has done this precisely in the hope that everyone lobbies their MP and that they got more government bail-out money as the result.”

Unite yesterday told BA staff: “BA has availed itself of millions of pounds of taxpayers money, ostensibly to avoid making staff redundant.

“But they have not honoured that commitment or the spirit for which it was intended.

“In fact it would appear that BA has simply sought to take advantage of staff being furloughed and dismiss them in their absence.”'LEGALLY AND MORALLY WRONG'The unions said BA's behaviour was “both legally and morally” wrong.

Swathes of furious cabin crew yesterday boycotted an online chat with BA’s cabin crew boss Amy James.

Pilots union Balpa said it was “hugely disappointed” with BA for its “opportunism”.

In a scathing response to BA’s plans, Balpa said the airline was “in breach” of Covid emergency plans: “The main purpose of the government Job Retention Scheme is to avoid the need for any compulsory redundancies.”

BA was accused by the pilots’ bosses of trying to “exploit” the coronavirus pandemic.

The Sun told first how BA had furloughed (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11306604/british-airways-temporarily-suspend-36000-staff/) around 36,000 staff amid the coronavirus shutdown.

BA bosses plan to ditch its Worldwide, Eurofleet and Mixed cabin fleets to create a single new crew team at Heathrow, serving long-haul and short-haul flights.

The Sun told yesterday how BA could stop all flights from the UK’s biggest airport Heathrow (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11522408/british-airways-could-pull-out-of-heathrow/) - and may decide never to return to the second largest hub Gatwick.


BA’s redundancy plans (https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/11501983/british-airways-12000-workers-redundant/) and talks with the union were put on hold when coronavirus (https://www.thesun.co.uk/topic/coronavirus/) struck, decimating the airline industry (https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/11510619/bride-british-airways-refund-flights-cancelled-wedding-disney-world-florida/).

Insiders said strike action could follow because “BA staff are traumatised and have nothing left to lose”.

A spokesman for BA said: “We can’t comment further while we consult with our unions”

Original source:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11535901/british-airways-staff-not-laid-off-to-sign-zero-hour-contract/

[ILS27LEFT]

Might of missed this... Are BA utilising the JRS - Job Retention Scheme to help pay wages?

Of course yes, for many thousands and the government pays those salaries hence BA announcement is clearly going against government legislation as furlough/JRS will be extended again as necessary.

[ILS27LEFT]

Just having a chat about this with someone who’s non aviation.
They have asked the question that if the aircraft aren’t flying are the company supposed to keep the crew on full pay and for how long?
JRS has been introduced by the UK government exactly to cover for this crisis, many industries are affected not just travel and aviation.
This is exactly the scope of JRS, to protect jobs during the pandemic and avoid mass redundancies/unpaid leave, standard rules of capitalism must be ignored during JRS as Governments all around the world have stepped in as they would do during a war. BA, instead, decided to restructure in the middle of a pandemic covered by JRS, this is the immoral & illegal aspect of BA's decision. If BA will be successful and therefore set a precedent we will all end up with a deep and irreversible "McDonaldisation" of the UK job market (e.g. widespread zero hours contracts, no paid sickness, no paid annual leave, no union protection, excessive workload,etc...the list is very long, it will be a pretty awful working life for millions of people, only those at the very top would benefit) with awful consequences on the mental health of future generations which will translate in huge NHS costs paid by all of us, the UK Tax payers. Is this what we really want for our kids? This is now a battle to save the future generations from ruin...and imagine that I am a strong supporter of capitalism... however capitalism has clearly degenerated and COVID19 is the final proof so governments must retake control. If I was the PM I would now push for nationalization of BA with shares also owned by all BA employees unless BA will change direction and seek government assistance to save jobs until the crisis is over. A national carrier is as critical to the UK's survival as the NHS, which is in fact nationalized (thank God!), we cannot allow the NHS to be privatized, we all know even more now (look at the US!) the same concept should apply to the national carrier BA unless Senior Mgt will allow the UK government to step in and be part of it, through financial assistance and control (as majority shareholder). Very simple really.
Just try to imagine what would have happened if the UK NHS was US style during this crisis, which means a privatized NHS. Simply disaster.
Things were much better when airlines were under government control. Higher ticket prices yes, but much better quality of life for all those involved including non-profitable routes being covered and decent working conditions.

[Bravo Zulu]

Of course yes, for many thousands and the government pays those salaries hence BA announcement is clearly going against government legislation as furlough/JRS will be extended again as necessary.

My blood boiling for you guys. Fingers crossed

[PA28161]

I wonder if BA,KLM,SAS et al have some hidden agenda and will draw the line for flight deck/cabin crew aged 50 upwards,destined, for the chop in order to build up the 20 somethings for the post pandemic era ?

[wiggy]

I wonder if BA,KLM,SAS et al have some hidden agenda and will draw the line for flight deck/cabin crew aged 50 upwards,destined, for the chop in order to build up the 20 somethings for the post pandemic era ?

So how do they do that?

[ILS27LEFT]

So how do they do that?
We have age discrimination laws in all modern democracies, it cannot happen unless airlines are willing to pay billions of £ in compensation. They have no chance to succeed.
Law is introduced by legislators to control the action of decision makers and avoid abuse in the interest of the public.
JRS is a scheme introduced to avoid abuse e.g. no Company should try to restructure during this temporary crisis, it would be highly unethical to restructure during JRS which is a scheme funded by the tax payers to save jobs until the crisis is over. Full stop. This was the intention behind JRS and BA is clearly ignoring the law hence this is an illegal and unethical act. The damage on staff morale and engagement is immense, I predict that the existing Senior Leadership will be removed, either by the Government or the workforce. Probably the Government will have to introduce and then use special powers if the BA Leadership will continue to refuse to attend very important meetings with the Transport Committee re. JRS and BA restructuring.

[B744IRE]

In VA they conveniently forgot to raise the maximum age for a conversion course to a new type from 57 to 62 when the maximum retirement age was raised from 60 to 65...this gave them a 8 year window to tell all the older B744 pilots to go gardening.

[B744IRE]

Try lodging an age discrimination grievance against your airline...punishment rosters eventually leading to some form of contrived disciplinary and possibly loss of job.

[sudden twang]

I wonder if BA,KLM,SAS et al have some hidden agenda and will draw the line for flight deck/cabin crew aged 50 upwards,destined, for the chop in order to build up the 20 somethings for the post pandemic era ?

As a now Interested bystander,
can I ask your motive for posting this hypothesis?

Putting aside the moral, legal and reasonable arguments it would fall at the first pragmatic hurdle.
sack all your over 50s and there are v few captains left to sign the tech logs on the LH fleets. Train the SH capts to LH I hear you say but you’ve just sacked a large proportion of your TCs.

I would suggest any BA/IAG manager who voiced that idea should and probably would be for the “ chop” as you so endearingly put it.

[sudden twang]

Try lodging an age discrimination grievance against your airline...punishment rosters eventually leading to some form of contrived disciplinary and possibly loss of job.

Not good, sorry to hear that.

[ILS27LEFT]

Many MPs have written to Alex Cruz and Willie Walsh for an explanation, MPs from all parties which is unprecedented.
At the present time no answer and no intention to meet Government reps or attend critical meetings by both leaders (e.g. the very important meeting, happening next week, with the Parliamentary Travel Committee, still ignored by BA).
During this crisis JRS must be applied and this will be extended as the Chancellor explained many times.
After the Crisis has ended will be a different story however Governments will still assist those sectors that will continue to struggle, e.g. aviation will very likely struggle for longer hence Governments' involvement will be unavoidable all across the world.
Due to the critical importance of a national carrier (in each country, not just the UK) I do not see any other solution rather than nationalization of BA in the long term. Even if BA will have to reduce in size one day, any restructuring, if handled by the UK government rather than millionaires CEOs, will be done in a much more gradual and fair way and only introduced once 100% proven by the data on air travel, data that must go beyond the short term forecasts which can be inaccurate anyway, a massive staff reduction plan is possibly avoidable if a long term perspective is adopted and only a government can adopt this "non greedy" approach.

[ILS27LEFT]

Not good, sorry to hear that.
If that happens, well it is illegal so legal action should be taken.

[Ron Swanson]

If redundancies are going ahead why are will still being forced to take unpaid leave? If I am on 90 days notice then I could really do with Being on my full contractual pay.

[RexBanner]

If redundancies are going ahead why are will still being forced to take unpaid leave? If I am on 90 days notice then I could really do with Being on my full contractual pay.

Spot on. The moment they put us at risk they invalidated our agreement with them. We should now be receiving full pay, I’d like an answer to this too.

[ILS27LEFT]

Spot on. The moment they put us at risk they invalidated our agreement with them. We should now be receiving full pay, I’d like an answer to this too.
Yes, the Unions must be already looking at this aspect which is clearly another illegal action by BA.

See below from somebody who started the petition, I strongly agree with him re. BA setting a very dangerous precedent for the entire nation:

"PETITION UPDATEIts just goes from bad to worse

I wanted to thank all of you for the love and support you have shown all the British Airways workers here in the UK. I am totally blown away by how this has been picked up by you all. You are all heroes to those preparing to go to war with these corporate tyrants.

On a more personal note, BA's actions to me have massive ramifications for all of us here in the UK especially at this time of uncertainty. In a statement this week the Unite union and BALPA pilots union have their suspicion that British Airways is using the Corona-crisis as an excuse to rehire workers on low-paid so-called ‘zero hour’ contracts with no formal employment rights. This is as they get rid of over 12,000 staff. Reading this truly sickens me to the pit of my stomach to think someone has actually sat down and thought this up just to make money.

I can also confirm that the options given to staff (in laymens terms) are to take the new employment contract or your employment will be terminated simple as that.

This is not just a BA situation, this is a massive problem for every worker here in the UK. Think about it, if BA succeeds in this despicable course of action, it means any organisation with the same lack of morals and common decency like BA can take our Taxpayers money to cover costs then twist the employment law in their favor to rob you of any benefits and hire or fire you at whim. I can't help but feel that others are watching this and thinking this is a great strategy to make money from a global tragedy.

So my ask is simple please share this petition as much as you can. As the UNITED KINGDOM we all have a duty to tell this conglomerate of mercenaries that even in the worst of times we are one country standing shoulder to shoulder with one voice and we all simply say NO THANKS.

Be safe everyone we will all get through this as one nation.

Steve

PS More to follow "

Original link:
https://www.change.org/p/boris-johnson-ba-mass-sackings-of-its-uk-workforce-is-immoral-and-possibly-illegal-it-time-to-act/u/26532231

[Riskybis]

I don’t think the pilots at BA are on Furlough?

[bornfree]

Of course yes, for many thousands and the government pays those salaries hence BA announcement is clearly going against government legislation as furlough/JRS will be extended again as necessary.

But BA pilots are not part of the job retention scheme/furloughed. Only cabin crew (et al) are on the job retention scheme. The two entities are being treated differently.

[Riskybis]

It’s not fair that the pilots are not on Furlough, missing out on cash that some will desperately need in a few weeks !!

[ILS27LEFT]

But BA pilots are not part of the job retention scheme/furloughed. Only cabin crew (et al) are on the job retention scheme. The two entities are being treated differently.


Irrelevant that pilots have not been furloughed as BA is taking millions of pounds from the JRS to pay the rest of the company therefore their plan remains technically illegal during JRS and the Transport Committee will stop it.
The UK Government is taking this issue very seriously as BA action could trigger an extremely dangerous chain reaction across many other companies, BA will be stopped by the Government whatever it takes. Unions' existence is also at stake here so this is an historical moment for the future of the UK economy and its workforce.
If Willie Walsh and Alex Cruz genuinely believe that BA will be losing money after the COVID19 crisis will end, then they are very welcome to transfer ownership back to the UK Government which would be extremely happy to take over BA with its long term profitability.

[Ancient Observer]

Irrelevant that pilots have not been furloughed as BA is taking millions of pounds from the JRS to pay the rest of the company therefore their plan remains technically illegal during JRS and the Transport Committee will stop it.
The UK Government is taking this issue very seriously as BA action could trigger an extremely dangerous chain reaction across many other companies, BA will be stopped by the Government whatever it takes. Unions' existence is also at stake here so this is an historical moment for the future of the UK economy and its workforce.
If Willie Walsh and Alex Cruz genuinely believe that BA will be losing money after the COVID19 crisis will end, then they are very welcome to transfer ownership back to the UK Government which would extremely happy to take over BA with its long term profitability.


Er, that is unsubstantiated gobbledegook.

[B744IRE]

If that happens, well it is illegal so legal action should be taken.

The advice from a very good firm in London...
Yes you will win but forget the headline figures you see in the media...it will only cover our fees.

[Tartiflette Fan]

The UK Government is taking this issue very seriously as BA action could trigger an extremely dangerous chain reaction across many other companies, BA will be stopped by the Government whatever it takes. Unions' existence is also at stake here so this is an historical moment for the future of the UK economy and its workforce.
If Willie Walsh and Alex Cruz genuinely believe that BA will be losing money after the COVID19 crisis will end, then they are very welcome to transfer ownership back to the UK Government which would be extremely happy to take over BA with its long term profitability.

Could you reference anything confirming your statement about the government's reaction to BA proposals ? Are you actually in the government to know that they want to re-nationalise BA ? How does that work anyway ? Cash is going to be tremendously short and BA is not available ( AFAIK ) as a stand-alone stock-market share. It is IAG which includes Iberia, Aer Lingus and others, so all kinds of EU sensibilities being touched upon.

[Running Ridges]

A semi-outsider's perspective if I may...
It's clear even to the casual observer that BA's threats are an opportunistic attempt to dramatically worsen T's&C's across the board. They're banking on this working because:
1. The unions are pretty powerless in these circumstances - striking would be a minor inconvenience to BA at worst
2. The public, and politicians, are distracted and they won't face the strength of scrutiny that they might usually do if they attempted something like this
Frankly, there's little anyone can do about point 1 until there is a major recovery in air travel demand. In other words, the war (and I would take BA's letter as a declaration of war!) will be won or lost by the ability to get public and political support.

BA's one weakness here is that given a long enough downturn, they will require government support of some kind (above and beyond the furlough scheme). In fact, IAG have already blinked slightly and weakened their position by accepting the spanish government loan, highlighting their hypocrisy to the more observant MPs.
Government support will come with conditions, which may be the only route to protecting jobs and conditions, so it's crucial to have MPs advocating your side of the argument at that stage.

Direct appeals to MPs are definitely worthwhile - I'll be sending a letter myself in support - but in order to have any chance of a successful outcome, you'll need to win the support of the media and public in general. Pressure from the media in particular is probably the most powerful influence on today's politicians. Here's where you need to be very careful - pilots, BA pilots in particular, are not the easiest group for the 'man on the street' to sympathise with. Don't shoot me! IMO the responsibility and technical demands of the job justify the salary, not to mention the training costs and nasty hours. However, compared to many other careers which involve high levels of responsibility, academic ability and lengthy training (e.g. Engineering, Medicine, etc.), you have an objectively good deal. Again, that's not a criticism - well done for protecting it better than many industries - but it does mean that in order to appeal to the public sentiment, some humility is required. I'm not sure the whole 'home counties' soliloquy is quite going to hit the right notes!

I'd suggest the following might be constructive:
1. A very public offer from the unions of dramatically reduced salary (50%+?) & part time arrangements for perhaps 6 months in return for no forced redundancy. If BA's real motivation was to reduce staff costs to get through the crisis (it's obviously not!!), this would solve their problem. OTOH, their refusal of this offer would confirm beyond any doubt their nefarious motives. A big price to pay on the off chance they did accept but nothing compared to the job losses & T&C decimation suggested
2. Unity within the BA pilot community - bickering about who is being more selfish by keeping their job isn't going to help anyone - you're all getting rodgered at this rate!
3. Working with other departments - don't forget that CC, Engineering and others are going through the same as you at this point. I know the relationship has been a little acrimonious at times, but you're in this together, and will only be able to get out of it together. CC in particular may be a useful ally - their plight might be an easier sell to the tabloids.
4. Work with the rest of the industry - Somewhat ironically, it may be very much in your interests for Virgin to get the loan / bailout they are seeking. It would effectively force BA to do the same, and as mentioned above, this is the opportunity to enforce conditions on job retention & protection of T&Cs

[esscee]

Some interesting points well made.

[FlipFlapFlop]

I'd suggest the following might be constructive:
1. A very public offer from the unions of dramatically reduced salary (50%+?) & part time arrangements for perhaps 6 months in return for no forced redundancy. If BA's real motivation was to reduce staff costs to get through the crisis (it's obviously not!!), this would solve their problem. OTOH, their refusal of this offer would confirm beyond any doubt their nefarious motives. A big price to pay on the off chance they did accept but nothing compared to the job losses & T&C decimation suggested
2. Unity within the BA pilot community - bickering about who is being more selfish by keeping their job isn't going to help anyone - you're all getting rodgered at this rate!
3. Working with other departments - don't forget that CC, Engineering and others are going through the same as you at this point. I know the relationship has been a little acrimonious at times, but you're in this together, and will only be able to get out of it together. CC in particular may be a useful ally - their plight might be an easier sell to the tabloids.
4. Work with the rest of the industry - Somewhat ironically, it may be very much in your interests for Virgin to get the loan / bailout they are seeking. It would effectively force BA to do the same, and as mentioned above, this is the opportunity to enforce conditions on job retention & protection of T&Cs

Great post.
No 1 would need to be soon.....before the likely beneficiaries of redundancy become known. Today this would have almost unanimous support I suspect. Tomorrow..maybe not.
No 2 Yep
No 3 Yep
No 4 Yep

[ILS27LEFT]

The advice from a very good firm in London...
Yes you will win but forget the headline figures you see in the media...it will only cover our fees.

Legal Fees are always part of the final costs settlement in addition to the claim amount of course otherwise legal action would be ineffective. The losing party always pays for anything including legal costs (in addition to) incurred by winning party.

[ILS27LEFT]

Email is [email protected]
Next meeting is on Wed.
Email them if you think Willie Walsh and Alex Cruz must be scrutinised by the Transport Committee on behalf of the UK tax payers.
To the attention of the ChairHuw MerrimanPlease also cc in [email protected]

[slast]

RunningRidges - Excellent points well made. In the 1980s BA also faced an “existential crisis” with massive numbers cuts and changes to T&Cs across the board. It was successfully handled because under the leadership of Mark Young, who was BALPA General Sec at the time. Young was a tough, working class street-fighting Geordie, once a Communist but the person who had pulled the rug from under the Communists in a ballot rigging scandal at the Electrical Trades Union (EETPU).

As leader of ALL the TUs on a joint negotiation he pushed through a programme whereby there were NO compulsory redundancies BUT a lot of voluntary ones, plus T&C changes. A critical aspect was allowing BA to redeployment of ANY employee to a different role, but with protected pay. So surplus pilots ended up as cabin crew, doing office jobs, loaders, securty guards or whatever. When the storm had passed, they were recalled to where new pilot vacancies were.

(As an aside, having been dragged kicking and screaming from the RHS on a VC10 to the rear galley on a 707 or whatever, some found that having no responsibility but most of their normal income plus being generally a straight minority male working with lots of female CC on LH schedules wasn’t too much of a bad deal, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming back…).

Anyway the point is that proposing and publicising a massive and drastic action, and recognizing that it’s an all-employees crisis is likely to be the only possible way to shield from the predatory actions of the £$%&*s now running the company.

See also https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/how-the-ruthless-turn-crisis-into-opportunity-66znfh7rr
Petition signed and watching with huge concern from the sidelines

[ILS27LEFT]

RunningRidges - Excellent points well made. In the 1980s BA also faced an “existential crisis” with massive numbers cuts and changes to T&Cs across the board. It was successfully handled because under the leadership of Mark Young, who was BALPA General Sec at the time. Young was a tough, working class street-fighting Geordie, once a Communist but the person who had pulled the rug from under the Communists in a ballot rigging scandal at the Electrical Trades Union (EETPU).

As leader of ALL the TUs on a joint negotiation he pushed through a programme whereby there were NO compulsory redundancies BUT a lot of voluntary ones, plus T&C changes. A critical aspect was allowing BA to redeployment of ANY employee to a different role, but with protected pay. So surplus pilots ended up as cabin crew, doing office jobs, loaders, securty guards or whatever. When the storm had passed, they were recalled to where new pilot vacancies were.

(As an aside, having been dragged kicking and screaming from the RHS on a VC10 to the rear galley on a 707 or whatever, some found that having no responsibility but most of their normal income plus being generally a straight minority male working with lots of female CC on LH schedules wasn’t too much of a bad deal, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming back…).

Anyway the point is that proposing and publicising a massive and drastic action, and recognizing that it’s an all-employees crisis is likely to be the only possible way to shield from the predatory actions of the £$%&*s now running the company.

See also https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/how-the-ruthless-turn-crisis-into-opportunity-66znfh7rr
Petition signed and watching with huge concern from the sidelines


Strongly agree with both of you and thanks for your input.
"... this maelstrom has given them cover to do what they wanted to do anyway."...we all know this is very true.
Before announcing the mass dismissal of the entire workforce there should have been a civilized discussion around all other options on the table, all options ranging from voluntary redundancies to more part time contracts, unpaid leave, even reduced salaries for all on a temporary basis and much much more, anything that would have saved jobs in the long term.
Nobody is expecting 100% pay during these difficult times and the top priority is to save as many jobs as possible.
The BA top Management's approach means clearly that "this maelstrom has given them cover to do what they wanted to do anyway" so they will have to explain their actions in front of the Transport Committee. They should not be afraid to attend if there is nothing to hide.

" We did invite Willie Walsh, of IAG, to attend as a witness but he is tied up with a board meeting. This is unfortunate because Willie is not backwards in coming forwards. Instead, Airlines UK, the umbrella organisation for UK airlines, which includes BA, will give evidence alongside the Chief Executive of Heathrow and others. In the next session, on 20 May, we will hear from the unions and the Aviation Minister."
"If Willie Walsh is tied up then he should run an organisation where he can delegate someone to speak on his behalf."

These are the words of the Chair of the Transport Committee, the MP who represents the UK Public during this crisis re. the BA announcement and he is simply furious because he is trying to do his job in the interest of the British public and Tax Payers whilst Willie Walsh replies that he cannot attend because he has got more important things to do. Really? What can it be more important than the Chair of the Transport Committee during this Crisis? Let's hope that Willie Walsh will also do his job and attend or at least provide a credible reason for not attending or delegate. His salary is well above all of us on this forum combined but he can choose not to attend such an important meeting. Or maybe the truth is that he does not want to attend...? The meeting is on video conference so he should definitely attend as this is affecting 12K human beings and beyond. This crisis is affecting BA and the UK Aviation industry more than anything else we have seen before in aviation history...and he cannot attend. Is this a joke? In his role he should not have a choice. It should be a mandatory attendance.
In other countries is ILLEGAL to announce or plan redundancies during the COVID19 crisis and whilst Governments have stepped in with JRS measures. In the UK has not been declared illegal however this is implied indirectly within the JRS legislation, this was the intention of the legislator, to simply avoid redundancies and restructuring until the Crisis is over.

Next Wed 06th of May live on BBC Parliament the below:

"Willie Walsh not attending"Dear Allison, Thank you for your message. I am incredibly sorry that, at this time of great uncertainty for the nation, British Airways, and their parent, IAG, have made a decision to put thousands of employees through a consultation with a view to 12,000 redundancies across its workforce. From a local perspective, and not always appreciated by all constituents, I have been a vocal supporter of Gatwick and of BA at Gatwick. The constituency I represent has relatively low wages compared to the regional norm. Those who work at Gatwick are able to boost our local economy. This is even more important at this current time. Talk of BA withdrawing from Gatwick would be devastating for our local economy and our ability to connect with the globe. From a national perspective, I chair the Transport Select Committee. Next Wednesday morning, we are holding our first session on our Inquiry around Aviation and the impact from Coronavirus. Details are below: https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ansport-19-21/ (https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news-parliament-2017/impact-coronavirus-uk-transport-19-21/) We did invite Willie Walsh, of IAG, to attend as a witness but he is tied up with a board meeting. This is unfortunate because Willie is not backwards in coming forwards. Instead, Airlines UK, the umbrella organisation for UK airlines, which includes BA, will give evidence alongside the Chief Executive of Heathrow and others. In the next session, on 20 May, we will hear from the unions and the Aviation Minister. We will be asking about the planned redundancies. Of key concern to me is whether BA are using this epidemic environment to restructure. I appreciate that there is huge uncertainty, and a view that the market may not return to pre-Covid times until 2023 (if it does). BA, and it’s parent, have to prepare for this. The furloughing scheme will not last indefinitely but BA have been fast out of the blocks if this is just a reaction to the Covid 19 epidemic. My concern on this front is not helped by the news, which has just now broken, that IAG has just taken out a €1 billion Spanish state-backed loan. Previously, Willie Walsh lambasted other airlines for looking for state aid. With £7billion of reserves, IAG stated that it would address internally with ‘self-help’ before it resorted to Government aid. It is important that this ‘self-help’ is not job losses in the UK, as opposed to the position in Spain where fewer job losses are expected and the company has sought Government finance. I hasten to add that it is my understanding that IAG/BA have not come to the UK Government or Bank of England to ask for aid before making the announcement on redundancies. There are many questions which require answers from BA. As a result, I have sought permission from my committee members to ensure that BA do appear before the Transport Select Committee. If Willie Walsh is tied up then he should run an organisation where he can delegate someone to speak on his behalf. This is all moving at pace but I hope it demonstrates that I will use my local and national voice to hold British Airways to account. I have also reached out to other MPs to ramp up the pressure. You will be able to watch our virtual Select Committee proceedings, either on Parliament TV or BBC Parliament (which tends to catch up). With best wishes,"

[Ancient Observer]

Years ago, during the BASSA 2010 strike which lead, due to BASSA's incompetence, to the formation of MF, BA had a "list" of changes that they wanted.
WW was then the CEO of BA.
WW has stuck around in IAG.
IAG gets over a Billion from Spain. He is not asking for anything from Boris.

Is it adding up 2 + 2 to equal 5 to think that WW has now dug out his list from 2009/2010??

It is a big shame that PCCC did not rise up and crush BASSA??

[guy_incognito]

Irrelevant that pilots have not been furloughed as BA is taking millions of pounds from the JRS to pay the rest of the company therefore their plan remains technically illegal during JRS and the Transport Committee will stop it.
The UK Government is taking this issue very seriously as BA action could trigger an extremely dangerous chain reaction across many other companies, BA will be stopped by the Government whatever it takes. Unions' existence is also at stake here so this is an historical moment for the future of the UK economy and its workforce.
If Willie Walsh and Alex Cruz genuinely believe that BA will be losing money after the COVID19 crisis will end, then they are very welcome to transfer ownership back to the UK Government which would be extremely happy to take over BA with its long term profitability.

The UK government doesn't care and it will not see this as an issue. It's an horrendous situation but the government aren't going to come charging in to help the employees here.

[3Greens]

Walsh wants the uk government to abolish APD. It’s been on his list for years and this is the pressure he’s applying.

[KYT]

I think we need to look at the motives of WW and AC, and fight their tactic......

...For starters, could BA ‘legally’ take the Government’s JRS, whilst entering the redundancy consultation period....only to withdraw from the JRS after deciding on the redundancies, on day 45? If BA can get away with a loophole that does not expressly exclude this tactic, perhaps the BALPA and Unite reps could close this avenue ASAP, by Union HQ’s Legal Team action. Or at least, get MPs to pose the question so that all will be aware and have some ammunition to fight gutter tactics like this!

[The Foss]

Walsh wants the uk government to abolish APD. It’s been on his list for years and this is the pressure he’s applying.
Can’t hurt requesting MPs to push that to the government. APD alleviations for UK airlines but ONLY those that support their staff through the downturn

[helicrazi]

Can’t hurt requesting MPs to push that to the government. APD alleviations for UK airlines but ONLY those that support their staff through the downturn

I am honestly sorry for anyone losing their livelyhood but

This is a business that has a massive drop in demand for a huge part of their workforce, redundancies are inevitable. Legal action trying to retain all employment is delusional.

Focus on trying to compromise, job share, part time etc etc

[733driver]

I am honestly sorry for anyone losing their livelyhood but

This is a business that has a massive drop in demand for a huge part of their workforce, redundancies are inevitable. Legal action trying to retain all employment is delusional.

Focus on trying to compromise, job share, part time etc etc

I would ad re-hire guarantees, similar to furloughs in the U.S., to that list.

[Hullabaloo]

I'd suggest the following might be constructive:
1. A very public offer from the unions of dramatically reduced salary (50%+?) & part time arrangements for perhaps 6 months in return for no forced redundancy. If BA's real motivation was to reduce staff costs to get through the crisis (it's obviously not!!), this would solve their problem. OTOH, their refusal of this offer would confirm beyond any doubt their nefarious motives. A big price to pay on the off chance they did accept but nothing compared to the job losses & T&C decimation suggested
2. Unity within the BA pilot community - bickering about who is being more selfish by keeping their job isn't going to help anyone - you're all getting rodgered at this rate!
3. Working with other departments - don't forget that CC, Engineering and others are going through the same as you at this point. I know the relationship has been a little acrimonious at times, but you're in this together, and will only be able to get out of it together. CC in particular may be a useful ally - their plight might be an easier sell to the tabloids.
4. Work with the rest of the industry - Somewhat ironically, it may be very much in your interests for Virgin to get the loan / bailout they are seeking. It would effectively force BA to do the same, and as mentioned above, this is the opportunity to enforce conditions on job retention & protection of T&Cs A great post.

Also agree that soliloquy won’t appeal to many. If ‘middle class, solidly home counties’ was edited out, it would go a lot further!

[FlightDetent]

I would ad re-hire guarantees, Careful handling needed because of the other edge on that sword. Re-hire for previously held post = open legal door for direct hire of aliens to the same post. Anything agreed above the scope of law is a potential target for a deliberate mis-interpretation later, especially once the signatories would have left / shuffled posts.

[TOM100]

I am afraid to say I put a lot of this at BASSA’s door (obviously not the crisis but the tactics) - years of intransigence and incompetence especially in 2010 coming back to bite them in the proverbial along with others. Still a very unpleasant situation. Hopefully now they will talk sensibly and not come up with theme tunes, references to Keir Hardy and carnivals at rugby grounds......this is serious and I hope for the sake of all concerned will lead to serious, realistic discussion. Crew need good, authentic and proper representation.

[TOM100]

A serious question - what ammunition do the TU’s have at the moment ? Industrial action seems to be toothless at the moment, huge swathes of public sympathy unlikely, given the climate ? I can only think of some sort of legal spanner or political intervention.....or am I missing something ?

[clipstone1]

So IAG plan to make 12000 redundant in the UK, borrow €1bn to keep Iberia afloat, but carry on the with purchase of Air Europa in Spain which was originally agreed at €1bn which they're attempting to renegotiate currently.

If you don't have the resources to keep either of your main airlines running without drastic measures you shouldn't be out spending hundreds of millions on buying another airline.....

[M.Mouse]

This thread is so full of emotion, fanciful notions and talk of legal action with no firm legal basis to pursue such legal action that it would be comical to read were the situation not so dire and worrying for BA employees.

Just to inject some reality into the situation. BA has circa 4,500 pilots. BA has a pilot salary scale with 24 annual increments (old scales) or 34 annual increments (new scales following the increased retirement age). This means in early years the salaries are quite low and in later years quite high. Let's say the AVERAGE average BA pilot salary is £60,000 p.a. although it is probably higher.That makes the pilot only salary bill £22.5m per month.

Currently BA is operating a handful of daily flights and even when restrictions are lifted what do people think the loads will be like and how long will it take to recover to pre-Covid levels of operation?

BA has well over 40,000 staff in total. If you were the management would you say lets keep everybody on the payroll until things improve? Or would you make drastic changes to staff levels to ensure the company survives?

The opportunistic smash and grab of Ts & Cs is beneath contempt but the cold facts are that without a big cull of costs BA will not survive with or without government loans.

I fail to see the relevance of what is happening in Spain - different companies, different airlines, different government and different rules.

[wiggy]

I fail to see the relevance of what is happening in Spain - different companies, different airlines, different government and different rules.


.... But M, all in the same Group, and with a CEO who has stated he is against intervention for one of the OpCos in the Group but appears to be happy to take it for another..

It's appalling optics and that's why feeling is running high....

[Tartiflette Fan]

".... But M, all in the same Group, and with a CEO who has stated he is against intervention for one of the OpCos in the Group but appears to be happy to take it for another.."

Since discrete figures have been published for BA, presumably - as you would expect - each company is run separately and maybe the Spanish divisions are not making much/any profit. IAG may also be being pressurised by the Spanish government to make minimal cuts and being rewarded for not doing so.

Anyway, as MM has pointed out ( and the optics are irrelevant ) no company can afford to use its cash reserves to employ 25% of its staff to sit at home for six or nine months, as it may need those reserves later if this terrible situation continues.

[Woop Woop Pull Up]

.... But M, all in the same Group, and with a CEO who has stated he is against intervention for one of the OpCos in the Group but appears to be happy to take it for another..

It's appalling optics and that's why feeling is running high....

To summarise the offers on the table for the companies within IAG:

*Iberia - €497 million profit in 2019* €1 billion in state loans with Vueling - NO REDUNDANCIES
*Vueling - €240 million profit in 2019* - €1 billion in state loans with IBERIA - NO REDUNDANCIES
*Aer Lingus - €276 million profit in 2019* pilots to work 5 days on, 11 days off for the forseeable - NO REDUNDANCIES
*British Airways - €1.921 BILLION profit in 2019* - up to 12,000 staff made redundant and currently all 42000 staff told to take a zero hours contract with ALL previous T&Cs ripped up.

This is a business that has £19bln in liquidity (which it announced to the stock markets just 5 weeks ago)
AND
says that it is in a fight for survival however is still managing to find €1bln in an all cash offer to buy Air Europa.

[HZ123]

M.Mouse: An intelligent observation on the situation. The T and C plus variety of pay scales is reflected among the non flying staff and the CC as well. The management have been to weak over many decades to resolve the issue. Sadly this is their time to abolish the many differences and those serving BA staff plus retired and former staff will be wholly aware of this. I have every sympathy for those in BA and the thousands of others that will be effected by future management actions. Bottom line is however that BA or any other company cannot keep staff on the payroll when there is no immediate work or little future prospect of work. Many of you will have seen the 'BA Standing Together' legend but this has sadly never been the case, its been everyone for themselves!

[Busdriver01]

Intelligent, maybe. Maybe not. We hear more and more now how this is an opportunity to rebuild / new normal etc. Even a 45-50% pay cut (as Lufthansa Pilots have offered) would be better than being made redundant in this job market. As much as I don’t see it happening, perhaps it really is time big business looked after its employees rather than chasing a big profit.

[Art of flight]

Intelligent, maybe. Maybe not. We hear more and more now how this is an opportunity to rebuild / new normal etc. Even a 45-50% pay cut (as Lufthansa Pilots have offered) would be better than being made redundant in this job market. As much as I don’t see it happening, perhaps it really is time big business looked after its employees rather than chasing a big profit.
I'm afraid big business answers to its shareholders, they want dividends and increased share value, so profit has to be the name of the game for any board member, staff costs are an inconvenience that eats into that profit. Lufthansa staff have shown the grim reality of this situation, redundancy effectively means end of career for many so it's a stark choice of accept a new contractual reality or walk away to find another job in an economy that seems to only need fruit pickers or supermarket shelf fillers for the foreseeable future.

[TOM100]

Yes unfortunately profit = investability = new planes = new products = secure pension funds - that is capitalism. State intervention = poor decisions & interference = inefficiency = no profit = no investment and so it goes on. Look at BA’s performance when it was an extension of the civil service - strikes, old fleet, lack of innovation etc I know it’s not normal times but as leaders of business the last thing you want is political interference and poor decisions skewed by politicians. If BA can weather this on their own two feet I am sure that will be their preferred outcome. IB is a different animal in a different place as is AEA investment. Even if it is the same group they are very different businesses - IB went through a lot of restructure pain not so long ago......it’s a tough one. I for one would not want politicians interfering in running businesses - that’s why LH have reportedly mulled bankruptcy as a better outcome than the former. A difficult conundrum for the senior bods - who are they accountable to ? Their shareholders who’s money they have been entrusted with. I am not saying in the current climate morally it is desirable or right but pointing out fact.

if they had millions of yours what would you think they should do (a rhetorical question). Look at what Stelios is doing to the EZY board atm.....,

BTW - it is previous government involvement (1970’s agreements and restrictive practices) that they are now trying to unpick.

[The Blu Riband]

hat makes the pilot only salary bill £22.5m per month.

Currently BA is operating a handful of daily flights

Fair. And let's assume the total staff salary bill is £60m (or even £70m) ( remember most staff are already on comparatively low salaries)
So a year of salary costs equate to £750m ish. About half what the company just lost in fuel hedging...
.
But BA has cash and assets of nearly £10B ..... That's enough for many years of staff costs!

It's likely that neither the 380 or 744 will fly much longer (380 prob finished already). But some sensible VR , PT and redeployment will take care of most manpower reduction.

Whilst most observers forecast a difficult 18 mths or more does anyone really doubt that at some point the aviation market will be back to where it was?
Should we allow the UK aviation industry to be destroyed? And therefore allow others to fill the void.

[Kev Agamemnon]

But BA has cash and assets of nearly £10B ..... That's enough for many years of staff costs! I doubt much of it is liquid. Property and machinery isn't easy to convert to cash in a hurry. Especially in the current environment.

[777JRM]

There is liquidity: cash pile $7 billion + untouched revolving credit facility $2 billion.

[Tartiflette Fan]

. Even a 45-50% pay cut (as Lufthansa Pilots have offered) would be better than being made redundant in this job market. As much as I don’t see it happening, perhaps it really is time big business looked after its employees rather than chasing a big profit.

As I read it in the German press, that was only on basic pay, which then - according to that magazine - came out to about - 20%.overall.

[Busdriver01]

I suppose my point is that unlike a lot of jobs, or even careers, Pilots are usually totally invested in the longevity of their career. They cannot simply move to another company. Airlines use this to their advantage, so they should be doing everything in their power (with compromise on both sides) to be retaining their pilots at least in some form of employment until things return towards a more normal operation.

[Kev Agamemnon]

There is liquidity: cash pile $7 billion + untouched revolving credit facility $2 billion.

IAG have cash and cash equivalents of EUR 7.2 bn; rather different to the GBP 10 bn which was being claimed for BA alone.

The revolving credit facility is exactly that - basically an agreed overdraft. It is not cash.

[The Blu Riband]

IAG have cash and cash equivalents of EUR 7.2 bn

Ok.. so BA have a significant liquidity

Shareholders may want a return, but remember BA didnt pay a dividend for decades until last year; and any decent investor should be prepared to ride this cycle and look to the med/long term when BA should have a good (possibly better) chance of performing as exceptionally well as the last few years.

Panicking now could result in a significant loss of future market share. Aside from the moral issues of treating staff/people like disposable pieces of sh1t!

[777JRM]

".... But M, all in the same Group, and with a CEO who has stated he is against intervention for one of the OpCos in the Group but appears to be happy to take it for another.."

Since discrete figures have been published for BA, presumably - as you would expect - each company is run separately and maybe the Spanish divisions are not making much/any profit. IAG may also be being pressurised by the Spanish government to make minimal cuts and being rewarded for not doing so.

Anyway, as MM has pointed out ( and the optics are irrelevant ) no company can afford to use its cash reserves to employ 25% of its staff to sit at home for six or nine months, as it may need those reserves later if this terrible situation continues.

You’re right - it needs those reserves to pay shareholders special dividends (like the €700 million last year) and the directors their bonus and share options. Didn’t the CEO get a pay raise of 62%?

Not forgetting share buybacks, which were €1 BILLION over the last two years.

Oh, and buying other airlines, such as the tabled Air Europa purchase for another €1 BILLION.

If a grounded airline has a cash burn of $10m per day, then IAG’s $9bn liquidity can last approx 3 years, before any further borrowing is needed.

[Arcanum]

As someone who consistently flies 15-20 long-haul returns per year on BA (usually in Club World) I hope things work out as well as they can for everyone. It's a great carrier which I always choose over other alternatives, no matter where I'm headed in the world.


However, as someone who has worked in the tech industry for 20-years, I'd caution people on making comparisons to the 2008 GFC. The company I work for, like many in the tech industry, switched everyone over to working from home in early March and it's been pretty seamless. IT networks and systems have coped without issue. Meeting times and agendas have been adjusted to deal for Europe/U.S./Asia time zone differences. Which is a bit painful for all involved, but no less than multiple hours on an aircraft followed by jet lag. And there's a bonus upside of seeing your kids grow up, not fleeting moments on FaceTime.


The working from home environments we have now are becoming a habit after only a few months. In some case, free from the distractions and interruptions of the office, working from home is more efficient with the software that's available now. As many companies aren't talking about getting back in to the office until deep in the year, these working patterns will become normalised. It will be getting on a plane that feels weird.


Little to none of this was possible in 2008 after the GFC.


Once COVID is over, I fully expect to go back to some level of travel. Customer meetings and some internal meetings simply need to take place in person. You can't maintain or build new relationships over Video Conference alone. Yet I expect it will be 8-10 long-haul trips a year, not 15-20. Moreover, travel is a huge cost to many tech companies, and the finance departments have just discovered that a lot isn't necessary to be effective.


I completely believe the predictions about it taking many years for business related air travel to reach 2019 levels and can understand why the airline business is going to have to change to cope with that. Yet I wish all those impacted in BA the best of luck. You've always got me where I needed to safely, efficiently and with excellent service (no matter which cabin I was in).

[Una Due Tfc]

I’ve seen a few collective agreements already being thrashed out in the industry in my jurisdiction. Staff are agreeing to various pay cuts, redundancy programmes, reductions in various Ts & Cs of a temporary nature. Thrash out agreed milestones for each eroded item to be reversed, or have an independent panel make that call. When profit returns to X level, Y temporary reduction in expenditure is reversed. I hope all your unions over there insist on this. Best of luck to you all, hope to be chatting to you on the airwaves again soon.

[vikdream]

To summarise the offers on the table for the companies within IAG:

*Iberia - €497 million profit in 2019* €1 billion in state loans with Vueling - NO REDUNDANCIES
*Vueling - €240 million profit in 2019* - €1 billion in state loans with IBERIA - NO REDUNDANCIES
*Aer Lingus - €276 million profit in 2019* pilots to work 5 days on, 11 days off for the forseeable - NO REDUNDANCIES
*British Airways - €1.921 BILLION profit in 2019* - up to 12,000 staff made redundant and currently all 42000 staff told to take a zero hours contract with ALL previous T&Cs ripped up.

This is a business that has £19bln in liquidity (which it announced to the stock markets just 5 weeks ago)
AND
says that it is in a fight for survival however is still managing to find €1bln in an all cash offer to buy Air Europa.

I find it disgusting that a very big number of posters are attacking other IAG airlines in order to defend BA.

I cannot speak about AL, but I do know well the other two airlines.

Iberia underwent a deep and harmful restructuring process after the 2008 crisis, with salaries going down and down and down. A BA freshly new cadet on SH makes more than a 6 year old FO on the A330 in Iberia.

Vueling is the low cost company, with low cost salaries. It has improved a bit recently, but it has always been the low cost company.

On top of this, both companies are on ERTE, which means that most pilots are working a maximum of 5 days per month, with state aid (everyone in Spain gets it) and a small top up from the company in order to get a living salary. Spain pays a maximum of 1090 euros (before tax, and taxable) per month for each furloughed employee, very far from the 2500 pounds paid by the British Government. Thus the intervention from airlines.

Moreover, redundancies are expected in very big numbers if things do not improve.

So, to sum up. All IAG airlines are in big sh.... The only difference being that Alex Cruz is taking advantage of this situation in order to restructure BA, something that already happened in Spain 10 years ago.

Stop blaming others, stop attacking others. We are all in the same boat

[Jwscud]

Vikdream, unless an IB 330 FO earns about £30K year 6, I suspect your facts are incorrect. As is any idea BA hasn’t also been through massive changes since 2008/9.

[Woop Woop Pull Up]

Stop blaming others, stop attacking others. We are all in the same boat

I'm interested which part of that post was either blaming or attacking - it merely highlights the different approaches by the same company.

BA has also suffered more than its fair of cost cutting in recent years,

[Locked door]

I find it disgusting that a very big number of posters are attacking other IAG airlines in order to defend BA.

I cannot speak about AL, but I do know well the other two airlines.

Iberia underwent a deep and harmful restructuring process after the 2008 crisis, with salaries going down and down and down. A BA freshly new cadet on SH makes more than a 6 year old FO on the A330 in Iberia.

Vueling is the low cost company, with low cost salaries. It has improved a bit recently, but it has always been the low cost company.

On top of this, both companies are on ERTE, which means that most pilots are working a maximum of 5 days per month, with state aid (everyone in Spain gets it) and a small top up from the company in order to get a living salary. Spain pays a maximum of 1090 euros (before tax, and taxable) per month for each furloughed employee, very far from the 2500 pounds paid by the British Government. Thus the intervention from airlines.

Moreover, redundancies are expected in very big numbers if things do not improve.

So, to sum up. All IAG airlines are in big sh.... The only difference being that Alex Cruz is taking advantage of this situation in order to restructure BA, something that already happened in Spain 10 years ago.

Stop blaming others, stop attacking others. We are all in the same boat

BA restructured years before Iberia, that’s why it makes so much more money.

BA staff are significantly more productive than Iberia staff, and yet it’s the money makers that are under threat of redundancy.

Galling isn’t the word for it.

[Douglas Bahada]

All does not seem well at one of the other large multinationals.

PARIS/AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Air France-KLM’s (AIRF.PA (https://uk.reuters.com/companies/AIRF.PA)) French unions on Monday criticised calls by their Dutch counterparts for KLM to be given greater autonomy, amid signs that a multibillion-euro coronavirus bailout is increasing tensions within the airline group.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-air-france-klm-unions/air-france-klm-union-tensions-surface-in-bailouts-wake-idUKKBN22G2Q1

[The Blu Riband]

I find it disgusting that a very big number of posters are attacking other IAG airlines in order to defend BA.


mmmm You choose to disregard the fact that BA has restructured continuously since 9/11; earlier if you include the regions.

Make no mistake --- BA pilots are already on very competitive contracts. eg few, if any, Virgin/KLM/AF/SWISS etc pilots transfer to BA. Yes, most new joiners are from LCCs, but even so the benefits are very marginal.

The post you quoted rightly pointed out that BA makes twice the profit of ALL the other IAG airlines combined - and that they have taken bailouts/loans, and not announced redundancies! Nothing unreasonable or nonfactual.

[ILS27LEFT]

Following has been signed by 47 MP’s.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/56904/british-airways-job-cuts?fbclid=IwAR1ZugAYOeluJ5AqonFSAzQ8-EA3sBHb3BRMnJDbdURfWfLP2N86iZwSc74

[premiere]

Not one them a conservative MP....!!!!!

[anson harris]

Not one them a conservative MP....!!!!!
Are you actually surprised?

[ILS27LEFT]

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/56910/british-airways-redundancies

"Tabled 04 May 2020
2019-21 Session
That this House notes with concern that British Airways has made 12,000 staff redundant; thanks these workers for their heroic efforts in repatriating those stranded due to covid-19 at their own risk; offers solidarity to these workers that find themselves needlessly out of a job in the middle of a global pandemic; is disappointed that British Airways chose to take the decision to reject Government support and announce it on International Workers’ Memorial Day; emphasises that, as an island, aviation is essential to the UK for trade, business and managing social and family networks; looks to the governments of our European neighbours who are taking action to protect their aviation industries; urges the Government to provide fully-repayable loans and take a financial stake in aviation companies; asks aviation companies to cap all elements of executive pay, protect employee terms and conditions and transition to greener, more efficient travel operations once flights resume; and calls on the Government to publicly finance smaller airports, air traffic control and specific routes within the UK aviation network to retain much-needed vital connectivity."

[ILS27LEFT]

EDM #428
Share
Tabled 04 May 2020
2019-21 Session


That this House recognises that the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme has enabled it to work with businesses and trade unions to protect the economy and avoid mass redundancies; appreciates the role aviation workers have played in operating flights, repatriating citizens and delivering essential medical and personal protective equipment supplies; considers it deplorable that whilst IAG is taking UK tax payers’ money, as well as using Spanish government guaranteed loans to purchase an additional airline for the group at a cost of €1.2 Billion, it is serving notice of redundancies to UK employees with British Airways having announced its intention of implementing 12,000 redundancies and is introducing inferior contracts for all employees; believes that it is immoral that British Airways is utilising public funds, designed to protect jobs, while simultaneously seeking mass redundancies in haste, given also that furloughed British Airways workers are unable to engage in consultation relating to these redundancies and that British Airways has access to £3 billion cash reserve and IAG credit line equivalents of €10.7 billion; and demands that British Airways halts its opportunistic redundancy and restructuring and engages constructively with unions and Government to positively plan for a just and sustainable future based upon a tripartite approach to ensuring UK connectivity and the aviation industry is maintained for the benefit of all and not just one company.
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/56920/redundancies-at-british-airways


British Airways job losses
EDM #418
Share
Tabled 30 April 2020
2019-21 Session
That this Parliament calls on British Airways and other airlines to not use the covid-19 outbreak as an opportunity to reduce jobs and employees' terms and conditions; asks them instead to explore all the funding options available to maintain the sustainability of jobs as part of an overall plan for business recovery once the current public health crisis is brought under control; calls on them to work with the Government to extend the duration of the Coronavirus Jobs Retention Scheme as a way of avoiding mass redundancies; and calls on the Government to accede to such a request.
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/56904/british-airways-job-losses

[vlieger]

So, even though many people don't like to "talk politics", surely these EDMs prove that this whole thing is very political? Not a single Tory voted for them, so BA employees may want to keep this in mind.

BALPA is facing the battle of a lifetime in the coming weeks and months. The pressure is on them to negotiate some kind of deal that can soften the hammer blow. But their bargaining position is extremely weak. And with all planes grounded by the pandemic, a strike is ruled out.

As a result, absolute unity is of paramount importance. The war can only be won by sticking together. Pilots, cabin crew, engineering and back office staff are all waging the same battle. Linking up with colleagues in other airlines is also another way to encourage solidarity, and to maximise public and political support.

But these things, crucial as they are, won’t be enough. The only real way forward is to cast aside any parochial or short-term trade union perspective, and to understand that this struggle is very much a political question.

https://www.socialist.net/british-airways-job-cuts-the-knives-are-out.htm
​​​​​​

[EastofKoksy]

All does not seem well at one of the other large multinationals.

PARIS/AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Air France-KLM’s (AIRF.PA (https://uk.reuters.com/companies/AIRF.PA)) French unions on Monday criticised calls by their Dutch counterparts for KLM to be given greater autonomy, amid signs that a multibillion-euro coronavirus bailout is increasing tensions within the airline group.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-air-france-klm-unions/air-france-klm-union-tensions-surface-in-bailouts-wake-idUKKBN22G2Q1
Not surprised at this reaction. The alliance always looked like a marriage made in Hell. The two companies and their host countries have very different cultures.

[Bridchen]

May be worth putting points of view on the comments section of this article.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/04/british-airways-bosses-drag-heels-redundancy-grilling-mps/

[CaptainCriticalAngle]

In this Simon Calder piece for The Independent, he suggests IAG/BA wants to cut some pilot salaries by 70%. Surely this is scaremongering by IAG, so that, when they cut them by say 40%, it won't seem so bad.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/coronavirus-uk-flights-airlines-aviation-pilots-union-a9498766.html

[ILS27LEFT]

Tomorrow and then 11 May:
"On Wednesday, the Transport Select Committee will hear evidence on the impact of coronavirus on UK aviation. British Airways was invited to attend, but declined.The chair of the committee, Huw Merriman MP, said: “It seems remarkable that British Airways cannot find anyone with sufficient responsibility to join others from the aviation sector for our select committee inquiry this Wednesday.

“With so many questions, this would be an ideal platform for BA to set out its challenges, to reassure and seek parliamentary support should it need more assistance from the UK authorities.”

The committee now expects to take evidence from Willie Walsh, chief executive of BA’s parent company, IAG, on 11 May.

The Independent has asked British Airways for a response."

[Tommy Gavin]

Even though I have nothing to do with BALPA and my job isn't on the line (for now) , it is important for every pilot in Europe that BA (but also AF/LH/KLM...) come to an agreement that once the planes are flying again you will be employed on acceptable T&C's. Guess what MOL / Wizz and the likes will offer if even the flag carriers are (further) lowering there standards.

The Lufty pilots have given an excellent statement by offering part time work across the board as long as this crisis last. They also did this before any redundancies were announced. Smart move IMHO.

[ILS27LEFT]

Even though I have nothing to do with BALPA and my job isn't on the line (for now) , it is important for every pilot in Europe that BA (but also AF/LH/KLM...) come to an agreement that once the planes are flying again you will be employed on acceptable T&C's. Guess what MOL / Wizz and the likes will offer if even the flag carriers are (further) lowering there standards.

The Lufty pilots have given an excellent statement by offering part time work across the board as long as this crisis last. They also did this before any redundancies were announced. Smart move IMHO.

Plenty of options available indeed from "part time work across the board " to unpaid leave for 6-12 months (when/if furlough ends) and much more.
Top priority must be to save jobs now - once the crisis has ended the options will change as status of aviation will be much clearer.

Meanwhile in Australia:“The Government’s support of the aviation industry by underwriting some essential flying, and the support to the broader economy through JobKeeper, have been greatly appreciated. Public health initiatives like the COVIDSafe app are one of the ways we’ll be able to start travelling sooner, so we strongly encourage all Australians to download it.

“I want to recognise our people for their continued support and understanding in the face of this crisis. In particular, those who’ve helped bring Australians home from overseas and kept an essential domestic and regional network running, carrying on what the national carrier has done for 100 years.”

[The Foss]

In this Simon Calder piece for The Independent, he suggests IAG/BA wants to cut some pilot salaries by 70%. Surely this is scaremongering by IAG, so that, when they cut them by say 40%, it won't seem so bad.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/coronavirus-uk-flights-airlines-aviation-pilots-union-a9498766.html

That’s not what the article says.

It’s referring to a BALPA letter which says that some pilots are currently on 70% less pay than usual, no airline specified. Possibly those On furlough?

[John4321]

I fear this may only be the start of the problems.

Being permitted and safe to fly is one thing, having the money to buy the tickets is another. There’s a lot of customers dying and many of those who survive will be a whole lot poorer.

On the positive side, Heathrow probably won’t need a third runway for some time.

Stay safe everyone. That is the only priority right now.

J

[guy_incognito]

There’s a lot of customers dying and many of those who survive will be a whole lot poorer.

So far even if we assume that the official figures underestimate the real death toll, far less that 0.1% of the UK population has died with (not of) Covid-19. Similar in the USA. The numbers in absolute terms seem big but are actually incredibly small.

[Pantrash111]

So far even if we assume that the official figures underestimate the real death toll, far less that 0.1% of the UK population has died with (not of) Covid-19. Similar in the USA. The numbers in absolute terms seem big but are actually incredibly small.

Exactly. It seems to me that aviation is rapidly becoming the sector that is coming out worst in the whole situation. I’d imagine a good proportion of people will have jobs to go back to when the lockdown is lifted. Once again when the music stops we will all be looking around wondering what happened to all the chairs 🤦‍♂️

[SADDLER]

So far even if we assume that the official figures underestimate the real death toll, far less that 0.1% of the UK population has died with (not of) Covid-19. Similar in the USA. The numbers in absolute terms seem big but are actually incredibly small.

I agree.
This thing needs perspective.

[ILS27LEFT]

"05 May 2020

The Transport Committee intends to hold an evidence session with Willie Walsh, Chief Executive of the International Airlines Group and parent company of British Airways, on Monday, 11 May.

Read updated information on May 6 session-Implications of coronavirus (Covid-19) for the aviation sector examined (https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/153/transport-committee/news/146277/implications-of-coronavirus-covid19-on-the-aviation-sector-examined/)
Inquiry: Impact of Coronavirus on UK Transport: Aviation (https://committees.parliament.uk/work/221/coronavirus-implications-for-transport/)
Transport Committee (https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/153/transport-committee/)

On 24th April, the Transport Select Committee agreed to hold an inquiry on the Aviation sector amidst the challenges from Covid19.

The first evidence session on May 6 will comprise separate panels covering consumer rights, airport operators and representatives from the airline industry. As the UK’s largest airline, British Airways (BA) was invited to give evidence and face questioning.

BA refused to attend explaining that Willie Walsh, the Chief Executive of its parent, International Airlines Group (AIG), would be unavailable due to a board meeting. It was made clear that no other representative would be made available.

Subsequent to this response:

IAG announced plans to make 12,000 of BA’s 42,000 workforce redundant and vary the terms and conditions of BA staff who retain their jobs;
IAG took out a EUR1 billion loan, guaranteed by the Spanish Government (having previously stated that it would administer ‘self-help’ before applying for Government aid and being critical of competitors who had requested state-assistance); and
An investigation has estimated that airlines, including BA, are sitting on £7 billion of passenger refunds and offering future travel vouchers rather than returning the cash as consumer rights require.

As a result of these developments, the Transport Select Committee reiterated that BA should attend the inquiry on 6 May. The Committee were understanding of Mr Walsh’s duties in the boardroom and explained that any alternative senior manager of BA or IAG would be welcomed. BA responded that all senior managers may also be needed to attend the boardroom during the allotted slot. BA thereby refused to attend the evidence session on 6 May, as has been reported in media.

Today, Mr Walsh has offered additional dates in order to give evidence to the inquiry. Although parliamentary resources are more restricted than usual, a provisional evidence session has become available on 11 May. More details will be announced in due course.Chair's commentsChair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said:

“It seems remarkable that British Airways cannot find anyone with sufficient responsibility to join others from the aviation sector for our Select Committee inquiry this Wednesday. With so many questions, this would be an ideal platform for BA to set out its challenges, to reassure and seek Parliamentary support should it need more assistance from the UK authorities.

“In March, BA’s parent, IAG, warned against the UK Government bailing out its competitors and said it would administer ‘self-help’ before seeking support. BA’s UK staff are now facing mass redundancies or working on vastly reduced terms. BA’s passengers are not being given flight refunds they are entitled to.

“In Spain, it would appear that BA’s parent has adopted a different strategy of seeking substantial Government financial support and maintaining its operations and employee numbers.

“It’s vital that BA reassure their staff and passengers that they are not using this epidemic to reduce their UK wage bill and competitors, in order to maximise future profits if and when the market returns.

“Judging by the huge volume of emails which MPs are receiving from concerned staff and passengers, it is more important that we hear from BA and IAG than demonstrate their lack of delegated responsibility. We therefore intend to proceed with a separate session for British Airways and Mr Walsh on Monday 11 May in the event the limited resources in Parliament can accommodate. We look forward to meeting Mr Walsh and hearing his strategy for BA in these challenging times.”

The Committee is scheduled to hold a third session on 20 May with representatives from trade unions and the Aviation Minister."

[Tartiflette Fan]

So far even if we assume that the official figures underestimate the real death toll, far less that 0.1% of the UK population has died with (not of) Covid-19. Similar in the USA. The numbers in absolute terms seem big but are actually incredibly small.

That seems to me to be a fairly stupid comment. It refers to the total population , whereas the leathality for people exposed ( which I don't know ) is likely to be much, much higher ;

How do you feel if it drops from 1/1000 to 1/100 ?

[ILS27LEFT]

WitnessesWednesday 6 May 2020, the session will be available to watch online

At 9.30am


Simon Calder, Senior Travel Editor, The Independent
Mark Tanzer, Chief Executive, ABTA (Association of British Travel Agents)

At 10.15am


John Holland-Kaye, Chief Executive, Heathrow Airport
Debra Bowen-Rees, Deputy Chair of RABA (Regional and Business Airports Group)
Karen Dee, Chief Executive, Airport Operators Association

At 11.15am


Tim Alderslade, Chief Executive, Airlines UK

Focus of the sessionThe session will explore:


the financial position of airlines and airports;
passenger and consumer issues such as refunds and quarantine periods;
the protection of workers and passengers;
the impact of coronavirus on regional connectivity, and;
assess how air travel will work as the restrictions are eased.

Please note that Parliament has stopped all non-essential visitor access to both Houses due to the circumstances around coronavirus. The session, will be available to watch online (https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ddfcb25d-ea31-4a37-86ba-daf1b4d6f032), and a transcript for both sessions will be published on the website (https://committees.parliament.uk/work/221/coronavirus-implications-for-transport/publications/) a few days afterwards.

[Airbus Unplugged]

If Mr Walsh refuses to appear in front of a Parliamentary Committee, and will not provide a lieutenant, is he not in contempt of parliament?

[Antichristpilot]

Did the Spanish Government give money to IAG or directly to Iberia and Vueiling? Walsh had better hope it was to the subsidiaries and, of course, terms will be accessible for the British Government to see.

[ILS27LEFT]

"5 MAY 2020 —

Well, I am honestly blown away by the support this petition has gained over the weekend and I wanted to personally thank every single one of you, from the bottom of my heart. Sometimes in life it is nice just to know you are not alone when the decimation of a workforce is announced in such an underhanded way. It should give us all strength to know our BA family is a large one and best of all, it’s a strong one.

I would also, on behalf of all those facing these tough times, like to extend our thanks from the UK BA family to our European airline cousins who are also facing similar problems, but have taken the time stand by all the BA workers right now. LOVE TO YOU ALL. We know who our friends are, but more importantly, to those that have instigated this attack on the UK WORKFORCE while saving others closer to home, the world is now watching you VERY CLOSELY.

I would also like to say a big hello to BA corporate who I have been reliably informed are actively monitoring this petition (looks like we are doing something right).

So, I have been doing a little bit of research on BA’s figures over the 2019 period this weekend, as well as reading all of the comments from pilots, crew, and almost everyone that has been effected by the BA's latest plans. The very plans that have been sanctioned by IAG to target ONLY THE UNITED KINGDOM workforce. Just to be clear, all information posted here in this petition is in the public domain or has been circulated by the trade union UNITE of which I am a member.

So while I was on my journey of discovery, I came across a very informative article that I felt I had to share with you concerning IAG’s finances that was posted on the London stock exchange, (link attached) that actually shows the healthy turnover and profit for IAG along with some nice cash reserves in savings. In 2019 BA’s profit margin dropped a small amount to 12.9%, while its turnover increased to 13.29 billion pounds. BA’s profit has stayed the same at around 2 billion (I am assuming the margin drop did not happen on day 1) as opposed to 2018 showing a profit of 2.3 billion.

So, I find it odd that we fast forward to May 2020 and BA is, all of a sudden, 550 million in the red. The question I have to ask myself is, how does a company that makes that much money blow over 2 billion in cash while the UK tax payer foots the wage bill? Now, I am no accountant, and yes, we are facing difficult times, but really guys?

The last time I can remember this level of mismanagement of money was during the financial crisis and the UK government stepped in and renationalised a handful of banks. I personally don’t see that as a bad thing for BA and Virgin alike, as these are companies that are profitable and as a UK Tax payer, I can actually see a return on my investment very quickly. Something for Boris to have a good think about. Len if you are reading this right now, you have my vote to bring the airlines under the control of the UK government.

As I looked through some of the BA management statements I did find it very amusing to see the likes of Willie Walsh blaming the pilot’s strike for £130m in lost revenue as well as strikes at Heathrow for 33m while Willie Walsh overlooked the fact that Alex Cruz decided to award himself a pay rise at exactly the same time taking his salary from £830,000 to £1.36M. To which you would be happy to know, Alex was asked to explain himself on breakfast TV (have a look at the metro article link).

While we are looking at executive pay, I found an interesting article from “This Is Money” about Willie Walsh and his none too shabby pay plan. The 2019 annual IAG report showed he had a 5.5% rise, up from £3million in 2018, with an £883,000 bonus and £1.2million in shares. He also stands to get 1.1m shares worth £5.2million under long-term bonus schemes over the next four years, ‘if targets are met’.

This statement, “If targets are met” got me thinking. So, as long as IAG hits all its targets, Willie Walsh will pocket another £5.2 million over the next 4 years. These targets will more than likely be linked to shareholder value. Shareholder value is the value delivered to the equity owners of a corporation due to management's ability to increase sales, earnings, and free cash flow, which leads to an increase in dividends and capital gains for the shareholders.

Now, I have no issues with anyone earning money, and my view is the more you make the better, within reason, but these bonuses are what drives the management at BA and almost all businesses. I guarantee you that it is this payment to the Shareholders and the bonuses being paid to Willie Walsh and Alex Cruz this is behind this whole program of redundancies.

Also, while this threat of redundancy is going on and as part of gaining market share, it is in IAG/BA’s interest that Virgin, as an airline, fail. Think about it. If BA could hoover up all those slots for a fraction of the price, they could raise total passenger percentages across the UK increasing that 2 billion profit. Maybe IAG’s refusal to stop the purchase of Air Europa at over a billion euro’s is counting on yet more misery for the UK workforce. If you look at the sums of money here that BA management earn, I am sure they will have some obscene bonuses sitting there waiting for them. If that profit margin increases remember “If targets are met” .

So now we know what drives this corporate enterprise and the BA Millionaires club, let us look at the human cost of margin retention and passenger percentage figures and what it really means to you and I, the BA family.

As I mentioned earlier, I have been watching the crew threads and receiving personal messages via social media. I have to say, I have been moved by all of them, but two posts in particular stood out to me amongst all of them.

One post was from a single mother who had barely been able to get out of bed for 3 days, and only did so to feed her young child. She has not stopped crying and is worrying she will lose everything.

The 2nd post actually made me go weak at the knees and I genuinely could not stop the tears. It was from a member of cabin crew who had worked out he was actually better off dead as his family would then have enough money, with his ‘death in service’ pay, to continue paying the mortgage plus putting food on the table, and was seriously contemplating suicide. This is the reality that my new found family are facing every day, and this is exactly how the BA Millionaires Club want you to feel so you take any deal they offer . This is a group of people who hide behind a pandemic to hatch their plans while taking my money as a tax payer. In the UK,as of writing this update, we have 190,584 cases of Covid-19 confirmand and 28,734 death, on track to be the highest in Europe. Another post that resonated with me was from a pilot sent directly to Alex Cruz. The words that stood out were that this newly proposed zero hour contract is tantamount to MODERN DAY SLAVERY. Remember this despicable treatment has been saved by the IAG group for the UK WORKFORCE only, not the rest of Europe and most defiantly not Spain.

It is easy for panic to set in, remember that’s what BA management want right now. So please stop, breath, and take a step back. If you really look at this with a clear head, we have ALL the unions working together this time, court cases have been filed already in the high court and the biggest union in the UK, Unite, is fighting our corner against the BA Millionaires Club.

For those of you sitting there worried and ready to take the 1st proposal that comes along from BA, please remember this. The BA management team actually have a track record of failure when it comes to taking on my BA family. For those more senior members of the Gatwick fleet who remember when the Dan Air staff were brought on, how did that end up for the BA millionaires? My personal favourite though is the 2010 industrial action when the BA Millionaires Club, headed at the time by Willie Walsh, tried to get all the unions fighting against each other by bringing in our Mixed Fleet family. How did that work out for you then guys? Take strength and pride in the fact that we have strong unions that individually have a high record of success, and this time are all ONE FAMILY together fighting our corner. You can guess which team I am glad to be on. I implore you all do as your unions ask, follow protocol, never act out of anger.

To those that feel that there is nothing else there for you, remember this. Right now, as I speak, our new family spans the globe, our family is over 157,975 strong and is growing by the minute. To the BA Millionaires Club, this time you have every single employee in the UK from the Pilots, Cabin Crew and Ground Staff acting as one. We are not running from you, we are running at you.

To those who feel the darkness closing in and that this world does not need you, I beg you now to please reach out to Crew Care or the Samaritans. You are not alone, you have a family spanning the globe and we are 100’s of thousand strong. Do not wavier, do not loose sight of the goal. We are stronger as One Family, we will not back down and we will not stop or be beaten.

So now we know what we are up against, this is my ‘call to action’ for every UK citizen who has signed this petition. I am begging you to help the BA Family. Time is not on our side, so please can I ask you to do the following.

1) Sign this petition ASAP https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/303081 so it gets read and debated in parliament.

2) Also, we must write to every elected MP in every party in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will bring massive amounts of pressure on Parliament to act and also for the BA millionaires club to face up to what they are doing. I have also included an MP finder for your area. This is not a debate on who you voted for, this is another voice by those elected to support us.

3) To Len McCluskey I urge you to ask all the UNITE members to write to all of their MP’s in the UK. If a 100 people send the same letter to the same MP’s, they will have to listen.

Talking of MP’s, for those of you in Sussex, please shake Huw Merriman’s hand for me as he has demanded that the BA Millionaires Club turn up to parliament and explain themselves, apparently they’ve all been too busy up till now.

So, in closing and to my new BA Family. From the son of Spanish immigrants, born in the slums of London and growing up on the Grenfell Estate, I have dealt with bullies all of my life and the only way they win is by fear. I make this promise to you all. I will face these people, not with anger, not with fear, but with a determination that’s born out of necessity, as lives and not bonuses depend on this. Trust me “We have this”

Lastly, I would like to dedicate this petition to Ian Johnson (aka Shirley), one of BA’s longest serving Cabin Service Directors, who sadly became one of the 28,734 victims of Covid-19. If anyone is in contact with his family, please let them know.

Please, all of you from all over the world, be safe in these desperate times and remember you have a very large family that loves you.



Steve

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/303081

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/28/british-airways-plans-to-make-up-to-12000-staff-redundant

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/09/ba-chief-exec-slammed-taking-530000-pay-rise-cutting-pilot-salaries-10712855/

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8075689/Departing-BA-boss-Willie-Walsh-saw-pay-jump-3-2m-year.html

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/IAG/14441147.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/04/british-airways-bosses-drag-heels-redundancy-grilling-mps/

https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen&mid=%2Fm%2F07ssc

https://members.parliament.uk/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8178269/British-Airways-suspend-36-000-staff-days-grounding-flights-Gatwick.html
"

[ILS27LEFT]

I have just realized that this is a different petition on a different platform, the official Parliament one:

1) Sign this petition ASAP https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/303081 so it gets read and debated in Parliament

[bex88]

Well done Steve.

Written to my MP and reply received. Friends and family signed the petition too.

There is no reason why we cannot get through this together with sensible actions on both sides. Stick together, you have to admire the actions Lufthansa pilots have take to protect jobs and careers

[nevillestyke]

So far even if we assume that the official figures underestimate the real death toll, far less that 0.1% of the UK population has died with (not of) Covid-19. Similar in the USA. The numbers in absolute terms seem big but are actually incredibly small.
It all depends on how willing the remaining 99.9% are to die.

[Tartiflette Fan]

If Mr Walsh refuses to appear in front of a Parliamentary Committee, and will not provide a lieutenant, is he not in contempt of parliament?

Nice sounding words. Would you care to find where there actually have any legal - or other - meaning ?

[cashash]

If Mr Walsh refuses to appear in front of a Parliamentary Committee, and will not provide a lieutenant, is he not in contempt of parliament?

Not automatically. If WW refuses a formal summons to appear (not what the Committee has issued so far) then the Committee can send a report to the House and the whole House of Parliament then decide on any sanctions that are appropriate. Refusal to attend can be classed as a contempt of Parliament and fines or imprisonment can follow - however Parliament has not used that sanction since 1880!

[ILS27LEFT]

Thanks to our friend Steve for reminding us of the following:
"..while Willie Walsh overlooked the fact that Alex Cruz decided to award himself a pay rise at exactly the same time taking his salary from £830,000 to £1.36M"
Plus:
"..about Willie Walsh and his none too shabby pay plan. The 2019 annual IAG report showed he had a 5.5% rise, up from £3million in 2018, with an £883,000 bonus and £1.2million in shares. He also stands to get 1.1m shares worth £5.2million under long-term bonus schemes over the next four years, ‘if targets are met’."

The Committee must investigate the above figures in the present climate, and it will get done: will Willie react like the guy from Google in here?
Simply mercenaries (primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics), one of them in this video, one of many & we must wake up:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/google-matt-brittin-salary-public-accounts-committee-tax-deal-grilling


They can behave like this only because we (the public + government) allow them to act freely without any control - we could not sleep at night if we were self assigning those disproportionate figures to ourselves however they sleep very well at night...we all know why, here some definitions of sociopath (for the public to choose):

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

[cashash]

So, even though many people don't like to "talk politics", surely these EDMs prove that this whole thing is very political? Not a single Tory voted for them, so BA employees may want to keep this in mind.

​​​​​​


I no longer have a dog in this fight, how it is run is up to the Staff and Unions, but I would doubt trying to make it political is going to help the campaign - I would suggest it would be more likely to alienate those whose support you need.

As an aside, the local MP whose Constituency Heathrow is actually in also has not signed - and he is Labour. Also with most of the MP's away from Parliament and rather hit and miss IT being used for home working can every MP actually get to sign these EDM's?

[ILS27LEFT]

I no longer have a dog in this fight, how it is run is up to the Staff and Unions, but I would doubt trying to make it political is going to help the campaign - I would suggest it would be more likely to alienate those whose support you need.

As an aside, the local MP whose Constituency Heathrow is actually in also has not signed - and he is Labour. Also with most of the MP's away from Parliament and rather hit and miss IT being used for home working can every MP actually get to sign these EDM's?

The Chair is a British Conservative Party politician
"Talking of MP’s, for those of you in Sussex, please shake Huw Merriman’s hand for me as he has demanded that the BA Millionaires Club turn up to parliament and explain themselves, apparently they’ve all been too busy up till now."Chair's commentsChair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said:

“It seems remarkable that British Airways cannot find anyone with sufficient responsibility to join others from the aviation sector for our Select Committee inquiry this Wednesday. With so many questions, this would be an ideal platform for BA to set out its challenges, to reassure and seek Parliamentary support should it need more assistance from the UK authorities.

“In March, BA’s parent, IAG, warned against the UK Government bailing out its competitors and said it would administer ‘self-help’ before seeking support. BA’s UK staff are now facing mass redundancies or working on vastly reduced terms. BA’s passengers are not being given flight refunds they are entitled to.

“In Spain, it would appear that BA’s parent has adopted a different strategy of seeking substantial Government financial support and maintaining its operations and employee numbers.

“It’s vital that BA reassure their staff and passengers that they are not using this epidemic to reduce their UK wage bill and competitors, in order to maximise future profits if and when the market returns.

“Judging by the huge volume of emails which MPs are receiving from concerned staff and passengers, it is more important that we hear from BA and IAG than demonstrate their lack of delegated responsibility. We therefore intend to proceed with a separate session for British Airways and Mr Walsh on Monday 11 May in the event the limited resources in Parliament can accommodate. We look forward to meeting Mr Walsh and hearing his strategy for BA in these challenging times.”

[cashash]

Seems that WW is going to appear on Monday.


Willie Walsh, chief executive of BA's parent firm IAG, told the Transport Select Committee that he could not make it to a hearing on Wednesday because of a board meeting. He will face questions at a special separate session on Monday, May 11.

[Tartiflette Fan]

I really can't imagine that given the circumstances it will be worthy of more than a pag
e or so there, but at least five pages by ILS27 as reproduced here.

[Ron Swanson]

So far even if we assume that the official figures underestimate the real death toll, far less that 0.1% of the UK population has died with (not of) Covid-19. Similar in the USA. The numbers in absolute terms seem big but are actually incredibly small.
Why people die is a matter for Doctors in attendance or coroners post mortem. Public health is a complex matter best handled by public health professionals.

[EastofKoksy]

Public health professionals are only concerned with their own remit - public health/deaths, and care not a jot for the colossal destruction involved in achieving their aims. Therein lies the role for world leaders, but thus far, they are in the thrall to their health advisors, and to their scared electorate.
You hit the nail on the head. If you add the fact the vast majority of our senior politicians in the UK support deep short term cuts in CO2 emissions, this explains why they are sitting on their hands while the air transport industry implodes.

[Fursty Ferret]

ILS27L.

You're really not helping your own case or those of your BA colleagues on this thread. Please can you stop cut-and-pasting reams of text from other websites?

​​​​​Pretty much everyone on PPrune supports BA employees in this situation.

[777JRM]

If you add the fact the vast majority of our senior politicians in the UK support deep short term cuts in CO2 emissions,

How could you possibly know this as ‘fact’?

[Max Angle]

Support from senior politicians or not it is currently written into UK law under the Climate Change Act 2008.

[EastofKoksy]

With few exceptions they voted for this in climate change legislation. If they disagree they have not taken any steps to repeal it.

[Ron Swanson]

Public health professionals are only concerned with their own remit - public health/deaths, and care not a jot for the colossal destruction involved in achieving their aims. Therein lies the role for world leaders, but thus far, they are in the thrall to their health advisors, and to their scared electorate.
yes, because it’s a once in a hundred year world pandemic. People don’t want to get sick and they don’t want their relatives to die. No one wants to fly anywhere and there is no where in the world for them to go. This situation is not going to change until the health crisis is resolved so please move aside for those who actually understand public health.

[homonculus]

Public health professionals are only concerned with their own remit - public health/deaths, and care not a jot for the colossal destruction involved in achieving their aims. Therein lies the role for world leaders, but thus far, they are in the thrall to their health advisors, and to their scared electorate.

Interestingly enough there is growing evidence, albeit anecdotal, that the opposite is the case. When epidemiologists and others in healthcare have been asked to advise they have too often said "well you could do x, but the economic cost would be excessive". They have effectively given economic advice which they are not trained to do, and should have been left to the economists so the politicians received a balanced set of opinions. This really is a failure of politicians because in a court of law a judge would tell the medical expert to shut up and restrict opinion to his area of expertise.

We know that for several years epidemiologists have been saying DONT lockdown early and DONT close the borders. Indeed in New Zealand it was the industrialists NOT the healthcare professionals who demanded the politicians locked down and closed early. And in the UK it was only one epidemiologist who effectively forced the lockdown against the mass of 'scientists' who wanted to wait.

The result is clear to see. Those that closed borders and locked down early have eliminated the virus and the economy can recover (albeit not aviation outside the bubble). Those that did too little too late will have ongoing economic disaster and the effect to aviation is far far worse. So blame the epidemiologists and the public health 'experts' but the wrong advice was to prevaricate, not to do too much.

[TURIN]

You hit the nail on the head. If you add the fact the vast majority of our senior politicians in the UK support deep short term cuts in CO2 emissions, this explains why they are sitting on their hands while the air transport industry implodes.
Yes, because cutting global CO2 emissions by less than 0.1% is really going to save the planet. Come on, you could ground every single aircraft flying and it would still only cut global CO2 by about 3%.

[esscee]

For the near future CO2 emissions are not really near the top of the priority list.

[Mooneyboy]

For the near future CO2 emissions are not really near the top of the priority list.

They are very much near the top of a priority list. Look at the proposed restrictions being put on the Air France and KLM loan agreements from their respective country.

[FlipFlapFlop]

Time to put part time work for all pilots and cabin crew in return for job protection formally on the table ? Lufthansa have. At least then all would see how genuine BA protestations are.

[WHBM]

They are very much near the top of a priority list. Look at the proposed restrictions being put on the Air France and KLM loan agreements from their respective country.
This is naked self-interest from a government which owns the SNCF railway and it's high speed TGVs, which whatever their attributes have lost a lot of money for the government, which in the normal way has been just written off. The overmanning and regular strikes leading to much of the loss will be recognised as having a parallel with Air France. SNCF will surely have seized their chance with the government.

Although a TGV train may run from Paris to Nice (by no means all the way on special fast lines) the service is complementary rather than a direct equal. The air services start from notably different places that just happen to be called "Paris", though are well away from it, and are generally cheaper. They don't have all that lengthy infrastructure expenditure to recover, the air is free, and parking at the airport is far easier than in central Paris. And unlike Orly I certainly wouldn't send any woman employee business traveller to go through Gare de Lyon late in the evening. Though it's not quite as bad as Gare du Nord :(

Watch out for these self-centred arguments coming to the UK.

[KYT]

yes, because it’s a once in a hundred year world pandemic. People don’t want to get sick and they don’t want their relatives to die. No one wants to fly anywhere and there is no where in the world for them to go. This situation is not going to change until the health crisis is resolved so please move aside for those who actually understand public health.

Or understand what panic can do to the world economy!

The effects of the cure now getting worse than the disease IMO. Cancer diagnosis down 70%, possible causal deaths of this, 60,000.
Calls to domestic abuse helplines up 49%, domestic murders increased 3 fold.
Prof Nutjob Ferguson predicted 200 million deaths from bird flu in 2005, there were a few hundred only, worldwide. Oh yes our leading SAGE boffin!

A&E depts quieter than ever because people too afraid to get treatment in case they catch something which maybe no worse than flu. Flu, that we don’t even routinely test for, or attribute as possible cause of death!

Fiasco 🤬

[Private jet]

Or understand what panic can do to the world economy!

The effects of the cure now getting worse than the disease IMO. Cancer diagnosis down 70%, possible causal deaths of this, 60,000.
Calls to domestic abuse helplines up 49%, domestic murders increased 3 fold.
Prof Nutjob Ferguson predicted 200 million deaths from bird flu in 2005, there were a few hundred only, worldwide. Oh yes our leading SAGE boffin!

A&E depts quieter than ever because people too afraid to get treatment in case they catch something which maybe no worse than flu. Flu, that we don’t even routinely test for, or attribute as possible cause of death!

Fiasco 🤬

There will be lots of finger pointing when all of this is over. There will be the usual public inquiry, (with lawyers making lots of money of course) but as is usual in public life, "lessons will be learned". Nobody will end up accountable and dangling by their neck at the end of a rope. The so called "experts" who are all so knowledgeable that they rarely agree with each other will quietly slink back to their safe jobs in academic institutions. The government will align behind Boris, who will do his best bluff and bluster act of "piffle....balderdash....quod erat demonstrandum.... phwaaaahhhh!!"
The mantra will be that they all "did their best" under the circumstances. The fact it wasn't good enough won't matter, it never does for any of the "institutional ilk". Not one of them will lose their livelihood.

[HZ123]

Private Jet: Summed up perfectly! My father always wanted me to be a lawyer!

[wiggy]

The so called "experts" who are all so knowledgeable that they rarely agree with each other will quietly slink back to their safe jobs in academic institutions.


Agree with a lot of your post apart from that..

I think many of the scientists contributing to SAGE or contributing advice by other means are already starting to sense that they will be the ones held to blame (a.k.a. "thrown under the bus") if there ever is an investigation into all this.

The politicians get out will be "I was only obeying the scientists' advice"

[Phantom4]

Are IAG teeing up Vueling to operate the LGW slots?

[Recc]

Prof Nutjob Ferguson predicted 200 million deaths from bird flu in 2005, there were a few hundred only, worldwide. Oh yes our leading SAGE boffin!



No he didn't! I presume you are just taking that from the spectator 'list of questions that he should be asked', but it doesn't hold up to even a passing examination. If you find the comments that are referred to, you can see that they were made in response to a question about a hypothetical scenario proposed by the WHO under which H5N1 mutated to allow efficient human to human transmission, and was very clearly a back-of the envelope comparison to Spanish flu rather than a scientific 'prediction'. A politician would never make the mistake of giving a direct answer to a question like that! Can you blame them when people are so uncritical of 'facts' that they read in the news?

[RexBanner]

Are IAG teeing up Vueling to operate the LGW slots?

Not according to Mahoney in either of the Teams Meetings. However his lips were moving..

[Busdriver01]

So, am I right in thinking that the uk govt £300m was in the iag piggy bang before señor sent out the email where he said there was no government money, as an excuse to make cuts?

[Smooth Airperator]

Wrong thread but I'll follow the crowed...

I come from the future. Most of us have eventually caught COVID-19. For me and most people I know, it was as bad as the worst case of flu I ever had but I survived. We destroyed our economies, and faith in politics, science and medicine. Oh and the third world eventually caught up with death rates from Western countries. No scrap that, they smashed all other records. We finally accepted immunity was the only cure and losing 5% of (mainly over 60s) was worth it after all.

All the best

[RexBanner]

Senor Cruz: “It is now clear that we will not get back to 2019 flying until 2023 at the earliest”

It’s clear, is it? Could I have Fridays Euromillions winning numbers whilst you have your crystal ball available, Alex? The cold, hard truth is you don’t have the foggiest right now and it’s all guesswork. Just look how quickly the London Underground bounced back after 7/7 despite the numerous predictions I remember hearing at the time that hardly anyone would use it anymore.

[Mansnothot]

Senor Cruz: “It is now clear that we will not get back to 2019 flying until 2023 at the earliest”

It’s clear, is it? Could I have Fridays Euromillions winning numbers whilst you have your crystal ball available, Alex? The cold, hard truth is you don’t have the foggiest right now and it’s all guesswork. Just look how quickly the London Underground bounced back after 7/7 despite the numerous predictions I remember hearing at the time that hardly anyone would use it anymore.

Exactly what I thought! Was gonna ask him if I could borrow his crystal ball for a while. Also curious that he states they are looking at early fleet retirements when I could swear someone told us we are keeping all fleets just a few days ago 🤔

[Riskybis]

Senor Cruz: “It is now clear that we will not get back to 2019 flying until 2023 at the earliest”

It’s clear, is it? Could I have Fridays Euromillions winning numbers whilst you have your crystal ball available, Alex? The cold, hard truth is you don’t have the foggiest right now and it’s all guesswork. Just look how quickly the London Underground bounced back after 7/7 despite the numerous predictions I remember hearing at the time that hardly anyone would use it anymore.


haha !! That made me laugh !! Not at the post , the first part

[xray one]

for those who missed it

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/british-airways-parent-iag-taps-072328319.html

[guy_incognito]

Prof Nutjob Ferguson predicted 200 million deaths from bird flu in 2005, there were a few hundred only, worldwide. Oh yes our leading SAGE boffin!

"Professor" Ferguson has caused more damage than Andrew Wakefield did and continues to do with his completely discredited MMR/ autism study. Wakefield was struck off by the GMC. I assume Ferguson is not similarly regulated by a professional body, but at the very least he should be removed from his post by Imperial.

[DaveReidUK]

Senor Cruz: “It is now clear that we will not get back to 2019 flying until 2023 at the earliest”.

Sadly, though I hope he isn't, he's probably right.

[BleedingOn]

for those who missed it

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/british-airways-parent-iag-taps-072328319.html

£300 million from the government already in the bank! They kept that very quiet

[carmel]

Senor Cruz: “It is now clear that we will not get back to 2019 flying until 2023 at the earliest”.

I suppose the quote from Benjamin Disraeli sums it up best "I am prepared for the worst, but hope for the best."

You would assume the management team has access to information that isn't publicly available and it's not rosy.

[RexBanner]

You would assume the management team has access to information that isn't publicly available and it's not rosy.

Nostradamus come back to life has he? Mystic Meg?

Seriously though the more you get to know these people the more you realise they’re just as clueless as the rest of us. Nobody has the faintest idea what the timescale on recovery is going to be but it sure gives them ammunition for an attack on Ts and Cs if they paint the direst picture possible.

[ILS27LEFT]

Nostradamus come back to life has he? Mystic Meg?

Seriously though the more you get to know these people the more you realise they’re just as clueless as the rest of us. Nobody has the faintest idea what the timescale on recovery is going to be but it sure gives them ammunition for an attack on Ts and Cs if they paint the direst picture possible.

Spot on and this is the main reason why top Managers should not play with people's lives without credible data during a crisis of this magnitude. The government wants to avoid at all costs mass redundancies and this is why Willie Walsh must explain in detail why BA keeps ignoring the Government"s approach whilst simultaneously taking advantage of Government funds. Obviously something doesn't sound right. The main issue is around the fact that Covid19 seems a great opportunity to force a massive restructure of BA obtained through mass dismissal of the entire workforce during the biggest crisis in Aviation history. Something the Government will try to avoid at all costs. It will set up a very dangerous precedent if successful, in a sector already dominated by a "race to the bottom". If BA can do it many others will follow across all sectors of the economy.
What a better opportunity to increase future profits by changing all contracts in the middle of this panic and reduce salaries + T&Cs?
The entire UK workforce should be united in keeping decent working conditions across all sectors of the economy especially now.
Let's not forget that only a few years back Willie Walsh strongly reiterated that a high number of BA contracts were not sustainable and BA's survival was at risk, the strikes were successful and WW was proven wrong due to the huge profits reported by BA since then, much larger profits than the other IAG airlines.
It is clearly not about survival at this stage but it seems another move "to increase personal bonuses if targets are met".
It is a highly complex battle however forcing your entire workforce to sign new contracts during this crisis is an act of war against your workforce. The consequences on staff morale and engagement will be catastrophic whatever the final outcome. Massive morale & trust damage is already done and I do not think such a massive betrayal from the highest ranks of BA can be resolved by BA and the Unions alone. This act of war is much bigger than anything seen before so either BA will win or the existing Management will have to be replaced. It might even end up with the Government retaking (partial) control of BA (for as long as necessary) as already happening in other countries.
It is an act of war and trust has been fully and permanently demolished in between this BA top management & the entire BA workforce.
They should have announced the possibility of redundancies in the future and nothing else (same as other airlines).
The act of war is the mass dismissals and unilaterally imposed re-employment on new contracts on much lower T&Cs and salaries. This is the essence of this cruel act of war.
Obviously the workforce must defend and respond accordingly on behalf of all UK (and beyond) salaried workers.

[Bridchen]

The UK workforce are being treated very differently to the other IAG carriers. Aer Lingus are trying to achieve cuts through voluntary redundancy on bespoke packages. Have a look at these, but not sure if you'll keep your breakfast down:
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dubai-giant-to-take-over-aer-lingus-catering-39155731.html
https://www.thejournal.ie/aer-lingus-jobs-2-5088981-May2020/
So, if redundancies have to be made, then while IAG have sent off for another airline for a billion, perhaps they could treat their UK workforce with more respect, just like they do at home. There's a Telegraph article out this morning, and the comments section makes for interesting reading, especially a comment by Merrill Berthrong.
Personally, a lot of this is out of our control, but I think it's a very good idea to get on all of the comments sections in online news regarding this matter, to get the truth about Walsh/Cruz out there. Every voice counts, and one mind of the general public changed, will become the attitude of their friends. I'm doing one a day as a minimum.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/07/british-airways-aims-july-return-skies/

[GKOC41]

The UK workforce are being treated very differently to the other IAG carriers. Aer Lingus are trying to achieve cuts through voluntary redundancy on bespoke packages. Have a look at these, but not sure if you'll keep your breakfast down:
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dubai-giant-to-take-over-aer-lingus-catering-39155731.html
https://www.thejournal.ie/aer-lingus-jobs-2-5088981-May2020/
So, if redundancies have to be made, then while IAG have sent off for another airline for a billion, perhaps they could treat their UK workforce with more respect, just like they do at home. There's a Telegraph article out this morning, and the comments section makes for interesting reading, especially a comment by Merrill Berthrong.
Personally, a lot of this is out of our control, but I think it's a very good idea to get on all of the comments sections in online news regarding this matter, to get the truth about Walsh/Cruz out there. Every voice counts, and one mind of the general public changed, will become the attitude of their friends. I'm doing one a day as a minimum.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/07/british-airways-aims-july-return-skies/

Surprised DNATA will want to buy the catering unit given the current CV19 situation. Its also a different proposition to folk getting made redundant at BA.
But, it does seem to show on the ladder of staff care and engagement where BA are.

[Bridchen]

Surprised DNATA will want to buy the catering unit given the current CV19 situation. It's also a different proposition to folk getting made redundant at BA.
But, it does seem to show on the ladder of staff care and engagement where BA are.

I agree, it is a different proposition. However, it was a deal struck within IAG with employees. As Aer Lingus, IAG engage in a friendly and generous manner. BA staff are treated like the enemy. When a group are acquiring another airline for a billion, they shouldn't need to treat one section of staff so shabbily to fund it. I suspect that a lot of slots will be quietly pushed over to the Spanish arm, with Heathrow and Gatwick grateful for the business. I'll reproduce the comment from the Telegraph article here. There's a lot of underhand business going on here. It's time people wake up.

[Bridchen]

“Writing in the Daily Mail, Mr Walsh said: “We’re a small island, and this Government looks set to make us even smaller on the world stage. Our leaders bestride the world saying the UK is open for business, but their actions do not match the rhetoric.

“If the Government continues to dither over a new runway, then I’ll move my business elsewhere.

We now have airlines in Dublin and Madrid, and can expand our business there, supporting the strengthening Irish and Spanish economies.

“This is not just fighting talk — we have the practical ability to expand elsewhere. This means Spain and Ireland will get the economic benefits and new jobs from our expansion plans, while the UK government twiddles its thumbs and watches as the world progresses around it.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/willie-walsh-repeats-warning-about-ba-move-to-dublin-1.2467085

[kcockayne]

I think that there was a post on here yesterday to the effect that LIFO was discriminatory - against, obviously - recent recruits. Is it not the case that the whole exercise of choosing who to make redundant is a discriminatory process ? Therefore, whoever is chosen could claim that he has suffered from discrimination on the part of the company. In that case, isn’t LIFO just about the fairest method of choosing ? Or, has the world not gone mad ?

[Douglas Bahada]

The world has gone mad!

[the phone box]

Totally agree. LIFO has always been the standard (which Air NZ commendably stuck to) for the difficult task of selecting redundancies in a business where it is almost impossible to discriminate between employees on performance (we all do the same job and achieve the same results). It is the simplest and probably least bad solution to a horrible problem. But since the introduction of age discrimination (wasn’t that supposed to protect older people?) that clarity has gone and the entire workforce is potentially in the firing line, stress up to 11 all round. Progress?

[B Fraser]

I have no dog in this fight but am following it as a number of good mates are "Nigels" and galley crew..

"If the Government continues to dither over a new runway, then I’ll move my business elsewhere." If wee Willie Walsh is worried about runway capacity, why is he not expanding Gatwick rather than walking away ? The whiff of bullsh!t is getting stronger by the day.

[ILS27LEFT]

I have no dog in this fight but am following it as a number of good mates are "Nigels" and galley crew..

"If the Government continues to dither over a new runway, then I’ll move my business elsewhere." If wee Willie Walsh is worried about runway capacity, why is he not expanding Gatwick rather than walking away ? The whiff of bullsh!t is getting stronger by the day.

This is why we must wake up before it will get too late, our lack of action can cause huge damage to the future of the UK aviation sector and especially BA/LHR/LGW etc. Willie Walsh will be replaced by the IB CEO Luis Gallego (in Sep instead of June due to Covid19), can't you see in what direction this will be going? Wake up. I hope that on Monday this issue will also come up. ES in charge of the UK National carrier just before Brexit is completed? No comment.

I personally and very strongly believe that the same cost cutting demanded by Alex Cruz & Co. can be achieved (If really necessary in the future) through a combination of voluntary redundancies, unpaid leave, early retirement, more part time contracts.
If the crisis will get prolonged into 2023 (as predicted by BA/IAG Nostradamus) then less working hours for all would be the best solution to protect jobs. Moving to part time/reduced salaries would be much fairer than ruining thousands of families and individuals in a post Covid 19 market as the present BA plan, unemployment will skyrocket (especially in travel/aviation related roles, at least until the market will recover) and finding an alternative job for those in aviation might be extremely difficult hence I am confident the "part time" option would be the best solution (again, only if necessary which nobody knows for sure at this early stage of the crisis).

[homonculus]

What part of less aviation needs less runway capacity does Mr Walsh not understand? He isnt paying for the infrastructure or disruption, at least not unless he uses the extra capacity post 2023 and pays the additional fees. It seems he wants his cake and eat it. So LHR and the taxpayer pays, the local communities are disrupted, just in case. And if aviation volume doesnt come back he just walks away. Call his bluff.

[procede]

extra capacity post 2023
Building the third runway will take many years, so this should not be an argument.
Using the not building the third runway (on what is currently BA headquarters) as an excuse is a bit strange as BA is actually one of the biggest opponents of the third runway, as it opens up Heathrow to more competition. At least half of the extra slots should go to other airlines and most of the slots BA does get should be used for opening up new routes...

[FlipFlapFlop]

I think that there was a post on here yesterday to the effect that LIFO was discriminatory - against, obviously - recent recruits. Is it not the case that the whole exercise of choosing who to make redundant is a discriminatory process ? Therefore, whoever is chosen could claim that he has suffered from discrimination on the part of the company. In that case, isn’t LIFO just about the fairest method of choosing ? Or, has the world not gone mad ?
I guess the view on what method is discriminatory depends where you are on the BA seniority list. This is why a part time working solution for the duration plus advantageous VER and VR is the fairest for all. Besides, I think it unlikely newbies on PP34 are BAs main target.

[777aviator]

I guess the view on what method is discriminatory depends where you are on the BA seniority list. This is why a part time working solution for the duration plus advantageous VER and VR is the fairest for all. Besides, I think it unlikely newbies on PP34 are BAs main target.

i would be very surprised if the current pay structure and pay points exist after this restructure. Simplified 2 stage for cruise pilots/Fo/Capt would save a fortune whatever your seniority so back to LIFO? Who knows but this speculation does fill the vacuum ;)

[TURIN]

I think that there was a post on here yesterday to the effect that LIFO was discriminatory - against, obviously - recent recruits. Is it not the case that the whole exercise of choosing who to make redundant is a discriminatory process ? Therefore, whoever is chosen could claim that he has suffered from discrimination on the part of the company. In that case, isn’t LIFO just about the fairest method of choosing ? Or, has the world not gone mad ?


When BA closed the Manchester hangar and got rid of the based 737 fleet a points system was devised in consultation with local reps and management.
The company wanted to use qualifications such as aircraft type ratings plus disciplinary and sickness/absence as a basis.
The staff side argued that LIFO should also be part of the criteria.
Eventually, the disciplinary and sickness/absence was dropped as it was felt certain individuals would be unfairly discriminated against.
A combination of LIFO and type ratings was used with varying degrees of weight given to different types. In the end the weighting was roughly 50% LIFO and 50% type ratings. This meant that someone with lots of type ratings would have more points than someone with fewer types but lots of service.
It wasn't perfect and in the end 75% of the staff were made redundant but it was the fairest achieved at the time in a post 9-11 world.

[777JRM]

If you reduce your fleets and employees by 25%, then of course it will take many years to recover to 2019 levels!

You would need expansion of 33%.

[FlipFlapFlop]

Part time options similar to those being sought in the sister Airline across the Irish sea seems like the fairest options, keeps pay scales safe, reduces costs by the required amount, 30%,25%,20% or as necessary etc .
Is this actually being proposed in Aer Lingus ?

[Bison321]

Is this actually being proposed in Aer Lingus ?


No it's not..... 50% PT probably getting back towards 80% as the schedule recovers whenever. Combination of unpaid leave, and VS and part time. Redundancy would only be a last resort and strictly on inverse seniority (LIFO).

​​​​​​Lots of cheap pilots at the bottom of the list, get rid of them and the unit costs go through the roof.

[stormin norman]

Department management would have come with a cost ( along with a date ) where its more cost efficient to keep staff on rather than making redundencies (which also comes at cost) .
The numbers will only go up as time goes on without any profitable flying.

[Juan Tugoh]

What part of less aviation needs less runway capacity does Mr Walsh not understand? He isnt paying for the infrastructure or disruption, at least not unless he uses the extra capacity post 2023 and pays the additional fees. It seems he wants his cake and eat it. So LHR and the taxpayer pays, the local communities are disrupted, just in case. And if aviation volume doesnt come back he just walks away. Call his bluff.

DurIng the Great Depression the US government embarked on some huge infrastructure projects to help a beleaguered economy. It could be argued that the economic damage that C19 is doing to our economy that we need similar large projects such as HS2 and the 3rd runway now more than ever..

[101917]

What would you do if and when you find you are going to be made compulsorily redundant, as either a captain or first officer, based solely on LIFO?

That is a distinct probability in BA, Virgin and Aer Lingus. In BA and Virgin it will probably be those caught after both airlines have chopped pilots on a particular fleet. TUI, yet to announce redundancies do, I believe, have some form of matrix but it is likely to be weighted in favour of LIFO, which it should not be.

An idea might be to get together with colleagues in the same boat, research the most recent equality and anti-discrimination legislation, which states that LIFO cannot be used as the only method.

Once that is accepted and because LIFO isn’t fair as it is indirect age discrimination against the young put some dosh in a pot and employ a good (most important) employment lawyer to, in the first instant fire a warning shot at both your company and your representatives (BALPA) to pre-warn them that formal action will be forth coming if they do not follow current employment legislation with regard to making people redundant.

Although LIFO is a straightforward and simple method for making people redundant it was removed from the statute books because it was deemed to be unfair.

If redundancies are going to be made they should be fair. All parties to the redundancy negotiations are responsible for ensuring that current legislation is followed.

[Joe le Taxi]

Whether it is or is not age discrimination, LIFO (and seniority in general) is by definition a form of discrimination, and one that it would be hard to justify in the latest iterations of EU and UK employment law.

[101917]

Panel 3. You appear to have missed the most important point.

The most recent equality and anti-discrimination legislation states that LIFO cannot be used as the sole method for redundancy selection.

I know that if I was going too affected by LIFO as the sole selection method I would be challenging it.

[101917]

I hope you would agree that it is important that fair criteria are used to select individuals for redundancy. If LIFO is one of the benchmarks used it should not be weighted more heavily than other criteria such as disciplinary records, attendance records (Absence for pregnancy should be ignored), work performance, qualifications, experience etc.

You appear to have more faith in unions than I do and few have faith in management. If the contract you sign does not meet with current legislation then it can be trampled all over. Legislation also changes and any changes must be reflected in an individual’s contract of employment.

At the end of the day this is going to be a fight about people keeping their job and those threatened with redundancy purely on the basis of LIFO should fight it tooth and nail.

[The Foss]

If I was sorting out, to achieve a 25% reduction increwing level, I would go down the VR route first. I would expect an uptake from those who have reached their planned retirement age to secure their pension whilst the company is still operating. With the spread on both payscales and to achieve those cost savings and to prevent CR I would suggest to the employees a 82% contract with pension contributions being based on current pensionable salary figures. Written into the agreement a proviso that when passenger numbers are back at 2019 levels, all staff on the forced part time contract revert to full time prior to any recruitment. Passenger figures cannot be disputed as they are a matter for public record. If anyone wishes to remain/return to a part time contract, this would have to be done via aspirational bidding.
that would be a fair/reasonable way to approach this. IAG senior management on the other hand...

[RoyHudd]

Am I missing the point here? (Quite possibly).

It strikes me that BA wish to remove at a stroke all the disparities in pay, allowances, and pensions. These exist in the pilot and cabin crew workforces, and have been a bone of contention with management for a long time.

These disparities may also exist in other parts of the BA workforce too. I imagine the same objective applies i.e.a level playing field with regard to "competitive" terms and conditions .

I am not insinuating that this is a good thing, nor otherwise. It seems that many of the suggestions and arguments being put forward here ignore these sometimes gross differences in pay and rewards for employees doing the same job.

[RexBanner]

The issue for Balpa here (with such large potential numbers involved) is that pressing on with trying to maintain pure LIFO from the bottom of the MSL will not deliver the required savings for BA (simply put you’re getting rid of the cheapest pilots at the lower rungs of PP34). That poses something of a quandary as inevitably that will in turn mean a greater number of total redundancies in order to make up the difference. So do you hold firm on the principle of LIFO and accept there will be a greater number of casualties or do you try to limit the number of those affected by CR by trying to acquiesce to an extent with the BA plan but holding them to LIFO where possible? Hopefully we can get away without any CR but I think that’s an absolute pipe dream right now considering where we are and where we’re about to go with the 14 day quarantine on incoming pax.

[RetiredBA/BY]

[QUOTE=Once that is accepted and because LIFO isn’t fair as it is indirect age discrimination against the young put some dosh in a pot and employ a good (most important) employment lawyer to, in the first instant fire a warning shot at both your company and your representatives (BALPA) to pre-warn them that formal action will be forth coming if they do not follow current employment legislation with regard to making people redundant.

.[/QUOTE]

Great idea. Based on personal experience during a takeover, I strongly recommend a big city law firm. Forget high street solicitors etc.,

We used Slaughter and May, heavyweights, recommended to me by an old friend who is now Chairman of a huge and succesful UK company.They were not cheap but were highly effective and got results.

[ILS27LEFT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLloF1IYmss&feature=youtu.be

[kcockayne]

Why is LIFO unfair (based on it being discriminatory) when the whole purpose of the exercise is to discriminate between staff in order to remove some of them (those who have been discriminated against) from the payroll ? Surely, ANY method used to determine who should stay or go is discriminatory.

[TOM100]

Video - am sure the ubiquitous Labi Sifre will be dusted off and rolled out soon 😭

if onay they’d operated those flights from Prestwick in the snow or pulled the window blinds down or handed out a cold towel !

Am hugely sympathetic to the pilots though in this situation......

[clvf88]

Why is LIFO unfair (based on it being discriminatory) when the whole purpose of the exercise is to discriminate between staff in order to remove some of them (those who have been discriminated against) from the payroll ? Surely, ANY method used to determine who should stay or go is discriminatory.

Somethings are illegal to 'discriminate' upon - age is one of them. Its my understanding that LIFO in our industry is likely so highly correlated with age that it could be illegal.

I can't think of a 'fair' way to decide; I don't think one exists (and I imagine what one perceives as fair would depend on their own circumstances!). As I've said before, ultimately, the business don't care about fairness and will employ whatever methodology suits them best.

[78to73]

In many airlines collective agreements clearly state the LIFO principle as the way to go. In our careers in major companies seniority is held sacred and something that binds us to a certain employer, which is actually a very good thing.

The big dillema companies and unions are facing in a crisis of this magnitude is as said above, cutting of the lower end of the seniority list according to LIFO principles will reduce headcount as per reduced capacity but only just that. Financially speaking it would be like a drop in the ocean. To achieve a substantial cost reduction a huge amount of pilots on the lower end of the seniority list would have to be made redundant. If the top of the seniority list would leave/retire/ be made redundant, a much smaller number of pilots would need to leave to achieve the same cost reduction.

In my opinion possible solutions could be temporary collective sharing of full time employment by working and earning a reduced % similar to the required manpower reduction, another option would be a voluntary redundancy package for the top end of the seniority list, close to retirement which then would (partially) be funded by the rest of the pilot community.

[anson harris]

Why is LIFO ageist? BA employs pilots from across the age spectrum.

[101917]

The reason being is that because younger people are most likely to be selected for redundancy and that amounts to a disadvantage based on age and may give rise to a claim for indirect age discrimination. Because of the reasonably recent enactment of the equality and anti-discrimination legislation, LIFO cannot now be used as the only measure to decide who is going to lose their jobs in a redundancy situation

[The Foss]

Why is LIFO ageist? BA employs pilots from across the age spectrum.
It’s true if you were to take the 1200 at the bottom of the MSL you would probably get at least a few from all age groups.

However if you then look at the top 3000 that would be ‘safe’ under LIFO, would there be any under the age of 30? By virtue of simply not being old enough to reach the required years of service to be that high.

If you end up firing 100% of your staff that were in the 18-30 age bracket it could be a fairly strong argument for age discrimination.

I don’t have a solution by the way, just saying the argument that LIFO wouldn’t take out all of the youngest employees is not strictly true.

[anson harris]

I suppose that's a fair point.

[clvf88]

Why is LIFO ageist? BA employs pilots from across the age spectrum.

I think others above have answered this well. But I'll try too -

I propose a wager. I bet you that the average age of a member of the bottom 10% of the MSL is lower than that of the top 10%.

There maybe outliers but you know that age and seniority are highly correlated, hence you will not accept this bet and hence why LIFO is ageist.

[Capt Scribble]

LIFO as fair as you can get as it does not use any means of personal discrimination. You could start looking at sim grades, sickness, helpfulness, punctuality and any number of subjective qualities, ultimately it will be what the union negotiates with the management. Redundancy is not fair, but LIFO is easy to understand and simple to administer although it will not be favoured by the company as it will probably incur retraining costs and they keep the ones they would like to be rid of.

[clvf88]

LIFO as fair as you can get as it does not use any means of personal discrimination. You could start looking at sim grades, sickness, helpfulness, punctuality and any number of subjective qualities, ultimately it will be what the union negotiates with the management. Redundancy is not fair, but LIFO is easy to understand and simple to administer although it will not be favoured by the company as it will probably incur retraining costs and they keep the ones they would like to be rid of.

Fairness is of course a subjective thing. But would you argue that its fair for a senior pilot, a year or two off retirement, to keep his position whilst the junior pilot with the young family who has already lost his job at Monarch and TC if the last few years loses his?

Of course, lifes not fair; but if that was what we strived for, I can't see anything fairer than names out of a hat. I'm not seriously suggesting it but maybe FIFO would have some merit in the sense of fairness - the pilot leaving would have benefited from the longest period of continuous employment.

[FACoff]

It's an interesting situation because a) BALPA have stated they want LIFO, but also b) their primary focus is to protect jobs. Anyone with brain can see these two items are mutually exclusive. One PP24 long haul skipper costs roughly as much as three PP34 DEPs, so if they have to meet a pre-defined cost reduction and they truly want LIFO, they risk costing jobs as opposed to saving them. Let's not forget that several of the reps may well be vulnerable under the proposed BA terms themselves, so I expect there to be some kind of hash involved if/when CR is required.

As has been said elsewhere, CR in the current climate could quite conceivably spell end of one's flying career. At this point it seems almost inevitable but I truly hope everything is being considered to avoid as much CR as possible.

[101917]

I would strongly suggest that to use LIFO, as the sole method of selection for redundancy, is against the law.

Although once a common method of selection, the use of LIFO reduced drastically with the enactment of age discrimination laws in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.

BA and BALPA can agree what they like, whether it is in line with current legislation or not. If they use LIFO as a sole method for redundancy and it is not challenged in court they will get away with it. If it is challenged it will tie both BA and BALPA up for months and years and that is before both sides start digging into their pockets to pay for their defence.

I know what I would be doing in the current climate if I were threatened with redundancy based on LIFO and wanted to keep my job.

Pilots who find themselves without job in a cockpit over the next few months are going to struggle for some considerable time before another flying job comes around.

[WhatTheDeuce]

Names out of a hat has to be the worst possible solution for everyone!

Many left more lucrative positions in the good times to start at the bottom of a long list to gain some semblance of career stability by increasing their buffer from the bottom.

Many also avoided slightly riskier fleets and bases to give themselves a better chance.

Names out of a hat means you’re at an equal chance of being let go during each crisis for the rest of your career. In seniority based airlines that’s monumentally depressing!

[Capt Scribble]

88.. Making the deal as palatable as possible is the task of the negotiators. If they are clever, they can propose terms that will encourage the seniors to leave but it is not going to be so easy now as there are not going to be other opportunities, so its has to be cash above the statutory minimum. In the 3 downsizings I have been through, most people left voluntarily, but there were other jobs around then. Bad times for all, your hat may be a good idea.

[clvf88]

Names out of a hat means you’re at an equal chance of being let go during each crisis for the rest of your career. In seniority based airlines that’s monumentally depressing!

I can assure you that nearer the bottom of the list under LIFO is equally depressing.

[RexBanner]

I’ve been at the wrong end of LIFO before, so have many other people. Now these same people are being told it should be names out of a hat instead? Utter cobblers I’m afraid. Everyone joined BA knowing it was seniority driven and for what it’s worth if BA were to chop 1130 off the bottom of the MSL this time it’d be my turn again unfortunately but I still wouldn’t argue against LIFO on principle, for the simple reason that it’s completely transparent. Nothing about this situation is fair for anybody. How could anybody in BA have expected last year with the company recording multi billion profits again that just months later they’d be facing a trip to the dole office? Comments about choosing to be on the wrong fleet are ridiculous, nobody could or should have planned for this. My personal view is anyone who escapes this round will only be receiving a stay of execution anyway. There’s clearly a lot more pain down the road.

[nicolai]

I would like to note that discrimination works both ways on any particular characteristic. Just because the common cases of age discrimination are old people, of gender discrimination are women, of sexual orientation discrimination are homosexuals, of ethnic/racial discrimination are people from Black, Middle-Eastern and Asian backgrounds, does not mean that discrimination the other way is any more permitted by law.

Having hiring or firing criteria that penalise younger more than older, or having all the gay managers fire the straight guy because he's not gay like them, a company run by BAME people refusing to hire anyone White, and so on, does not make those ethically correct or legal either.

Not only does LIFO risk age discrimination, it also risks discrimination against other characteristics such as ethnicity or sexual orientation - because those employed longer were hired when discrimination was acceptable or not enforced, a company may well have hired only straight white middle class British people in the past. Having more recently provided opportunities for all, as legally and ethically required, they might now have a more balanced workforce but all the BAME, gay, etc, employees were hired relatively recently. This is particularly important for "lifetime career" companies, and BA is one of those (railways are another). If BA makes the most recently employed people redundant they'll lose many of their non-White, non-British, non-middle-class employees. That would also be discrimination, even if not intentional. BA has a good reputation for treating people much the same regardless of origin, orientation, etc (they all get treated equally badly these days...) but even inadvertent discrimination is still discrimination.

An employer must act positively to avoid discrimination in this day and age, mere passive uncaring is not enough. Lawyers will come calling if they do not.

[clvf88]

Rex - I'm trying to unravel your comment about why LIFO is fair but I'm afraid your arguement makes no zero sense to me. I do agree with your assertion about a stay of execution though, unfortunately.

Anyway, I've made one too many comments on a topic which I think is going to be irrelevant, so I'm out. All the best to those affected.

[RexBanner]

Rex - I'm trying to unravel your comment about why LIFO is fair but I'm afraid your arguement makes no zero sense to me. I do agree with your assertion about a stay of execution though, unfortunately.

Anyway, I've made one too many comments on a topic which I think is going to be irrelevant, so I'm out. All the best to those affected.

My argument is that nothing is fair about redundancy but that LIFO is as transparent as it gets. Simple as that.

[FACoff]

My argument is that nothing is fair about redundancy but that LIFO is as transparent as it gets. Simple as that.

True. But it also sees the most financially precarious out of a job while those nearing the end of their careers sit happily on whopping salaries.

I sit well below the chopping line. LIFO seems fair on paper, but my young family who are probably going to lose their house would beg to differ.

[The Foss]

My personal view is anyone who escapes this round will only be receiving a stay of execution anyway. There’s clearly a lot more pain down the road.
I’m not sure about there being further redundancies beyond this.
Even WW’s pessimistic view is that we will be back at 2019 levels in 2023. If we estimate approx 100 retirements in 21/22/23 that will leave them needing to rehire almost 1500 pilots. How many can BA usually bring through in a year? 300? 350? I have no doubt they would like to save the cost of 1100+ pilots right now, but I don’t think they would actually want that many heads out the door.

[macdo]

True. But it also sees the most financially precarious out of a job while those nearing the end of their careers sit happily on whopping salaries.

I sit well below the chopping line. LIFO seems fair on paper, but my young family who are probably going to lose their house would beg to differ.
I have a lot of sympathy for your situation having been in it before and had the same discussion about LIFO. The problem is, not everyone is in your particular situation. There will be some junior pilots who have no debts, no partners and children and a stack of cash in the bank. Should they take the hit and you be saved on the basis of luck or life choices? Inevitably, you end up with modified LIFO being the only sane course of action. Just a historical note that I was involved with a demotion issue where an early adoption of Modified Lifo was used to allow for gender and to avoid the company being liable to unlimited damages against a charge a sexual discrimination. (worth noting that simple claims for unfair dismissal are limited). 10 years later the fact that a tiny amount of people were saved out of seniority order still caused, shall we say, 'comments'. Best o luck.

[bex88]

Just do a Lufthansa job on it. Everyone gets reamed but nobody gets completely screwed

[Paddingtonbear]

I'm not quite sure why people are even discussing this very issue about pilot redundancy methods. BA (and Virgin) have both said they're in a fight for survival. BA (and Virgin) have both said that certain fleets will be retired/wound down. BA (and virgin) have both announced a consultation process on redundancy. BA (and Virgin) have both stated that redundancies are to be based on operational requirements i.e. fleets remaining with any further based on Seniority.

Based on the above, can anybody explain to me why either airline would want to retain B747/A380 pilots to then have to get rid of A320/A330 pilots. I'd like to understand how retaining type rated pilots surplus to requirements is going to help an airline in a so called fight for survival?

If LIFO is not applied by airlines can anybody tell me what powers the Unions have to overturn such a decision?

[101917]

‘If LIFO is not applied by airlines can anybody tell me what powers the Unions have to overturn such a decision?’

LIFO should not be applied by the airlines as a sole method of selecting people for compulsory redundancy. The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010 changed the ‘rules’.

BALPA would not try and overturn a LIFO decision as in BA and Virgin LIFO is their policy. BALPA would agree to LIFO. Therefore it would be up to an individual, or a group of individuals to take action against both the airlines, who would be the main culprits and should be first in the firing line and then BALPA who would be supporting them.

I would suggest a good first step would be to get assurances from both BALPA and BA/Virgin that they are going to abide by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.

If they both say they will then monitor the situation very closely. If both duck and dive, as I suspect they will, get a group together and fire a warning shot across their bows that legal action will follow if they do not follow the legislation.

As someone said above, use a reputable London law firm to send the first missile with the treat of going nuclear later on.

Remember it is your job that is at risk and selection for compulsorily redundancy must be done fairly and in line with current legislation.

[kcockayne]

My contribution to this topic was based on pointing out the absurdity of claiming that a discriminatory system of determining who should be made redundant (LIFO) is discriminatory - & therefore could not be used ! This process, whichever system is employed, is of itself discriminatory. Therefore, I can see nothing in LIFO which is any more discriminatory than any other method. Therefore, the system used should be based on fairness - whatever that is. But, let us get real; pretty soon now, there won’t be any aircrew left to make redundant - unless the Govt. comes up with an effective solution to keeping any airline in operation , & it’s staff in a job ! Making LIFO, itself, redundant.

[GS-Alpha]

101917, You seem to have misread Paddington’s question. Meanwhile, Paddington seems to have the wrong facts about what the airlines have said.

[Paddingtonbear]

G-Alpha, I've seen the comms from both companies and I may not have quoted verbatim. That said, if you've seen the same comms i'm sure you're able to make an appropriate interpretation from my post.

[DS1]

My first post here although I have been reading this thread for some time. It transpires that BALPA has reminded BA of the criteria of LIFO. However a significant amount of members have come from those who have recently joined BA. It seems like BALPA is offering up junior pilots first for CR.
In my view it is inappropriate to suggest this considering that other options may be available as mentioned above.
BALPAs members pay a subscription in return for fair and and equal representation. These new recruits could be and are potentially the future of BALPA. Something worth considering.

[GS-Alpha]

kcockayne, I am in agreement. The airlines are largely in this dilemma due to the actions of the world’s governments, it is therefore entirely appropriate that the governments support the airlines. The nature of the government’s JRS was to eliminate a business’s main expenditure whilst it is unable to trade, thus minimising redundancies with the aim of preventing economic disaster. An airline’s wage bill tends to be just a fraction of its non-trading expenditure, and therefore they require more focused help. Any government failing to provide that help will in my opinion, lose its entire industry.

[blimey]

Paddington

Based on the above, can anybody explain to me why either airline would want to retain B747/A380 pilots to then have to get rid of A320/A330 pilots.

A junior pilot + a course might be a lot cheaper than a type rated senior pilot.

[TURIN]

Hello? Is this thing on?

As I said previously, LIFO was tested in the huge cull after 9-11. It was deemed to be against the law.

Furthermore, it is not the individual that is made redundant, it is the job/role/position. Therefore if BA (Virgin) retire a particulat fleet, that particular job role no longer exists. BA (Virgin) will be quite within their rights to declare that particular job role redundant.

Then, of course it comes down to redeployment agreements. BA is proposing to ignore the current agreement. It is that the unions must test in court.

Choose your battles. Good luck.

[Gordomac]

MACDO : Excellent post. Puts it into perspective. Tough call for Management and tougher experience for those who feel they have much to protect. I joined a company at the start with 3 aircraft. They quickly expanded to 6 and I rode the wave of good career choice and situation by getting a Command in two years of service. The owner took advantage of the market & sold 3 aircraft, going back to 3. LIFO didn't really protect. I went from SFO to Junior Captain back to SFO. I saw the Management point but boy did I hollar ! Junior DE Captains with less Company time than me retained Commands but me, with more company time went back to RHS.

Not a fair world, I later served a Company that protected LIFO to debatable conclusion. This time, DEC with loads of F/Os behind me with joining dates, preceding mine by donks. As soon as they got Commands, they remained behind me on the Captain List but went ahead by virtue of joining date for lots of other goodies. I asked my CP if we were to get a couple of Concords, would he select on the basis of Joining Date or Seniority. Joining date was the sharp response. Always a fighter, I further asked if he would put Junior Captain (name) with very little Command experience but 30 years as a FO on the Concord fleet ahead of me. "Yes" was the nasty retort & I felt it better to leave the Office & chat up the Sec instead. (Don't worry, true to form, got nowhere ).

BA & Virgin & the rest are soon to discover very little fairness as seen by individuals .And, on the dole queue, there is no Seniority list. Sickening times for a once glorious industry and I view with a very heavy heart.

[kcockayne]

Hello? Is this thing on?

As I said previously, LIFO was tested in the huge cull after 9-11. It was deemed to be against the law.

Furthermore, it is not the individual that is made redundant, it is the job/role/position. Therefore if BA (Virgin) retire a particulat fleet, that particular job role no longer exists. BA (Virgin) will be quite within their rights to declare that particular job role redundant.

Then, of course it comes down to redeployment agreements. BA is proposing to ignore the current agreement. It is that the unions must test in court.

Choose your battles. Good luck.
Just because something is against the law does not make it morally correct or justifiable. Furthermore, laws can be changed - as they often are - when they are demonstrated to be unsupportable. Laws often reflect the political opinion of the day - often supported by “flavour of the moment” thinking. Further; “it is not the individual that is made redundant, it is the job/role/position”. Maybe not, but it IS the individual who loses his/her job. It is NOT the “job/role/position” who joins the dole queue - selection for which must be as fair as possible.

[TURIN]

Just because something is against the law does not make it morally correct or justifiable. Furthermore, laws can be changed - as they often are - when they are demonstrated to be unsupportable. Laws often reflect the political opinion of the day - often supported by “flavour of the moment” thinking. Further; “it is not the individual that is made redundant, it is the job/role/position”. Maybe not, but it IS the individual who loses his/her job. It is NOT the “job/role/position” who joins the dole queue - selection for which must be as fair as possible.


I agree. I was merely offering information where a precident had been set.
Laws can be changed, but it takes time. Time we don't have.

This is from Collins online dictionary. I don't make the rules. Definition of 'redundant'
(rɪdʌndənt )
1. ADJECTIVE
If you are made redundant, your employer (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/employer) tells (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tell) you to leave because your job is no longer necessary or because your employer cannot afford (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/afford) to keep paying you.

Just to be clear, I am also staring down the barrel. A forty year career may well be coming to an abrupt end. I mean no offence to you or anyone else.

[macdo]

I don't know why people keep getting their knickers in a twist over LIFO. Plain LIFO was tested and found to be discriminatory.
LIFO modified, so that it does not unfairly dismiss a disproportionate number employees who are a minority of the workforce (Race/Gender) has been used legally. It has not resulted in unfair dismissal legal claims for race or sex discrimination. This is important, because such claims have unlimited liability, whereas a plain unfair dismissal claim is capped. Potentially an employer is at liberty to use other criteria, sickness, absenteeism etc., and a bad employer will certainly use this to remove those it dislikes, but if a legal challenge is mounted it can still only be for plain unfair dismissal, for which the max. compensation is peanuts for the employer. (I think its £40k last I looked)

[Jet II]

True. But it also sees the most financially precarious out of a job while those nearing the end of their careers sit happily on whopping salaries.

I sit well below the chopping line. LIFO seems fair on paper, but my young family who are probably going to lose their house would beg to differ.


The whole way that this pandemic has been fought prioritises the Old over the Young - wrecking the economy savages the futures of the young to protect the old and give them a few more years. So why would business be any more receptive to the needs of the young than society as a whole.

[Jet II]

"It seems like BALPA is offering up junior pilots first for CR."


I the problem with LIFO anyway was that you end up with more people laid off than otherwise would need to be. If the company wishes to save 'X' amount in wages each month then if you reduce your headcount through LIFO it is the lower paid who are out the door first first so you need to cull more of them than if you did reverse LIFO and ushered the most senior (highly paid) staff out.

Wouldnt the union be most interested in saving as many jobs as possible so would fight LIFO on this basis anyway?

[ReturningVector]

"It seems like BALPA is offering up junior pilots first for CR."


I the problem with LIFO anyway was that you end up with more people laid off than otherwise would need to be. If the company wishes to save 'X' amount in wages each month then if you reduce your headcount through LIFO it is the lower paid who are out the door first first so you need to cull more of them than if you did reverse LIFO and ushered the most senior (highly paid) staff out.

Wouldnt the union be most interested in saving as many jobs as possible so would fight LIFO on this basis anyway?


When there is redundancy you don’t lay off to reach a certain savings, but to lay off just enough people to get rid of the redundancy whilst still being able to fly the expected demand.

So LIFO is greatly in the airlines disadvantage.

[kcockayne]

Yes, I do not disagree with the factuality of what many of you are saying; but I am trying to point out that the company ( in understandably trying to cut costs in order to survive) , owes a debt of loyalty to those who have made a commitment to it over the years. To this end, the company has a higher debt to someone who has made the most commitment, surely ? It is of no material concern to the company as to whether staff member A is older or younger, has a bigger or smaller mortgage, has more or less children or is faced with higher or lower medical or education bills etc., than staff member B. Loyalty should be rewarded, in as much as it can be.

[Albert Hall]

Furthermore, it is not the individual that is made redundant, it is the job/role/position. Therefore if BA (Virgin) retire a particulat fleet, that particular job role no longer exists. BA (Virgin) will be quite within their rights to declare that particular job role redundant

Turin, that's not only wrong but pretty dangerous. If the statement of T&Cs attached to your contract of employment is specific to a type or fleet - e.g. Pilot, Boeing 747 fleet - then you would be correct as the demarcation of this in your employment makes it clear that your role is specific to that fleet. If, like the vast majority of airlines, your contract is as a Pilot, a Captain or First Officer and the fleet is not specified, the withdrawal of that fleet does not automatically render your role liable for redundancy unless everyone is put at risk and the objective selection criteria allow for it. The only conceivable way of doing that would be for re-training costs to be part of the selection criteria for redundancy and it's hard to see BALPA accepting that as a valid criterion even if airlines do propose it.

We have moved on somewhat since November 1992. You might not think it, but we have.

[macdo]

kcockayne e Gosh, you are a real optimist. Unfortunately, you are no more important to IAG than the wealth you create for the owners of IAG, a number on an accountants spreadsheet. What is it we say about the Crewing Dept.? You're only as good as the last favour you did for them?
Sorry, but that's the harsh reality.

[TURIN]

Turin, that's not only wrong but pretty dangerous. If the statement of T&Cs attached to your contract of employment is specific to a type or fleet - e.g. Pilot, Boeing 747 fleet - then you would be correct as the demarcation of this in your employment makes it clear that your role is specific to that fleet. If, like the vast majority of airlines, your contract is as a Pilot, a Captain or First Officer and the fleet is not specified, the withdrawal of that fleet does not automatically render your role liable for redundancy unless everyone is put at risk and the objective selection criteria allow for it. The only conceivable way of doing that would be for re-training costs to be part of the selection criteria for redundancy and it's hard to see BALPA accepting that as a valid criterion even if airlines do propose it.

We have moved on somewhat since November 1992. You might not think it, but we have.

I'm not entirely sure what happened in November 1992.
My comments are based on my experience when BA closed MAN, BHX and other engineering line and base stations after 9-11.
Perhaps BALPA is a more informed (or less corrupt) union than was available to the engineers back in 2002.

[Vokes55]

Do BA (and Virgin) not have a redundancy selection criteria as part of their T&Cs, which would have been generated in a way that passes all the legal tests?

Surely the fairest result is the T&Cs that every employee signed up for are followed to the letter?

[blind pew]

The initial letter to Balpa inferred that BA was throwing all of the contracts plus terms and conditions out of the window.

[ILS27LEFT]

The initial letter to Balpa inferred that BA was throwing all of the contracts plus terms and conditions out of the window.

Simply immoral and strongly illegal during this pandemic.
In many countries redundancies are illegal during this pandemic due to new legislation specifically in place to protect jobs and T&Cs' e.g. in Spain nobody can be made redundant for a further 6 months after the last government financial help received by the employer. This type of legislation has been introduced specifically to avoid corporate abuse during the crisis, in the UK the intention of the legislator was basically the same when the various measures were announced (loans, grants, furlough etc).
BA will be LEGALLY exposed as consultation of workforce & Unions during this crisis (e.g furlough or sickness/self isolation & lockdown) is not a realistic option and any action should have been postponed to a post crisis phase.
Unprecedented times however any good & responsible employer should consider redundancies as the very last resort. New lower, irreversible and permanent T&Cs' simply "a criminal act" in the middle of Covid19.
Quite shocking.
The government should introduce new legislation to avoid this kind of corporate abuse during a crisis of this magnitude whilst providing the necessary financial support.
The vast majority of BA workforce would very likely accept part-time contracts for as long as needed.
This would be the best solution.

[M.Mouse]

Simply immoral and strongly illegal during this pandemic.

It may well be immoral but it is not illegal.

Also BA will be LEGALLY exposed as consultation of workforce & Unions during this crisis (e.g furlough or sickness/self isolation & lockdown) should have been postponed to a post crisis phase.

Er.....how?

Unprecedented times however any good & responsible employer should consider redundancies as the very last resort.

So if you were running an airline with few aircraft flying, few passengers and no sign of the airline industry recovering for a considerable time what would you do?

You posts are full of firebrand rhetoric but seem to ignore the reality of the dire situation airlines across the world are facing. So instead of suggesting the government, i.e. taxpayers and government borrowing, supply funds to stop people being made redundant why not suggest some practical and sustainable measures that would work?

[hunterboy]

I would imagine paying decent severance payments might be a step in the right direction. If other airlines in IAG are offering generous VR terms, why not the powerhouse of IAG? Or does the money only flow one way?

[777JRM]

It may well be immoral but it is not illegal.



Er.....how?



So if you were running an airline with few aircraft flying, few passengers and no sign of the airline industry recovering for a considerable time what would you do?

You posts are full of firebrand rhetoric but seem to ignore the reality of the dire situation airlines across the world are facing. So instead of suggesting the government, i.e. taxpayers and government borrowing, supply funds to stop people being made redundant why not suggest some practical and sustainable measures that would work?


He just did?
(Part-time contracts).

[PTGamekeeper]

The maximum number of redundancies is stated in the S188 letter. The BA MOA states the selection criteria is LIFO, plus the redeployment agreement means a years pay per pilot. The best reason for keeping LIFO is that it makes the savings required much less to offset the most junior 1000 pilot salaries.

There has already been a considerable amount of PTW granted over CV19. Add in a few seniors about to go, and maybe a small take up of the RAF Deal, and the numbers come down even more.

[Vokes55]

The initial letter to Balpa inferred that BA was throwing all of the contracts plus terms and conditions out of the window.

Then BALPA should be fighting to protect every T&C which employees have agreed to be employed under, including the redundancy selection criteria. Otherwise what's the point of T&Cs?

I also wouldn't discount industrial action so soon. The fleet is not grounded and the airline is operating a sizable number of flights, predominantly cargo only. Air freight costs have increased massively since the decimation of passenger flights, the majority of these flights will be operationally profitable to the company, not to mention the long standing cargo contracts that need protecting. BA have four 777s coming in from JFK alone today. Even a 747 is getting an outing today. The number of flights is increasing again and given the time scales, any action would coincide with the "meaningful" ramping up of passenger operations.

If the airline is in "survival mode", as AC and WW seem to keep insisting, then the unions and workforce do have some bargaining power. It sounds like the Union and work force are resigned to their fate, and arguing about who should be thrown under the bus isn't going to help your cause.

[Bridchen]

Yes, Willie Walsh has always been about divide and conquer. Time to decide what we can agree on, not pick them not me. The latter is Willie Walsh's wet dream.

[wiggy]

The problem is folks, much as I hate to say it... a handful of 777s, a 747 and the odd 787/350 do not a summer make. We need passengers back..

Any thoughts of a "meaningful" ramping up of passenger operations anytime soon is holed below the waterline by the idea of the 14 day quarantine being floated in the media, no doubt by HMG, who as usual are being vague and unhelpful. You can bet your last dollar that WW is going to use that proposed/rumoured government policy PDQ and repeatedly as a "here's why I'm being forced to do this" when he gives evidence to the Transport Select Committees..

I do think that by some clever footwork and imaginative thinking BALPA can prevent the BA pilot job losses getting into four figures, I hope and think it will not even close to four figures, but looking at the "realpolitik" I cannot for the life of me see how some compulsory pilot redundancies can be completely avoided.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

[777JRM]

Ramping up to 50% from July, apparently.
BA isn’t fighting for survival (yet), it is positioning itself for greater market share.

14-day self-quarantine cannot be policed, it is political posturing to look like something is being done.
Anyhow, people would be coming into the UK from probably less-infected countries.
.

[ozbiggles]

NZ and Aus seem to have managed to police 14 day lockdowns with good effect, is that beyond you?
There are two choices in this
Lock the borders, create massive financial damage, have a relatively low death rate or
Don’t close your borders, create massive financial damage, have a massive death toll. For those of you who think it’s acceptable losses, thank you for volunteering your oldies as tribute.

[wiggy]

14-day self-quarantine cannot be policed, it is political posturing to look like something is being done.
Anyhow, people would be coming into the UK from probably less-infected countries.
.

Going off topic, it can be policed if there is the will, and such quarantines, especially as applied to passengers, certainly are policed at some places I (?you) have been on the Long Haul network in the last couple of months.

The problem is if the UK introduce a quarantine for appearances sake they will get "found out", and that in turn could have implications for us in the travel industry and aviation.

Back to topic..

(ozbiggles beat me to it)

[Stoic]

just a reminder that WW is before MPs this morning at 10:00 (x-apple-data-detectors://0). Here's the link:
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1555d832-3a22-4c37-bafe-e7fe97ac55bb

[WHBM]

if a legal challenge is mounted it can still only be for plain unfair dismissal, for which the max. compensation is peanuts for the employer. (I think its £40k last I looked)
Do bear in mind that all outcomes from the Employment Tribunal, who hear these cases, are a matter of public record, and any future employer who has a thorough on-boarding process is able to see who has taken any previous employer to the tribunal.

Guess what that commonly means ...

[ILS27LEFT]

just a reminder that WW is before MPs this morning at 10:00 (x-apple-data-detectors://0). Here's the link:
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1555d832-3a22-4c37-bafe-e7fe97ac55bb

Willie Walsh has proven that the UK Government must urgently retake a stake in the national carrier.
He did not answer any question, he only referred to consultation, no intent to save UK jobs or keep jobs in the UK (those jobs that will be offshored).
New lower T&Cs not answered and back to consultation too.
How can he justify his salary which is beyond any logic? He got his salary reduced by 20% , what a joke. "Leading by example" principle totally ignored.
Willie Walsh has earned over £33 million in BA.
An insult to the entire BA workforce & the UK Tax payers.
The Committee clearly did not trust a word he said.
The Government must act now if the UK wants to preserve the future of its national carrier.
BA, the UK national carrier, is clearly in the hands of a non-UK entity and the consequences are very serious. Covid19 is only reiterating the dangers of having critical national services in foreign hands.

Watch carefully from time 11.23.12 please.

Recording here:
Recording (https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1555d832-3a22-4c37-bafe-e7fe97ac55bb)

or link:
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1555d832-3a22-4c37-bafe-e7fe97ac55bb

[GS-Alpha]

He has proven nothing of the sort! Despite their frustrations, the MPs surely did not anticipate receiving answers to many of their lines of questioning. His answers were entirely predictable.

[Northern Monkey]

The people with the business smarts to have questioned him effectively, in a manner we would have all liked, are all sat on the same side of the table as him.

[MCDU2]

Is he not in a 45 day consultation period with unions? Be pretty stupid to give away their negotiating position ahead of those discussions. Also he would have to notify the capital markets as per the law.

[777JRM]

NZ and Aus seem to have managed to police 14 day lockdowns with good effect, is that beyond you?
There are two choices in this
Lock the borders, create massive financial damage, have a relatively low death rate or
Don’t close your borders, create massive financial damage, have a massive death toll. For those of you who think it’s acceptable losses, thank you for volunteering your oldies as tribute.


A lockdown of everyone can be policed, but a self-imposed quarantine of a part of society cannot.
Is that beyond you?

Back to topic.....

[ozbiggles]

I guess it’s only fair you take it back on topic seeing as you took it off topic....

[GKOC41]

Anyone said anything about BA Cityflyer not heard anything?

[leadinghedges]

Anyone said anything about BA Cityflyer not heard anything?

Willie said that London City will find this crisis even more challenging than other airports due to the profile of customer they mostly deal with. Take from that what you will.

[Ekly]

Guys/ladies,
All this ‘debate’ about how CR should be implemented (LIFO/type specific/….) is surely only playing into the hands of the company? We are arguing amongst ourselves about who gets to hang when we should be concentrating on how we get rid of the noose. (The noose that hangs over all our heads!) BA must be wetting themselves as they monitor these posts.

[Buter]

Aviation is in a race to the bottom in America??

Puff, puff, pass, dude. Puff, puff, pass!!

B

[Art of flight]

It's been a race to the bottom for a couple decades at least, probably more......Freddy Laker cheap travel to Florida?
The self loading freight, talking baggage...insert other derogatory term for clients.....have been nibbling away at terms and conditions for years with the demand to go further for less. Large 'National carriers' have been slow to respond until like shifting tectonic plates, a seismic event happens and everyone has to live with the consequences.
I was once cornered by a taxi driver extolling the virtues of cheap air travel, he told me how he flew from Stansted to Newquay for £29, the story didn't end well though, when it was time to come back, Newquay was fogged in, the airline told the passengers they could have their money back or drive to Bristol for another flight, no hire cars available, etc, etc. Apparently it cost him a fortune to get his family back to Stansted, but even then he couldn't see the flaw in the new way of doing things and seemed to be a big fan of locos.

[cats_five]

<snip>
The self loading freight, talking baggage...insert other derogatory term for clients.....have been nibbling away at terms and conditions for years with the demand to go further for less.
<snip>

I'm pretty sure that pilots are happy to get more for less as well. It applies to food, clothing, electronic & electrical equipment, furniture, etc.

[kcockayne]

I'm pretty sure that pilots are happy to get more for less as well. It applies to food, clothing, electronic & electrical equipment, furniture, etc.
Yes, this is true. But, ILS is correct in what he says. I have suffered a lifetime of the sort of socialist rhetoric that he uses; but I really can’t fault his assessment of what is going on & what should be done to fight it. I am not, other than a PPL, a pilot. My career involved working hand in glove with pilots (commercial & private & military). I view them as the salt of the earth - as I also do my own fellow professionals. It is simply outrageous what BA appears to have in store for them , & their fellow staff members.

[RJ100]

Anyone said anything about BA Cityflyer not heard anything?

BACF have just announced possible redundancies of what amounts to 29% of pilots.
With a possible closure of the EDI base. ☹️

[HZ123]

Kcockayne; I feel that the picture you relate of the staff is optimistic and I make that remark having recently completed 3 decades as a BA staff member. Management in my opinion has tended to be weak for far to long and to this end staff side have in the main been inflexible all to often. Regrettably, BA management have used the current situation as a stick to beat the staff with and simplify future contracts. Presently, there are literally thousands of differing contracts and staff side has always refused to address this problem. Your suggestions of reduced working, part time, unpaid leave etc sadly do not solve the problem which is to many staff. I would anticipate that Check-in and Ramp will be outsourced plus areas of the operation in an effort to retain more of the flying community. Either way it is a sad situation for the staff and the aviation industry but so many other areas of employment will suffer also.

[GLCYZ]

BACF have just announced possible redundancies of what amounts to 29% of pilots.
With a possible closure of the EDI base. ☹️

Also a similar proportion of cabin crew. The numbers given are roughly equivalent to the number of EDI crew. Additionally it’s proposed cabin crew will lose roster change, disruption and dead head payments, plus unspecified efficient improvements and changes to the MOA.

[TOM100]

It is ironic tho (serious point) that these MPs are the same people that hauled historic Thomas Cook execs in to ask them why they took on so much extra debt, didn’t take decisive leadership action to address their structures until they left it too late, ran out of cash, had little options available and the business failed. They cited lack of leadership and decisiveness to protect the business. I know it’s not a direct read across but surely it is better take the action when you have liquidity and hence time.....and who is to say this thing (or any other macroeconomic shock) doesn’t come along in 10 months time.....

[Uplinker]

The {customers}....have been nibbling away at terms and conditions for years with the demand to go further for less.
I was once cornered by a taxi driver extolling the virtues of cheap air travel, he told me how he flew from Stansted to Newquay for £29, the story didn't end well though, when it was time to come back, Newquay was fogged in, the airline told the passengers they could have their money back or drive to Bristol for another flight, no hire cars available, etc, etc. Apparently it cost him a fortune to get his family back to Stansted, but even then he couldn't see the flaw in the new way of doing things and seemed to be a big fan of locos.

Sadly, expecting ever lower costs seems to be many buyers' sole criteria. A flight for £5 less will get the booking over the competitor. Look on the website of a well known trade and DIY supplier, and one of the filters offered when searching for products is price. Not quality, not build materials, not country of manufacture, just price. And then house owners wonder why their new installation goes wrong or has poor performance.

Having said all that, some legacy contract BA staff have enjoyed frankly extremely generous salaries. BA CSD's for example earned more than I did as an F/O in other airlines, don't know if they still do.

[kcockayne]

Kcockayne; I feel that the picture you relate of the staff is optimistic and I make that remark having recently completed 3 decades as a BA staff member. Management in my opinion has tended to be weak for far to long and to this end staff side have in the main been inflexible all to often. Regrettably, BA management have used the current situation as a stick to beat the staff with and simplify future contracts. Presently, there are literally thousands of differing contracts and staff side has always refused to address this problem. Your suggestions of reduced working, part time, unpaid leave etc sadly do not solve the problem which is to many staff. I would anticipate that Check-in and Ramp will be outsourced plus areas of the operation in an effort to retain more of the flying community. Either way it is a sad situation for the staff and the aviation industry but so many other areas of employment will suffer also.
Optimistic ? Maybe, But, this is not a normal downturn or airline running into cash problems. This is existential. This could make ALL the staff & the airline redundant. In these circumstances, it is realistic to feel that the staff will realise the extent of the airline's, & therefore their, problems. Everyone needs to make sacrifices & to pull together. I think that the staff realise this & acknowledge the extremely deep nature of their problems. They, of course, are not alone. Pretty much everyone in Europe is under the threat of a prolonged loss of work & income. What is needed is to keep the maximum number of staff in employment, even if that means severely reduced salaries. What is not needed is responses from Management such as BA's. A little bit of compassion & consideration is demanded from them - NOT a full scale blitzkrieg on people who are potentially down & out !

[ILS27LEFT]

Optimistic ? Maybe, But, this is not a normal downturn or airline running into cash problems. This is existential. This could make ALL the staff & the airline redundant. In these circumstances, it is realistic to feel that the staff will realise the extent of the airline's, & therefore their, problems. Everyone needs to make sacrifices & to pull together. I think that the staff realise this & acknowledge the extremely deep nature of their problems. They, of course, are not alone. Pretty much everyone in Europe is under the threat of a prolonged loss of work & income. What is needed is to keep the maximum number of staff in employment, even if that means severely reduced salaries. What is not needed is responses from Management such as BA's. A little bit of compassion & consideration is demanded from them - NOT a full scale blitzkrieg on people who are potentially down & out !

The Government is already looking at the possibility to take the flag back.
WW attitude the other day certainly did not help IAG in reassuring the UK Gov & tax payers.

"In the case of BA, it is easier than you might imagine for the Government to take control. Whilst British Airways is part of Spanish-run IAG, the legal structure makes such a deal fairly easy. At present, you have a company called British Airways plc which controls the airline. British Airways plc continues to publish its own accounts – the 2019 set can be downloaded here (https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Files/I/IAG/documents/British%20Airways%20Plc%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%2 02019.pdf).

There are 2.1 million shares of British Airways plc in issue, all – or at least the majority – of which are owned by IAG. However, it would be very easy for British Airways plc to issue new shares for cash which were acquired by HM Government. Once the Government shareholding in British Airways plc went over 50.1% the Government would have a controlling stake although IAG would remain a minority shareholder.

It is important to note that there is no benefit in the Government buying a minority stake in British Airways plc because the shares are not liquid. IAG would still control the business and there would be no guarantee that the Government could sell its shares at a later date. It needs to be 50.1%+ or nothing"


With the present IAG & BA management a min of 50.1% stake owned by the UK government would be the best move. It would save jobs, protect T&Cs and generate huge profits once the crisis is over, excellent for both the UK economy and public funds.
Tactical move before Brexit completion by end of Dec. IAG is a Spanish entity hence Gov has got not choice.
In a way WW & IAG have done the UK Government a huge favour by giving sufficient ammunition to speed up the return of the national carrier under British Management.

[kintyred]

"With the present BA management 50.1% stake owned by the UK government would be the best move. It would save jobs, protect T&Cs and generate huge profits once the crisis is over, excellent for both the UK economy and public funds."

Wow ILS27, this sounds far too good an opportunity to leave to the Government. I'll get my cheque book out straight away. You've really whetted my appetite with the prospect of huge profits.

[dirk85]

The Government is already looking at the possibility to take the flag back.
WW attitude the other day certainly did not help IAG in reassuring the UK Gov & tax payers.

"In the case of BA, it is easier than you might imagine for the Government to take control. Whilst British Airways is part of Spanish-run IAG, the legal structure makes such a deal fairly easy. At present, you have a company called British Airways plc which controls the airline. British Airways plc continues to publish its own accounts – the 2019 set can be downloaded here (https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Files/I/IAG/documents/British%20Airways%20Plc%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%2 02019.pdf).

There are 2.1 million shares of British Airways plc in issue, all – or at least the majority – of which are owned by IAG. However, it would be very easy for British Airways plc to issue new shares for cash which were acquired by HM Government. Once the Government shareholding in British Airways plc went over 50.1% the Government would have a controlling stake although IAG would remain a minority shareholder.

It is important to note that there is no benefit in the Government buying a minority stake in British Airways plc because the shares are not liquid. IAG would still control the business and there would be no guarantee that the Government could sell its shares at a later date. It needs to be 50.1%+ or nothing"


With the present IAG & BA management a min of 50.1% stake owned by the UK government would be the best move. It would save jobs, protect T&Cs and generate huge profits once the crisis is over, excellent for both the UK economy and public funds.
Tactical move before Brexit completion by end of Dec. IAG is a Spanish entity hence Gov has got not choice.
In a way WW & IAG have done the UK Government a huge favour by giving sufficient ammunition to speed up the return of the national carrier under British Management.

And why on god's green earth would BA or IAG issue new shares for the government to buy, giving away voluntarily control of the company and diluting the current shareholders? It makes no sense. If the goverment wants control, the only thing it can do is buying the majority of the shares on the market, but they are simply not for sale.

[Big Tudor]

With the present IAG & BA management a min of 50.1% stake owned by the UK government would be the best move. It would save jobs, protect T&Cs and generate huge profits once the crisis is over, excellent for both the UK economy and public funds.

Oh yes, because public ownership was such a success for British Airways in the past. I can’t understand why the Treasury aren’t drawing up the paperwork already!

[kcockayne]

Oh yes, because public ownership was such a success for British Airways in the past. I can’t understand why the Treasury aren’t drawing up the paperwork already!
This is not “the past” & this is not nationalization for the sake of political dogma. Furthermore, the same situation as exists with BA exists with many other airlines & with companies outside the aviation sector. Quite frankly, the whole industrial base is threatened with extinction. Where that would leave public order & the very existence of the State is anyone’s guess. This nationalization (& that of other industries) would be necessary in order to keep the industrial infrastructure of the country intact , & to give the country a chance of survival. Nothing less !

[M.Mouse]

The Government is already looking at the possibility to take the flag back.

And the source for that assertion?

[Right Way Up]

WW attitude the other day certainly did not help IAG in reassuring the UK Gov & tax payers.

To be fair the questioning the other day at the select committee was so poor, I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. One MP got stuck in and rattled him a bit, but otherwise he was very comfortable.

[HZ123]

M. Mouse; Exactly I have seen nothing in the press to suggest that the government might take a stake in BA. As already mentioned they have enough future issues and problems long before they worry about air travel. Besides what ever occurs there will be other airlines queuing up to fill in short falls!