IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs

[Plastic787]

Besides what ever occurs there will be other airlines queuing up to fill in short falls!

IF it got to the point that BA had failed because things were so bad then somehow I doubt that assertion..

[TURIN]

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.
Am glad I'm not the only one who thought that.
I didn't see WW break a sweat. Could have been a lot worse.

I did post a comment about it being not so much a grilling, as a few minutes in the bun warmer. But it got deleted.

[777JRM]

And the source for that assertion?


This was a possible source from March:

https://www.ft.com/content/1a52f686-6b00-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3

[Fursty Ferret]

IF it got to the point that BA had failed because things were so bad then somehow I doubt that assertion..

Air France, KLM, Alitalia, Emirates, Qatar, China etc etc could all easily muscle in under fifth freedom rights.

Compared to a month ago when I'd have said failure of IAG (or British Airways) was virtually impossible I'd be a lot more circumspect now. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if BA re-issues the HR1 with further redundancies in the next few weeks. :-(

[Down in front]

This was a possible source from March:

https://www.ft.com/content/1a52f686-6b00-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3

Paywall Article

[777JRM]

I managed to read it by Googling the title.

[ILS27LEFT]

I strongly believe that this unprecedented crisis will reshape aviation for ever.
Governments will do anything in their power to protect jobs, this goes together with protecting their national interest especially in the case of national aviation which is a highly critical service in any modern economy.
Standard rules of deregulated Aviation are out of the window.
We have seen nothing yet.
The world has changed for ever.
Aviation has changed for ever and Governments will have no choice unless the crisis ends within a few more weeks which is very unlikely.

[Dumbreck]

ILS27LEFT;

Whilst your passion & energy is to be admired, I don’t unfortunately get the feeling that the UK Government share your view. It may be that they are overwhelmed by the enormity of the task ahead as all sectors / industries start to buckle under the pressure of this crisis.I think it’s easy for us involved in aviation to focus solely on it. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t expect any UK Government support beyond what’s already in place sadly.

[Bridchen]

Very interesting reading. See the second link for legal detail.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/economy-business/work-incomes/coronavirus-protections-from-redundancy/

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/An-obligation-to-furlough-Darryl-Hutcheon.pdf

I think I'd want Darryl Hutcheon representing me.

[ILS27LEFT]

Very interesting reading. See the second link for legal detail.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/economy-business/work-incomes/coronavirus-protections-from-redundancy/

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/An-obligation-to-furlough-Darryl-Hutcheon.pdf

I think I'd want Darryl Hutcheon representing me.

This is exactly why redundancies whilst CJRS will still be available are "illegal" as I explained many times before.
The intention of the legislator will influence a Judge final decision. The intention of the legislator re. CJRS is clearly and undoubtedly "to avoid redundancies".
In this respect unfair dismissal would be the outcome.
The biggest challenge is not only the legal one for BA but the moral significance vs employees & tax payers/Gov: no employer should make redundancies if CJRS is available as this is free money with nil cost to the employer.
BA can legally announce redundancies however BA cannot proceed if CJRS still in place by date of 1st redundancy.
If BA will decide to proceed will clearly be "unfair dismissal". This will cause immense damage to the brand and workforce at a much higher cost than the 12K salaries combined.
Suicidal business approach by BA if they will proceed with the 12K redundancies whilst CJRS still in place at nil cost to BA.
"Darryl Hutcheon, a barrister at Matrix Chambers, argues that while each case will ultimately turn on its facts, employees who are dismissed without being given the option of furlough would likely have a “powerful argument” for unfair dismissal (https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/An-obligation-to-furlough-Darryl-Hutcheon.pdf). "

The CJRS has been extended until end of October and very likely the Aviation sector will be covered until then under the existing conditions.
BA therefore will be "unfairly dismissing" employees if redundancies are confirmed whilst CJRS scheme is still available.

BA can action redundancies from 01 Nov but only if CJRS will not be extended again for the sector.
Next extensions will very likely be sectorised.

[Plastic787]

Air France, KLM, Alitalia, Emirates, Qatar, China etc etc could all easily muscle in under fifth freedom rights

all of whom have problems of their own. It amazes me how people think that reality doesn’t apply to the financial situation during this pandemic and acquisitions and expansion can still go on as if there’s some sort of fantasy magic money tree.

(Well we know in the case of Alitalia and Air France financial reality doesn’t apply but any funding there is to continue to provide services to their individual country not a blank cheque to bankroll a mass expansion push to start fifth freedoming out of Heathrow and presumably other European Capitals. There’s also any number of reasons why the U.K. Government wouldn’t want that situation occurring).

[Bridchen]

BA can legally announce redundancies however BA cannot proceed if CJRS still in place by date of 1st redundancy.
If BA will decide to proceed will clearly be "unfair dismissal". Immense damage to the brand and workforce. Much higher cost than the 12K salaries combined! Suicidal approach by BA if they will proceed with the 12K redundancies.
"Darryl Hutcheon, a barrister at Matrix Chambers, argues that while each case will ultimately turn on its facts, employees who are dismissed without being given the option of furlough would likely have a “powerful argument” for unfair dismissal (https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/An-obligation-to-furlough-Darryl-Hutcheon.pdf). "

The CJRS has been extended until end of October and very likely the Aviation sector will be covered until then under the existing conditions.
BA therefore will be "unfairly dismissing" employees if redundancies are confirmed whilst CJRS scheme still available.

Exactly. By which time, hopefully there'll be a fairer playing field for fairer negotiation. A legal friend said that on the back of BA's current battle-plan, if approached correctly, the employee claims on BA will run and run, and eventually cripple them.

[ILS27LEFT]

Exactly. By which time, hopefully there'll be a fairer playing field for fairer negotiation. A legal friend said that on the back of BA's current battle-plan, if approached correctly, the employee claims on BA will run and run, and eventually cripple them.

This is exactly why the Government prefers to wait, the CJRS extension will allow for much better decision making including potential UK Gov stake in BA as final option.
The BA Legal Team is playing an extremely dangerous game here. A game much more expensive than the savings achieved through redundancies + new T&Cs.
Maybe they thought to be above the Law and above the Gov during this Crisis.
This Crisis is actually showing the good CEOs vs the bad CEOs, the good leaders vs the bad ones.
If we will see WW postponing his retirement again beyond Sep then we know this is personal to him.
BA should belong to the thousands of men & women who made it great and profitable over the years. Employees should also be shareholders by contract. If BA employees were shareholders I doubt Alex Cruz and WW would still be in charge now.

We better stop here.

[Bridchen]

I think it's also a matter of other CEO's being told by their legal departments not to go near it.

[Andy D]

This is exactly why redundancies whilst CJRS will still be available are "illegal" as I explained many times before.
The intention of the legislator will influence a Judge final decision. The intention of the legislator re. CJRS is clearly and undoubtedly "to avoid redundancies".
In this respect unfair dismissal would be the outcome.
The biggest challenge is not only the legal one for BA but the moral significance vs employees & tax payers/Gov: no employer should make redundancies if CJRS is available as this is free money with nil cost to the employer.
BA can legally announce redundancies however BA cannot proceed if CJRS still in place by date of 1st redundancy.
If BA will decide to proceed will clearly be "unfair dismissal". This will cause immense damage to the brand and workforce at a much higher cost than the 12K salaries combined.
Suicidal business approach by BA if they will proceed with the 12K redundancies whilst CJRS still in place at nil cost to BA.
"Darryl Hutcheon, a barrister at Matrix Chambers, argues that while each case will ultimately turn on its facts, employees who are dismissed without being given the option of furlough would likely have a “powerful argument” for unfair dismissal (https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/An-obligation-to-furlough-Darryl-Hutcheon.pdf). "

The CJRS has been extended until end of October and very likely the Aviation sector will be covered until then under the existing conditions.
BA therefore will be "unfairly dismissing" employees if redundancies are confirmed whilst CJRS scheme is still available.

BA can action redundancies from 01 Nov but only if CJRS will not be extended again for the sector.
Next extensions will very likely be sectorised.

From the legal opinion linked above, it's not clear that BA making redundancies is a case of unfair dismissal - the barrister's view is far more nuanced than that.

BA's already made use of CJRS, the opinion focuses on use of CJRS rather than it's continued use when it becomes clear that the business won't recover, or will take a long time to recover post Covid and so need less staff

"Relevant factors would naturally include the size and resources of the employer, the employee’s responses to the consultation and to any proposed “furlough agreement”, and the suddenness and seriousness of the downturn which Coronavirus has caused for the business"

Airlines / travel sector have suffered a catastrophic collapse in demand that's going to continue for quite a while post lockdowns and so are going to need less staff.

[Jet II]

If BA can make redundancies currently in its Cityflyer subsidiary I doubt that there will be much legally stopping them doing the same to mainline. The best the staff might get is that the threat of legal action, even if rather futile in the end, may make the company improve the redundancy terms. I dont see any airline coming out of this crisis with the same amount of staffing as they went in with - there are going to be many colleagues out of work for a long time.

[Baldeep Inminj]

If BA can make redundancies currently in its Cityflyer subsidiary I doubt that there will be much legally stopping them doing the same to mainline. The best the staff might get is that the threat of legal action, even if rather futile in the end, may make the company improve the redundancy terms. I dont see any airline coming out of this crisis with the same amount of staffing as they went in with - there are going to be many colleagues out of work for a long time.

This last sentence highlights the mindset that so many have, and that they may wish to try to change. I doubt many of your colleagues will be out of work for long at all. They are most likely intelligent and driven people and they are unlikely to struggle to find work ... but it probably won’t be in aviation.

I have an uncle who lives in the North East and has been unemployed for around 25 years. He is fit, healthy and not stupid, but my god he is stubborn. He was a miner, and lost his job when the pits closed. He could do all manner of things, but he won’t. ‘He is a miner, and there is no work in mining, so he cannot work’. And that is that. He refuses to accept his chosen vocation is no longer an option, and so he festers.

It will be a bitter pill to swallow, but aviation has just changed. The definition of change is a permanent altering of state. This is happening now and will continue to do so for an unknown period of time. When the rate of change stabilizes and we all take stock, we will look upon a different industry. The one we knew has gone, it is dead, and by definition will never come back as it was.

The new reality for civil aviation will probably be a much smaller industry, salaries will be lower and the work/life balance will be worse (all my opinion - not fact). Market forces will see to this.

People can accept this change and try to stay in the industry, or they can moan and whine about what they have lost, or they can re-invent themselves and succeed elsewhere.

I have spent my life in aviation, and it is full of smart, honest and resourceful people. I very much doubt they will find themselves out of work for long, unless they choose to.

[Bridchen]

We better stop here.
I think you're right. I'm departing these forums from now on. Good luck!

[kcockayne]

On the other hand; when practically the whole country is out of work in a depression the likes of which the world has never seen before, what are the chances of a few thousand ex airline staff picking up any kind of work ?

[777JRM]

On the other hand; when practically the whole country is out of work in a depression the likes of which the world has never seen before, what are the chances of a few thousand ex airline staff picking up any kind of work ?

I know of a former FlyBe pilot who is now a Tesco delivery driver.

[kcockayne]

I know of a former FlyBe pilot who is now a Tesco delivery driver.
The peak hasn’t hit, yet.

[TURIN]

salaries will be lower and the work/life balance will be worse (all my opinion - not fact). Market forces will see to this.

For the many not the few.
The few such as WW will still be multi-millionaires. This crises wil not effect them.

[lederhosen]

There are quite a lot of pilot multi millionaires (if you include pensions and houses) who will probably not fly commercially again. A fair few will not bother with the hassle of switching fleets at a late age. I switched from Boeing to Airbus in my late fifties and would not fancy doing it the other way. I am not making light of the upheaval but lots of us on here have had companies go bust, including no doubt plenty of unfortunates who thought they had found a safe billet at BA. My gut feel is that things will pick up again relatively quickly and there will be plenty of opportunities for the younger cohort with us oldies out of the way. The next few months are going to be tough and it will be interesting to see how the various HR departments approach this. But I suspect the medium term future is brighter for 787 co-pilots than for A380 captains.

[thetimesreader84]

I know of a former FlyBe pilot who is now a Tesco delivery driver.

the issue is, it’s very easy to say “I’ll go work for Tesco until the industry picks up again”, but what if it doesn’t (or at least not to the level where you can go back into a job)? Your only choice then is stick with Tesco or career change. At that point, you’re back to the (new industry equivalent) of being a fATPL with a rating but no hours, competing not just against the same but all those who were made redundant from other companies & have lots of experience.

Its bleak.

[hunterboy]

I prefer to take Baldeep’s message away with me and try and look on the bright side. There will be massive changes coming for all in the next few months, but things will improve economically, and it may be the impetus some needed to make the jump or change career. Having had over 30 years in this industry, I know I don’t want my kids coming into this, unless it’s as CEO. I think it may well do some of the younger staff a favour if it means they are forced to change industry. As we all say, this job ain’t what it used to be. I certainly haven’t read of any Doctors, lawyers or accountants being laid off yet.

[777JRM]

There are quite a lot of pilot multi millionaires (if you include pensions and houses) who will probably not fly commercially again. A fair few will not bother with the hassle of switching fleets at a late age. I switched from Boeing to Airbus in my late fifties and would not fancy doing it the other way. I am not making light of the upheaval but lots of us on here have had companies go bust, including no doubt plenty of unfortunates who thought they had found a safe billet at BA. My gut feel is that things will pick up again relatively quickly and there will be plenty of opportunities for the younger cohort with us oldies out of the way. The next few months are going to be tough and it will be interesting to see how the various HR departments approach this. But I suspect the medium term future is brighter for 787 co-pilots than for A380 captains.


Where are these ‘quite a lot of pilot multi-millionaires’? Include their huge mortgages? Pension cap?

The only millionaires are in the BAMC (BA Millionaires Club) whose jobs are safe!

[Jet II]

This last sentence highlights the mindset that so many have, and that they may wish to try to change. I doubt many of your colleagues will be out of work for long at all. They are most likely intelligent and driven people and they are unlikely to struggle to find work ... but it probably won’t be in aviation.



I think that is a very valid and fair point - good job.

[Paddingtonbear]

This thread started off initially with a lot of good debate. Now, is it just my feeling or is it now littered with mainly (usual suspects) have been pilots/wannabe pilots/armchair pilots, acting as resident doom-mongers and some, seemingly getting kicks out of acting in such a way? If this applies to you, you may be well advised to find a hobby/pass time outside of the house.

[Banana Joe]

I am sorry if it may be unrelated, but is it in the realm of possibilities that IAG might use Vueling in Gatwick to a bigger extent to compete with Wizz and easyJet?

[Plastic787]

I am sorry if it may be unrelated, but is it in the realm of possibilities that IAG might use Vueling in Gatwick to a bigger extent to compete with Wizz and easyJet?

Here we go.. Do you live in a parallel universe where there’s no Coronavirus or one where Vueling are completely immune to its effects? I think they’ve got their own problems at the moment to be honest.

(Ignoring all of that Vueling and Level - whoever you choose from the IAG stable - have absolutely zero brand awareness in the U.K. Level to Vienna was an absolute disaster for instance. You might as well give up and hand Gatwick on a plate to easyJet.)

[Banana Joe]

God forbid if someone is not pessimistic, huh?

[RJ100]

Here we go.. Do you live in a parallel universe where there’s no Coronavirus or one where Vueling are completely immune to its effects? I think they’ve got their own problems at the moment to be honest.

(Ignoring all of that Vueling and Level - whoever you choose from the IAG stable - have absolutely zero brand awareness in the U.K. Level to Vienna was an absolute disaster for instance. You might as well give up and hand Gatwick on a plate to easyJet.)

A BA manager has specifically mentioned the possibility of another IAG company moving into LGW instead of BA. I doubt WW really cares what brand is there as long the money is kept within the group.
All WW cares about is lowering costs. If that means moving Level or Vueling to LGW then I’m sure he’ll do it. For the unfortunate pilots selected for redundancy the offer could be we are closing LGW, there is a job with another IAG company if want it... have they then not fulfilled their requirement to find another position?
I think of you turned that offer down you’d not be in a great position. As for the passengers I’m sure that joe public will not be bothered if the ticket price is correct whoever gets in. If it’s partnered correctly and still sold via the BA website WW and IAG will be laughing as they’ll offer a cheaper product at the same price.

[TOM100]

Why would WW not be focusec on making more money - that’s his job ! He is not a charity leader.....

[Plastic787]

A BA manager has specifically mentioned the possibility of another IAG company moving into LGW instead of BA. I doubt WW really cares what brand is there as long the money is kept within the group.
All WW cares about is lowering costs. If that means moving Level or Vueling to LGW then I’m sure he’ll do it. For the unfortunate pilots selected for redundancy the offer could be we are closing LGW, there is a job with another IAG company if want it... have they then not fulfilled their requirement to find another position?
I think of you turned that offer down you’d not be in a great position. As for the passengers I’m sure that joe public will not be bothered if the ticket price is correct whoever gets in. If it’s partnered correctly and still sold via the BA website WW and IAG will be laughing as they’ll offer a cheaper product at the same price.

Which manager would that be then? Because when the COO Jason Mahoney was directly asked this question his answer was the same as mine ie “they have problems of their own”. Willie has directly stated that he wants BA to remain at Gatwick, not IAG but BA themselves. He then had to remind himself to say “subject to consultation” a couple of times as he suddenly remembered he’d undermined his negotiating position. What’s going on is coercion tactics to strongarm changes in Ts & Cs under threat of a base closure.

Good job you’re not in charge of commercial decisions at IAG because brand awareness is very important to IAG and specifically in relation to BA. There does exist a very strong client base at Gatwick who with minimal price differential with easy will book specifically with us because it’s BA. Nobody has a clue who Vueling or Level are in the U.K. If BA totally tank versus easyJet at Gatwick then that damages the viability of their short haul network at Heathrow. They’re not likely to have forgotten that the Level experiment in Gatwick was an utter failure.

[The Foss]

Why would WW not be focusec on making more money - that’s his job ! He is not a charity leader.....
BA Gatwick does make money. Vueling cost may be lower but likely so will the income.

[Fursty Ferret]

A BA manager has specifically mentioned the possibility of another IAG company moving into LGW instead of BA. I doubt WW really cares what brand is there as long the money is kept within the group.

Would have thought they'd just use Vueling and Level in BA colours. Any existing protection against doing this likely to go up in smoke along with 25% of the workforce.

might as well give up and hand Gatwick on a plate to easyJet

Not like they haven't done that before.

[Ekly]

This thread started off initially with a lot of good debate. Now, is it just my feeling or is it now littered with mainly (usual suspects) have been pilots/wannabe pilots/armchair pilots, acting as resident doom-mongers and some, seemingly getting kicks out of acting in such a way? If this applies to you, you may be well advised to find a hobby/pass time outside of the house.

couldn’t agree more Paddington. I thought this forum might suggest possible mitigation solutions or some degree of commonality on a way forward. I accept the points some have made about temporary reduced flying hours/temporary part time flying etc until such time as economic/commercial conditions improve. But aside from that I am,,,,,,,,,,, shall we say ‘disappointed’ (to be diplomatic) with the level of discourse and relevance to the topic
I’m out. Done. Nothing to be achieved here.

[The Foss]

Would have thought they'd just use Vueling and Level in BA colours. Any existing protection against doing this likely to go up in smoke along with 25% of the workforce.



Are BA able to unilaterally remove that without agreement?
And if so why not just operate out of LHR with Vueling/Level under the BA brand as well?

[Plastic787]

Are BA able to unilaterally remove that without agreement?
And if so why not just operate out of LHR with Vueling/Level under the BA brand as well?

The power of logical thought escapes these clowns, The Foss I wouldn’t even bother. Like a downsizing Vueling suddenly has the ability in the current climate to expand into Gatwick but trash yields at the same time or, alternatively, it’s moved wholesale to the U.K. What then replaces Vueling in Spain?

(Sounds like they’ve forgotten about TUPE)

[ILS27LEFT]

"Chair's commentsThe Chair of the Committee, Huw Merriman MP, commented:

“It is very disappointing that British Airways seem determined to press ahead with devastating cuts to their workforce despite the Government furlough scheme being extended until the end of October. On the one hand, BA are happy to take taxpayers’ money from the furlough scheme which was designed to help companies avoid redundancies. Yet on the other, BA is ploughing ahead with a cull of their workforce and a lowering of terms and conditions. This is not what people would expect from our national flag carrier. BA’s loyal staff deserve better than to be treated like this.”

On 20 May, the Committee will hold a further session on aviation involving trade unions, the Civil Aviation Authority and the aviation minister, Kelly Tolhurst MP."

[777JRM]

"Chair's commentsThe Chair of the Committee, Huw Merriman MP, commented:

“It is very disappointing that British Airways seem determined to press ahead with devastating cuts to their workforce despite the Government furlough scheme being extended until the end of October. On the one hand, BA are happy to take taxpayers’ money from the furlough scheme which was designed to help companies avoid redundancies. Yet on the other, BA is ploughing ahead with a cull of their workforce and a lowering of terms and conditions. This is not what people would expect from our national flag carrier. BA’s loyal staff deserve better than to be treated like this.”

On 20 May, the Committee will hold a further session on aviation involving trade unions, the Civil Aviation Authority and the aviation minister, Kelly Tolhurst MP."


If this committee has no power, what is it’s purpose?

[lederhosen]

The airline specific forums were set up to allow internal informed debate by those verified to be employees. I was surprised that BA does not have one on PPRuNe, indeed three of the nine that I can see are for defunct airlines like Monarch. My constructive suggestion is that for those of you who don't want the rest of us butting in on what is clearly a very important debate you go about setting one up.

My view from the sidelines is that BA is likely to be a winner in the current situation. That does not mean that employment levels will remain as they are. It seems improbable that there is not going to be a serious reduction in flying over the next couple of years. The ideal from the airline's point of view is to solve its resource planning problem in a fair and agreed manner, keeping maximum flexibility for the upturn when it comes. One solution is to encourage those close to retirement particularly on fleets like the 747 to take early retirement. The pension cap/tax actually helps this because the incentive to carry on is reduced. Encouraging as many others to job share, work part time etc. is another obvious thing to do.

[ILS27LEFT]

If this committee has no power, what is it’s purpose?

Expropriation is the power.
Post Covid 19 priority will be given to people (e.g. saving jobs and T&Cs'), the environment and public funds (future profits shared with Gov).

Aviation is not the only sector that will need to be nationalised. In several other countries this is already happening.
It has got nothing to do with socialism. This is pure survival of economies & societies during the biggest crisis in modern times.

[esscee]

When has management done anything "obvious"?

[TOM100]

Read today some CSDs earn £80k(with allowances, box payments etc) (am sure these are outliers) but is that sustainable in the good tones never mind now. A senior ICU nurse might earn £40k !

[Jet II]

Read today some CSDs earn £80k(with allowances, box payments etc) (am sure these are outliers) but is that sustainable in the good tones never mind now. A senior ICU nurse might earn £40k !

Last week it was 30 years ago that I joined BA and for my entire career with them we had all the same issues with the management trying to reign in all these legacy contracts. I'm pretty surprised that they still have not got this basic issue sorted out.

[777JRM]

Expropriation is the power.
Post Covid 19 priority will be given to people (e.g. saving jobs and T&Cs'), the environment and public funds (future profits shared with Gov).

Aviation is not the only sector that will need to be nationalised. In several other countries this is already happening.
It has got nothing to do with socialism. This is pure survival of economies & societies during the biggest crisis in modern times.


Looks like things might be picking up sooner than expected?
https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/05/15/lufthansa-publishes-june-schedule-with-plans-to-fly-1800-weekly-flights/

Just demonstrates BA’s land-grab opportunism.

[Tay Cough]

I was surprised that BA does not have one on PPRuNe,

There was for many years. There is a BALPA BA forum elsewhere on the internet which is in regular use.

[Walnut]

Looks like things might be picking up sooner than expected?
https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/05/15/lufthansa-publishes-june-schedule-with-plans-to-fly-1800-weekly-flights/

Just demonstrates BA’s land-grab opportunism.

This thread has been suggesting Veuling May be in line to be parachuted into Lgw. Is this likely as most of its workforce would be ineligible to work in the the U.K. when Brexit is finalised in December
So there will be no free movement of people and interestingly also Capital. The current split of assets in IAG according to WW. 66% BA, so with the share price at around 165p that means the U.K. government could take a stake at 100p a share.
WW stated one of the reasons he wanted restructuring is to allow him to compete with state funded EU carriers,eg Lufthansa and Air France. So as the U.K. must have a national carrier (even a combined Virgin EasyJet option would not have the reach) it seems a Government stake should be considered
After all already the Government has taken controlling stakes in the rail network the bus network and recently in TFL to ensure these essential transport links remain
i suggest that the H of C Select Committee ask this question of the government minister when she appears before them next Wednesday 20/3/20

[WHBM]

WW stated one of the reasons he wanted restructuring is to allow him to compete with state funded EU carriers, eg Lufthansa and Air France.
One of the reasons these carriers get support (whether financial, political or whatever) is that they have structured their whole relationship with their governments, and indeed their wider target customer base, to be perceived as a national asset, despite private ownership.

BA have gone the other way, HQ is in Madrid (with a little regional but powerless admin office in Waterside), top execs openly don't give a hoot for the UK government. Now push has suddenly and unexpectedly come to shove and the playing field has changed. But the attitude hasn't.

[Bridchen]

https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/voices/airlines-coronavirus-bailout-government-majority-stake-british-airways-a9520131.html

First major press support. Get on the comments section everyone. Shame it's not in more, and print.

[Banana Joe]

Unable to read, pay wall.

[ILS27LEFT]

Unable to read, pay wall.

You can register and read it for free.
Otherwise read all my previous messages under this topic. More or less the same concept.

I genuinely believe this is not Willie Walsh vs BA pilots, actually I should say the entire BA workforce. This is much much bigger, it is about the future of working conditions in the UK.
Do we want to end up like the USA or like Germany/Switzerland/Denmark/Sweden?
This is the question we need to ask ourselves.

Our kids deserve better than this toxic management style. Greed alone is leading us to an awful type of over-polarised society.

[ShotOne]

“Major press support”? Sure it’s very critical of BA but main point is that airlines should be taxed more heavily (Indy counts lack of VAT on fuel as a subsidy) and that airlines should be taken into state ownership. Hmmm. Can anyone name a state-run airline that’s NOT a cash-haemorrhaging basket-case, even in good times, which these definitely aren’t?

[Phantom4]

Is there a case in these unprecedented times,crews out of practice,distractions etc for all Long Haul two person crew to be mandated to three person crew for a period of time.
Whatever happened to PIA yesterday,a contributing factor will have been Covid.
BALPA need to raise this as an issue for all UK Long Haul carriers.
If any carrier were to have an ‘Incident’ it could be terminal for them.
Stay Safe,Keep Alert.

[M.Mouse]

Is there a case in these unprecedented times,crews out of practice,distractions etc for all Long Haul two person crew to be mandated to three person crew for a period of time.

Why would airlines increase their costs when they are currently faced with an unprecedented loss of income?

Whatever happened to PIA yesterday,a contributing factor will have been Covid.

What is that assumption based on?

BALPA need to raise this as an issue for all UK Long Haul carriers.

I am sure that will help.

If any carrier were to have an ‘Incident’ it could be terminal for them.

The current situation will be terminal for many of them without needing an 'incident' (sic).

[Mister Geezer]

Can anyone name a state-run airline that’s NOT a cash-haemorrhaging basket-case, even in good times, which these definitely aren’t?

EK springs to mind.

[fab777]

Why would airlines increase their costs when they are currently faced with an unprecedented loss of income?.

AF is currently augmenting all long haul flight deck crews by one additional crew member, for safety reasons.

[TOM100]

When has AF (or EK) ever been run as a proper commercial business ?

[GS-Alpha]

AF is currently augmenting all long haul flight deck crews by one additional crew member, for safety reasons.
I think it makes a lot of sense to have at least three crew on flights at the moment. The airlines are currently over-crewed so it costs next to nothing, and the risk of incapacitation is higher with the virus knocking about. Also crews are less current, and have the anxiety of possible redundancy or catching the virus at work eroding their capacity. Why would you not utilise your spare crew to protect the safety of your customers at this time?

[Pumal1w]

Why would you not utilise your spare crew to protect the safety of your customers at this time?


Why?

Because sadly we live in an era of corporate greed. ‘Spare’ crew simply increase the wage bill and cost base.

[fab777]

When has AF ever been run as a proper commercial business ?

We are talking flight safety here, in a never seen before situation. Maybe it comes only second to cost cutting at your airline...

[TOM100]

Please can you enlighten on the flight safety issue ? I would not operate a flight if I thought there was any (whatsoever) compromise to safety.

[kiwi grey]

Originally Posted by GS-Alpha View Post (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/631988-iag-ba-restructuring-may-cost-12-000-jobs-29.html#post10792219)
Why would you not utilise your spare crew to protect the safety of your customers at this time?
Why?
Because sadly we live in an era of corporate greed. ‘Spare’ crew simply increase the wage bill and cost base.
I think GS-Alpha is trying to point out that for some airlines at least, it costs nothing extra to have a pilot actually commit aviation, because they are paying them for (many) more hours than the pilots are actually flying

[blind pew]

Maybe it’s just a sensible way of keeping within the 90 day currency rule.

[Dannyboy39]

Please can you enlighten on the flight safety issue ? I would not operate a flight if I thought there was any (whatsoever) compromise to safety.
I would also like enlightening. If it is a question of the equipment - aircraft can be grounded longer for D checks; yes there will be the odd defect, but if the aircraft has been maintained / stored per the manual I cannot see too much issue. I was sceptical of how Ryanair were managing their equipment by doing circuits every few days - I can now see the sense of currency and keeping the machine out of the storage programme.

[5711N0205W]

“On 15th June, I will be made redundant from my job after 23 years of loyal service. Redundancy notices are to be issued to 43,000 of my colleagues: the entire workforce. Yep, you heard right!

31,000 "lucky" former employees will then be offered re-employement on a far inferior contract that the company has wanted to enforce since 2010. For me, this would represent a 60% pay cut. Again, you heard right!

This is to be accompanied by an increase in productivity of 25%, not to mention far inferior T&Cs and, basically, a zero-hours contract.

All of this is with a backdrop of our CEO's bonus of £3.2 million in March this year; he’s been paid £33 million over the last 9 years. For the financial year '19/'20, the company I work for made a near record-breaking operating profit of £1.9 billion. I received no monetary bonus; not a penny.

The company I work for has the biggest cash reserves of any airline on this planet: £9 billion. During this "fight for survival", the company I work for is in the process of spending £1billion buying another airline”.

I picked this up on LinkedIn, is this factually correct?

[wiggy]

" I picked this up on LinkedIn, is this factually correct?"


I rather suspect it doesn't tell the full story. FWIW over the last 24 hours I've had several e-mails linking to Facebook etc which have led to a few of these posts..it's nice to suddenly be popular but even I have my limits..:oh:

The only difference between any of the posts has been the number of years "loyal service"...I've also seen exactly see the same post on at least one other social media site..

It looks like it's crafted to sound as if it has been written by the individual who has posted it but in reality all the messages seem to all have a common origin..UNITE or BASSA by any chance?

[Phantom4]

BASSA/UNITE have a problem as only 40-50% of cabin crew numbers are members

[TOM100]

It’s sad for their members that it would appear they haven’t learnt any lessons but then Len loves a ‘good industrial dispute’. They could still salvage something perhaps but they need to talk and introduce just a little bit of realism. But this is the same union that refused to
operate legal flights in the snow when the pax (who they now claim they are all about) were stranded at the other end of the country.

[Chijmes]

I picked this up on LinkedIn, is this factually correct?

Yes, this is factually correct. I have been with the company for 30 years, and the new "Corona fleet" contract would mean a 65% pay cut for me. Combined with massive changes in t&c's.

[M.Mouse]

Like so much of the propoganda from UNITE it is not entirely factually correct.

It says that all BA employees are facing redundancy notices and being offered new contracts. That is correct for some departments. As an example the pilots, while facing difficult negotiations are not being threatened with redundancy and new contracts.

There was a letter sent to the various BA unions. Much of each letter was identical but the part threatening redundancy and re-employment on new contracts should negotiations fail was not universal.

UNITE's tactics are, as usual, blunt and ineffective. Without question BA is taking advantage of the crisis to achieve industrial aims but whatever your views negotiation is the way forward. UNITE's tactics are reminiscent of the disastrously conducted cabin crew strike in 2010.

[Chijmes]

Yes, you are right. Sorry. Pilots and engineers are not included in the mass redundancy. Just cabin crew, contact centres, ground staff and head office (although there are probably a few people in there exempt from it)
Be interesting to see what happens around 13 June

[PC767]

Yes, you are right. Sorry. Pilots and engineers are not included in the mass redundancy. Just cabin crew, contact centres, ground staff and head office (although there are probably a few people in there exempt from it)
Be interesting to see what happens around 13 June

Cardiff engineers are certainly included in mass redundancies and severe contract changes. As are global ops in waterside. I believe it is only flight crew who not affected. Through not fault of their own I must add! Flight crew are the only department not affected by furlough. This is why only BALPA are talking to management. 23,000 other staff were furloughed. They found out via the media that they were to be made redundant and possibly allowed to reapply for their jobs on lesser terms. The various reps were also furloughed. Unite meetings which have taken place with management have only achieved intransigence in the company starting point. They will not engage in negotiating their proposal.

[greatwhitehunter]

Yes, you are right. Sorry. Pilots and engineers are not included in the mass redundancy. Just cabin crew, contact centres, ground staff and head office (although there are probably a few people in there exempt from it)
Be interesting to see what happens around 13 June
LHR engineers are all under threat of redundancy with reduction in pay snd conditions for those who remain employed. BA was already having trouble recruiting suitably qualified engineers, after this they will have no hope.

[Jet II]

LHR engineers are all under threat of redundancy with reduction in pay snd conditions for those who remain employed. BA was already having trouble recruiting suitably qualified engineers, after this they will have no hope.

I doubt that there will be any shortage of engineers looking for work, any work, for quite a time.

[peacheyglobes]

Yes, this is factually correct. I have been with the company for 30 years, and the new "Corona fleet" contract would mean a 65% pay cut for me. Combined with massive changes in t&c's.

Out of interest, are you a WW cabin crew member Chijmes (as opposed to MF or LGW?), as that may explain the massive drop in pay and conditions? Very tough situation, sorry to hear.

[ILS27LEFT]

I doubt that there will be any shortage of engineers looking for work, any work, for quite a time.


Just a start...9bn to LH - Gov stake
...more Govs to follow.

[Stick Flying]

Surely UK employment law would suggest redundancy and almost immediate rehiring in the same role (on a new contract) would not actually be redundancy? I would have thought this would have fallen under unfair dismissal realms.

[Busdriver01]

What is it that Unite are actually aiming for, by not going to the table and negotiating? Surely they don’t for a second believe that BA will just drop it? It feels like they’re just letting crew down, (mostly legacy crew but also MF as well to an extent) and at the end of the 45 day period, BA will do what they want anyway?

[Jet II]

Surely UK employment law would suggest redundancy and almost immediate rehiring in the same role (on a new contract) would not actually be redundancy? I would have thought this would have fallen under unfair dismissal realms.

Pretty easy to get around that - simply dismiss most of the existing crew citing the drop in demand and rehire new crew as and when (if?) demand picks up.

[Jet II]

Just a start...9bn to LH - Gov stake
...more Govs to follow.

LH is looking to cut 10,000 jobs and has already ceased operations in its subsidiary Germanwings.

Be of no doubt - a lot of people are going to lose employment and the market will be flooded for several years to come with people looking for new jobs.

[dirk85]

Pretty easy to get around that - simply dismiss most of the existing crew citing the drop in demand and rehire new crew as and when (if?) demand picks up.

It is illegal in many countries to fire someone and hire someone else to do the same job before a certain time has passed (three years where I come from).

[TOM100]

UK employment law allows them to make significant changes to their roles, after consultation, and then re-hire on ‘new’ contracts/roles. In this case they are making, for example the legacy crew role (main fleet) redundant and are creating new roles that are (in the eyes of the law) different and with new Ts&Cs and due to significantly changed economic climate they require fewer people. So they can then rehire subject to some sort of selection process. This is entirely legal and happens all the time - if it were not the case, then by definition businesses would never be able to change.

LH have been bailed - but at a cost - the government now have a stake (with all that entails) and they are now subject to political interference and loss of existing shareholder value. I believe this is not what IAG want to happen and want to remain in control of their business and it’s destiny.

Assuming the German government (at least initially) want an arms length relationship (assuming the stake gets shareholder approval) with LH - LH will still have to right size the business to deal with the current state of the industry, which will mean redundancies - they cannot escape this reality I believe LH had balance sheet issues/weakness before this crisis (despite being profitable), IAG is in much better shape in that respect and hence more options within their own control.

[PC767]

LH is looking to cut 10,000 jobs and has already ceased operations in its subsidiary Germanwings.

Be of no doubt - a lot of people are going to lose employment and the market will be flooded for several years to come with people looking for new jobs.

And this will be the case at BA. Colleagues acknowledge that. The issue is how the redundancies are managed and the need for permanent change to contracts. IAG has stated that BA can only afford the bare minimum statutory compensation for redundant whilst stating that it I should going ahead with the purchase of Air Europa.

In my position, if I’m ‘lucky’ to be selected to be interviewed for my role, I shall see my earnings drop from over 40k pa with incremental increases to a maximum of circa 18k pa, including variables, with no increments pay scales. This after 20 years service. BA are not negotiating this, they are consulting, very different.

[777JRM]

Correct. This isn’t a negotiation, it is ‘consultation’.

According to ACAS, the employer only has to demonstrate they listened to the arguments, then can end the consultation (June 14th?), and continue to do whatever it was planning anyway.

Regarding pilot redundancies, they say they require a headcount reduction of over 1100 pilots, across all fleets.
As things pick-up, hopefully that number will reduce.

It is clear to anyone that BA/IAG are using this crisis to screw everyone they can.

[Stick Flying]

In this case they are making, for example the legacy crew role (main fleet) redundant and are creating new roles that are (in the eyes of the law) different and with new Ts&Cs and due to significantly changed economic climate they require fewer people.

Ok, perhaps the article I saw drumming up support wasn't strictly correct with the facts. It stated the whole of the Cabin Crew staff would be made redundant and a lesser number rehired. I'm sure it would be pretty difficult for a defence lawyer in an employment case to argue that the entire Cabin Crew role was now somehow different.

[PC767]

As I understand it Unite state that they (and other representatives) received initial HR1 redundancy notices for the entire work force and reported that across IAG a 75% reduction in flying. The pilot community were offered a temporary deal via BALPA which they accepted. The government furlough scheme was then introduced. BA was initially reluctant to accept the government scheme but the unions convinced them to do on the understanding that the HR1 process was suspended. This should have allowed time to work out solutions to the crisis. It was the company’s intention to potential issue mass redundancy in excess of the current possible 12000.

Questions are still being asked about what happens to staff who cannot or will not accept the new contract. The proposed process is that suitable staff will be interviewed and assessed as necessary for a new contract. In effect everybody outside of BALPA’s protection is being dismissed, certain staff must reapply and new contracts are then offered. On the face of it this is against employment law but speaking with knowledgeable people including the obvious employment law specialists, there are many loop holes to circumvent the basic legislation.

Nobody outside of the leadership knows what tricks are up the management sleeves to create the cheapest work force in the UK. The only certainty is that homework will have been done and a solution which can be defended found. It was stated by the Unite rep at the select committee hearing that no (current) legal challenge exists to stop BA’s action. Legal remedy can only take place after the forthcoming events of June 15th.

Editted to add. I must be clear that this isn’t not pilots versus the rest within BA. The pilot community were not furloughed and BA management has itself created the separation of the community, no doubt deliberately. At the select committee a conservative MP asked if BALPA would support Unite in industrial action. An odd question I thought but I think he was discretely checking if BALPA felt BA’s actions were justified. He re-tried by asking if pilots would feel safe with cheap, inexperienced and demoralized cabin crew managing safety in the cabin. The BALPA rep answered no.

[stormin norman]

The unions at BA never talk to each other (Balpa being the worst).
I would not at all be surprised to see Pilots being redeployed as Cabin crew .The retention and retraining costs may justify this even though morally ( in my humble opinion ) it's wrong.

[777JRM]

They want to reduce the pilot headcount by 1100 expecting pax figures to be back up to 2019 levels by 23/4 but we were running full tilt in training over last couple of years and even then short of trainers. It will take the training department 3/4 years to train up the 1100 they are planning to lay off. If they revisit the numbers next year or 22 it will be 25/6 before the pilots they require will be online, by which time we will probably be another 200 short. I think Cruz, Mahoney and Walsh are a tad delusional.


They like to quote the ‘bad’ news from IATA.

Ok then, here’s one.
(Look at the black segment).

To base the destruction of contracts as necessary for the airline’s survival is clearly opportunistic, and maybe delusional.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1143/f941f7ec_ab26_43c1_9880_996efb3666f1_71dd2e168b0ab2c860e60b7 f6c5a70db8a1196a1.jpeg

[cessnapete]

As the new rates that BA are touting are £32G PA for a CSM and £24G PA for the rest, it would be probably the Lhr Legacy CC who are posting potentially taking a 50/60% pay cut. Unfortunately even without C19, it’s a buyers market at the moment. Paying the present crew £50G + PA is not sustainable when BA can get the newer contract Mixed Fleet, and for example Virgin cabin crew, for around 50% of that.
A tough time for all the Unions.

[TOM100]

On that chart other than crew, administrative and some station expenses (a little MRO which they are doing) there isn’t much else you can influence.....

I am sure there are a few TCX, BE and now VS crew who would like employment...it’s time to (try) to talk.

i suspect, rather than salaries and allowances, the biggest cost to IAG is all the restrictive agreements and rostering complexities that cost most.

I am not condoning IAG in my posts, just pointing out facts. Emotional
campaigns and rhetoric usually achieve little (remember the NUM and how that ended ?).

Accepting the world has changed and talking constructively is the only way forward imhobut we may already be past the point of no return.....

[Raph737]

They can't even do that, as the attrition rates for the mixed fleet crew are fairly high. Also, the majority of trainers are WW crew, the largest cabin crew block in the company. Your figures are a bit off, not all those EF and WW crew members are on £50K+, the CSD's only but not main crew. They have signed a contract and worked their way through those pay scales so they deserve it. I think that it's time for BALPA and BASSA to put old rifts aside and have a sit-down and brainstorm, as if they get away doing that to the cabin crew, I wouldn't be surprised if that all of the sudden, pilots joining get to pay for their type ratings, salaries reduced, no more night stops etc

[PC767]

As the new rates that BA are touting are £32G PA for a CSM and £24G PA for the rest, it would be probably the Lhr Legacy CC who are posting potentially taking a 50/60% pay cut. Unfortunately even without C19, it’s a buyers market at the moment. Paying the present crew £50G + PA is not sustainable when BA can get the newer contract Mixed Fleet, and for example Virgin cabin crew, for around 50% of that.
A tough time for all the Unions.

There are a few cabin crew with 35 years plus seniority on that 50k plus figure. With these pay scales BA has made record profits. With the current crisis they would change the pay scales but why on a permanent basis. Huw Merriman, the select committee chair asked Walsh if he would return pay to staff when the market improved. Walsh would not answer that question. The final point is that cabin crew on higher pay scales are not only a minority, they are a dwindling minority. MF is constantly growing as legacy crew leave the business.

[GS-Alpha]

Paying the present crew £50G + PA is not sustainable when BA can get the newer contract Mixed Fleet, and for example Virgin cabin crew, for around 50% of that.
That is why the mixed fleet contract exists and why no one has been recruited onto a legacy contract for many years.

For you to state that someone’s salary is unsustainable and so should be halved because new recruits are earning so much less, is a very dangerous game to start playing. You are talking about real people here, with real jobs, real families and real expectations of what mortgage they could afford to maintain. Companies like BA find it all too easy to ratchet down salaries for new recruits - particularly going forwards from this point of over supply for fewer jobs. Would you really be happy if your company shortly recruited pilots on half the current salaries, taking advantage of the abundance of experienced pilots that are about to be clamouring for too few jobs, and then in five years time came back and made you redundant, inviting you to reapply for your job on that halved salary? “After all, yours is unsustainable”? Is that really the kind of business practice you condone? I really despair when I hear or read comments such as the one you just made.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

That is why the mixed fleet contract exists and why no one has been recruited onto a legacy contract for many years.

For you to state that someone’s salary is unsustainable and so should be halved because new recruits are earning so much less, is a very dangerous game to start playing. You are talking about real people here, with real jobs, real families and real expectations of what mortgage they could afford to maintain. Companies like BA find it all too easy to ratchet down salaries for new recruits - particularly going forwards from this point of over supply for fewer jobs. Would you really be happy if your company shortly recruited pilots on half the current salaries, taking advantage of the abundance of experienced pilots that are about to be clamouring for too few jobs, and then in five years time came back and made you redundant, inviting you to reapply for your job on that halved salary? “After all, yours is unsustainable”? Is that really the kind of business practice you condone? I really despair when I hear or read comments such as the one you just made.

Having witnessed it at first-hand, and knowing intimately BA's snidey management tactics, if I were senior staff I'd be preparing for a brutal TUPE.

[TOM100]

ECC - this is not a TUPE situation.....

[M.Mouse]

The unions at BA never talk to each other (Balpa being the worst).

Not to my knowledge they aren't.

[Raph737]

We could argue that it’s understandable that the relationship between the unions is sour, considering pilots volunteered to break the cabin crew strikes last time. Something I think that was morally wrong, and now I wonder, how those pilots, engineers and ground staff who volunteered feel as the company has shown their true colours. But it’s time to put differences aside and work on this together as I fear they will get away with it. It needs to get legal very soon!

[cessnapete]

GS- Alpha

You misunderstood my post. I’m not condoning any of BAs possible actions Of course nobody thinks their proposals are morally just. Just stating the facts as they are.

One of my relatives is LH FC, and almost certainly to be made redundant under the same BA management regime, I’m on your side.

[Buter]

If talking/working with the other unions would benefit BA pilots, the BALPA reps will already be doing it, even if, on a personal level, they would rather not. It wouldn't be my first choice, I must admit.

They may or may not be, I don't know.

Buter

[777JRM]

Not to my knowledge they aren't.


As far as I recall, the pay discussions last year were a joint-union effort.

[RexBanner]

One of my relatives is LH FC, and almost certainly to be made redundant under the same BA management regime, I’m on your side.

if the FC in that post stands for Flight Crew I can assure you that absolutely nobody has the faintest idea at the moment who the unlucky ones will be.

[wiggy]

We could argue that it’s understandable that the relationship between the unions is sour, considering pilots volunteered to break the cabin crew strikes last time.

Just so I'm clear by the "last time" do you really mean the Mixed Fleet Strike of 2017??

I do accept it can be hard to keep track...

[thetimesreader84]

if the FC in that post stands for Flight Crew I can assure you that absolutely nobody has the faintest idea at the moment who the unlucky ones will be.

True, but it doesn’t take a genius to work out if you’re in the bottom (about) 800 on the MSL, you’re right in the firing line; if you’re in the bottom 500 it’s worth updating your CV to make it more palatable for Tesco.

TTR (well in the bottom 500 and waiting for my P45).

[RexBanner]

The fact is that Balpa haven’t even yet addressed whether BA will be allowed to get away with splitting the number evenly between Captains and FOs. If BALPA are even remotely interested in protecting jobs it’s certainly not in their interest (nor BAs) to be chopping the bottom 1130 off the MSL as all that is achieving is chopping a load of low paypoint PP34s, the result of which will be that the cost saving does not reach far enough and the number will have to go higher up the list. There will be a deal done somewhere with a nod to LIFO(plus) but that may well be fleet dependent and don’t be surprised to see some people well up the seniority list receive their marching orders.

[thetimesreader84]

I agree BA probably would be happy with fleet & seat, but they don’t really care. What they want is to reduce the budget by X%. BALPA will get the numbers down, but with a surplus north of 1100 there’s only so much magic they can do, and in that situation, CR will creep up from the bottom. If you’re a skipper, you’ll probably lose your command; if you’re an FO, you’ll probably lose your job. Any retraining from dead fleets will be borne by cuts to pay etc.

You can see it a mile off. It’s just the numbers that’ll change. I hope I’m wrong, if I am ill buy you an expensive downroute hotel beer Rex.

[Raph737]

Just so I'm clear by the "last time" do you really mean the Mixed Fleet Strike of 2017??

I do accept it can be hard to keep track...

Apologies Wiggy, I could have been clearer. I meant the strike 10 years ago that led to the birth of mixed fleet.
The division still there, and sadly the company decided to call for volunteers to break the strike, claiming the cabin crew demands were unreasonable and everyone had to do their bit in their “fight for survival”.

I don’t remember the exact figure but I believe it was on the region of 300 pilots, who did the fast track course and flew as cabin crew, undermining their colleagues. Although the majority of volunteers were ground staff, still left a lot of crew feeling bitter against the pilots.

I remember that time and I wonder if those guys and gals regret their actions now, as it is clear that they had a point and the company have been waiting a long time time to do this, they didn’t manage back then.

[RexBanner]

If you’re a skipper, you’ll probably lose your command; if you’re an FO, you’ll probably lose your job.

There’s legal difficulties around making someone redundant (an FO) and then immediately parachuting someone else (a Captain) into their seat. Flybe knew this in 2013. I suspect that’s one of the reasons why BA have split the number between ranks.

[TURIN]

Yes, you are right. Sorry. Pilots and engineers are not included in the mass redundancy. Just cabin crew, contact centres, ground staff and head office (although there are probably a few people in there exempt from it)
Be interesting to see what happens around 13 June

ALL staff are under threat of redundancy. ALL. The figures were already publisheed..EG 120 Licenced Engineers (LAEs) are to go. Also, the threat of having our contracts torn up and offered new contracts is universal. BALPA may well be negotiating, good luck to em I say, but the threat to them is the same.

[Whitemonk Returns]

True, but it doesn’t take a genius to work out if you’re in the bottom (about) 800 on the MSL, you’re right in the firing line; if you’re in the bottom 500 it’s worth updating your CV to make it more palatable for Tesco.

TTR (well in the bottom 500 and waiting for my P45).

Out of curiosity how long with the company would one need to be to be 1100 deep into the MSL? At Jet2 we recruited 220 bods last year not including the TCX guys.

[wiggy]

Apologies Wiggy, I could have been clearer. I meant the strike 10 years ago that led to the birth of mixed fleet.
.

Ah OK, no worries, I just wondered of I'd missed something so thanks for the clarification.

With regard to "fight for survival", etc, I do indeed recall the company running a very co-ordinated campaign. It was clear that if you happened to bump into a manager the casual "chat" that resulted was well scripted. I think that sort of thing spooked some people and led to unfortunate consequences.

Anyway here we are.....I think the worry is ( and this is not an original thought) that those at the top of company will be so busy taking advantage of this "opportunity" and too tied up in fighting it's staff (again) that they won't notice the first glimmer of any upturn....

[bex88]

Whitemonk returns: I would estimate 6 years

[bex88]

Rex: It’s called bumping and is legal. The big difference at Flybe is they had DEC and regional basing. Whatever happens let’s just hope we are presented with options that allow us to avoid any CR. Fingers crossed.

Who knows what BA want but I suspect it is a financial saving of x and flexibility of y. Chopping captains also makes no sense. Why chop them if you can just trash their pay and achieve the saving you want? You can even RHS check them giving ultimate flexibility, and if not that you can transfer them from RHS to LHS in days not a month or more.

The truth is both of us feel vulnerable so voice our own case to make ourselves feel better.

[thetimesreader84]

There’s legal difficulties around making someone redundant (an FO) and then immediately parachuting someone else (a Captain) into their seat. Flybe knew this in 2013. I suspect that’s one of the reasons why BA have split the number between ranks.

BALPA are, according to the recent Zoom meeting, pushing hard for us to be considered as one pilot body (as opposed to 747 pilots, LGW Pilots, etc), and think they have a very good chance of BA agreeing. The implications of that are fairly straightforward, P1s will be demoted on their fleet, surplus fleets will be retrained, the bottom X of the MSL will be cut via a LIFO+ matrix. All absolutely legal, at least as far as my tame HR family member can see. The X variable will depend on whatever concessions and mitigation’s they will find, but I’d be absolutely amazed if it’s 0.

Personally I think it’ll be a big number, well into 3 figures (but I have no special inside knowledge). I really, truly, honestly hope it isn’t, but hope doesn’t pay the mortgage.

BALPA want to save as many jobs as they can, but it’s probably easier for them to save the more senior pilots than those at the bottom.

[RexBanner]

The Zoom meeting didn’t really tell us anything. It was a wish list for Balpa effectively just as BA have theirs, who’s more likely to get what they want? It’s a fact that it’s the position made redundant not the individual. That means anyone displaced only to find someone else taking up their position has a case for unfair dismissal. Not watertight as transferred redundancy (bumping) is not in itself illegal (as Bex has said) but it’s proven to be very difficult to justify for the company concerned. It usually takes place in cases where just one role has been made redundant, not both. Whether BA are going to want to potentially fight a load of unfair dismissals in court when it gives them the additional logistical and financial headache of having to retrain and retain a captain sitting on P1 pay to sit in the RHS is very much open to question.

I’m not saying it won’t go the way you suggest not for one moment. I’d very much like you to be correct because with mitigation efforts from Balpa and about 900 or so sitting below me on the MSL that might mean I’m safe. However I’m suggesting it won’t be as clear cut as that.

Bex the case I’m advocating actually makes me more vulnerable not less ;-)

[777JRM]

Just so I'm clear by the "last time" do you really mean the Mixed Fleet Strike of 2017??

I do accept it can be hard to keep track...


After years of ‘divide and conquer’ with different contracts, it is now ironic that the crew will all be under the same contract.

Therefore they should have greater unity, when needed.

[Icanseeclearly]

I sit 1120 off the bottom of the MSL (after 5 1/4 years) that equates to 20% on the LHR A320 Fleet.

The upshot of that is there are about 450 FOs junior to me at LHR and about 100 LGW A320 FOs in the firing line if LIFO is used as the basis of redundancy (BALPAS preferred option) and lets say there is a 20% reduction in SH flying this equates to 400 type ratings / conversion courses needing to be done - the cost monetary wise and in lost productivity is astronomical, Time is the main problem here If BA can train at a rate of 30 a month (unlikely) it will still take a year to replace the lost FOs, by that stage the situation should be improving and pilots may be needed again or fleet moves happening. I just don’t see BA going for it.

All the company needs to do to comply with the law and the S188 is have a negotiation, it does not need to end in agreement - direct quote -

“Consultation does not have to end in agreement, but it must be carried out with a view to reaching it, including ways of avoiding or reducing the redundancies.”

Whether we like it or not (and we don’t) BA can pretty much do as they please in selecting redundancy victims and present it as a business case (look at what’s happening to the Cabincrew) so no one is “safe” I am ever hopeful that BALPA and BA will reduce the numbers by various schemes and the pain will be lessened..

good luck one and all.

[HEJT2015]

I appreciate that if CR are required (fingers crossed it's zero), rather than using LIFO they're suggesting using the LIFO+ matrix. But surely for new-joiners it doesn't make a difference since it's an almost guaranteed chop, there's no 'performance' or 'skills', to have assessed in such a short time (despite no sickness or disciplinary).. it just looks dire regardless of how they decide the criteria.

[Sick]

. if LIFO is used as the basis of redundancy (BALPAS preferred option) Has balpa offered a legal justification for this policy? For as long as they dogmatically follow what they consider to be airline pilot protocol and lengthy procedure, they risk doing a great disservice to their members, and creating a legal morass

[thetimesreader84]

Has balpa offered a legal justification for this policy? For as long as they dogmatically follow what they consider to be airline pilot protocol and lengthy procedure, they risk doing a great disservice to their members, and creating a legal morass

BALPA are on record as wanting “LIFO+”. Essentially LIFO, with some nods to other criteria (mainly disciplinary it looks like) to ensure it’s just about legal.

[GS-Alpha]

The stated at risk numbers are indeed dire. They are also complete fantasy. There is no way they actually want to get rid of that many pilots; they simply want to maximise cost savings, and they know exactly how BALPA will approach this. LIFO would be difficult to imagine if indeed 1100 were made redundant, but given that they actually just want the cost saving equivalent, we are far better to be demanding that LIFO be part of the matrix (as per our agreements).

[777JRM]

I think it (LIFO) is in the ‘contract’, the Memorandum of Agreement, as a ‘general principle’.

[Icanseeclearly]

I agree LIFO should form the basis of any agreement I just don’t see BA going for it, there is already a disconnect between what constitutes a “skill” BALPA seemed to suggest a type rating was not a skill but being a pilot mentor was, not convinced BA would agree.

lets hope the company and BA can reduce or even eliminate the pain.

[Busdriver01]

Part time for all until the situation improves. Simple.

[777JRM]

Part time for all until the situation improves. Simple.


Exactly.

If they want/need a headcount reduction of 75%, then put everyone on temporary 75% contracts.
The flexibility for the recovery is obvious.

[thetimesreader84]

Exactly.

If they want/need a headcount reduction of 75%, then put everyone on temporary 75% contracts.
The flexibility for the recovery is obvious.

gets my vote. Worked very well (from a pilots point of view) at Spotty M.

[RexBanner]

Although that’s clearly what most of us would like to see, the issue for the Company is that it’s not quite as black and white as that as the Manpower Equivalent (MPE) might be reduced by 25% but they will still have 100% of the cost of 4500 recurrent Sims, SEP training and medicals (quiet at the back!)..

[GS-Alpha]

but they will still have 100% of the cost of 4500 recurrent Sims, SEP training and medicals (quiet at the back!)..
And none of the cost and sluggishness of recruiting and training pilots as things recover. Cruz’s main aim for BA is an increased ability to adapt quickly.. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if flexible part time for all was the plan from the start. There was a hint in the granting of all aspirational part time at the start of all this, with a clause that BA can temporarily return you to full time at a time of their choosing.

[vikdream]

Although that’s clearly what most of us would like to see, the issue for the Company is that it’s not quite as black and white as that as the Manpower Equivalent (MPE) might be reduced by 25% but they will still have 100% of the cost of 4500 recurrent Sims, SEP training and medicals (quiet at the back!)..

I do not know about BA, but the cost of having 2 skippers at 50 % instead of 1 skipper full time at another well-known British airline was close to 20 000 pounds/year. I guess it is just a bit lower for FOs. Let's say it is 15K.

1000 pilots x 15 000 pounds is 15M pounds/year of extra cost with 75 % against massive head chops.

But now you need to take into account:
- Cost of redundancy
- Cost of retraining
- Cost of re-employing those people if market picks-up quickly
- Loss of market share if opportunities arise, but you do not have the people to compete for it.

And I guess those 15 000/year of extra cost easily fade away with the facts mentioned above, especially taking into account that aviation is expected to be back at 19s levels in 2 or 2,5 years.

75 % is probably the wisest option for everyone. The problem? Many people will like it and want to stay on it post-COVID19!

[GS-Alpha]

75 % is probably the wisest option for everyone. The problem? Many people will like it and want to stay on it post-COVID19!
From my own experience, I would change that ‘Many’ to ‘Most’. You do not have time to realise just how much you have sacrificed/given to the company over the years, until you go part time. (The current situation is giving people the time, but they are probably so anxious about their job security that they probably aren’t thinking about much else).

[bex88]

75% gets my vote.

All I can say is it is complete BS if any captain goes based on fleet and seat. I know it becomes more difficult where we may or may not see fleets removed. When I passed my command course there were some who failed....twice. They now sit RHS on the fleet. Under the proposed fleet and seat they would be safe. Madness!

The cost of demoting on type is nothing, it’s completely legal and the flexibility is huge. As people point out the job is “pilot officer” as per our contracts. The contract then says base and rank. If base is not a position then there is no way rank is either. Our contracts also state LIFO in principle.

Anyone sign a new contract when they became a captain?

Despite all of the above I will hope to see options to avoid CR as I do not wish to see any pilot made CR.

[Paddingtonbear]

You speak sense Bex.

Junior Captains get plonked into the RHS and take the respective salary and stripe reduction. The company saves cash and retain people with the proven ability to step up when the need dictates. This is valid for types being retained.....

That said, this doesn't necessarily help when the company needs to start moving and re-introducing people into the RHS.

Roster reduction with the associated pay cut seems to be the most logical way forward. I wonder, if a vote was put to the workforce, whether any such action would be voted for...

[Whitemonk Returns]

Just a note that if it comes to it beware of '75% for all' unless you have certain garauntees. At a our airline last winter following many lifestyle/workload complaints the training department were extremely excited to announce 'flexible' options of 50% or 75% options for Trainers... That would mean you could 'only' be rostered two or three weeks of the month as a trainer for the associated pay cut... When it was pointed out to them that was supposed to be the current balance of training/flying as per our current contract and that nobody would be dumb enough to sign up to that, the room fell awkwardly silent and it has never been heard of since. My only point is managent's interpretation of part time will not necessarily reflect what is fair, unless its carved in a contract made of stone, which considering BA's attitude, make sure they can't find the stone.

[Jwscud]

All I can say is it is complete BS if any captain goes based on fleet and seat. I know it becomes more difficult where we may or may not see fleets removed. When I passed my command course there were some who failed....twice. They now sit RHS on the fleet. Under the proposed fleet and seat they would be safe..

Its just one of those things. There are a number of anomalies created by seniority. I agree that Cat C pilots who have failed multiple shots at their command then sitting at the top of their copilot list is frustrating, but we all knew the system we were signing up for was based on seniority and I accept it as the core principle behind our treatment.

Recruitment has created similar quirks, like a number of Airbus captains being junior to the BA cadet copilots they fly with. Them’s the breaks. I have no idea what BA actually want but have faith in BALPA to get the best they can. Even if I didn’t I don’t have any control over it so I should by rights just wait for the box to open and see if the cat is alive or dead. I don’t have the patience for that in the current strained times so I come on here to read what everyone else thinks and share a moan. It helps!

I would be finding this whole business a damn sight easier if I could have this argument over a beer downroute somewhere!

[bex88]

JWSCUD. We all signed up to our MOA and the initial proposal in no way represent that.

[The Foss]

Another in favour of part time for all. Aside from the obvious worries over the last 2 or 3 months, I have been loving the extra time at home and would be looking to stay part time permanently if I remain in a job!

I understand that this would have increased costs for the company in medicals, sims etc but surely other benefits such as reduced fatigue/sickness from not being worked to the bone would make up in some way for that?

Salary wise a cut of x% across the workforce would obviously save a massive amount more than taking out the salaries of the bottom x% of the MSL, so the savings there could also cover the higher costs of running with a larger workforce on part time contracts.

[greatwhitehunter]

I doubt that there will be any shortage of engineers looking for work, any work, for quite a time.
You are quite right for the next year or two Jet II. I was thinking more of the longer term.

[GKOC41]

Although that’s clearly what most of us would like to see, the issue for the Company is that it’s not quite as black and white as that as the Manpower Equivalent (MPE) might be reduced by 25% but they will still have 100% of the cost of 4500 recurrent Sims, SEP training and medicals (quiet at the back!)..
P/T is the answer. The sims could be mitigated by doing 1 OPC/LPC a year (FOQA) Medicals get the Nigels to pay for them (ok might not be liked). The only thing then is any insurance / social costs. But the flexibility of having part time crew you cannot put a price on it -(that's assuming any BA pilot will respect their employer after being treated in my humble opinion - so badly.

[blimey]

Another vote for part time - reduce the cap on a sliding scale until everyone is retained.

The cost of temporarily employing extra heads (continuation training, medicals, and admin) is money found down the back of a sofa compared with being able to quickly react to the needs of a recovering market.

[thetimesreader84]

To those putting their hand up for part time - don’t just agree on prune, email BALPA & (maybe) Al B. If they realise there’s an appetite for it, they might be able to make it work.

I have.

[Northern Monkey]

The upshot of that is there are about 450 FOs junior to me at LHR and about 100 LGW A320 FOs in the firing line if LIFO is used as the basis of redundancy (BALPAS preferred option) and lets say there is a 20% reduction in SH flying this equates to 400 type ratings / conversion courses needing to be done - the cost monetary wise and in lost productivity is astronomical, Time is the main problem here If BA can train at a rate of 30 a month (unlikely) it will still take a year to replace the lost FOs, by that stage the situation should be improving and pilots may be needed again or fleet moves happening. I just don’t see BA going for it.


This to me is one of the more interesting comments on this thread which seemed to be glossed over when it was posted. The retraining bill if BA simply dismiss hundreds of the most junior pilots will be absolutely gigantic. I don't see this being a path BA will necessarily wish to go down. Particularly if temporary measures can be found which allow a swift return to flying when demand recovers.

I'd certainly vote in favour of any part time option, or indeed any option presented which saved jobs. I'm sure most of us would.

[aot549566]

Northern Monkey;

I think many seem to have missed this. I spoke with a trainer who said that if 500 needed to be retrained onto the baby bus it would take 3-4 years. BA want t’s & c’s. We all know this...

[M.Mouse]

Also, the threat of having our contracts torn up and offered new contracts is universal. BALPA may well be negotiating, good luck to em I say, but the threat to them is the same.

You could not be more wrong.

[ASRAAMTOO]

As a temporary measure if folks worked 55% but got paid 50% then that would take out the argument of part timers being more expensive.

[wiggy]

As a temporary measure if folks worked 55% but got paid 50% then that would take out the argument of part timers being more expensive.

Not the worse idea in the world but the problem there is the word "temporary"...

[TURIN]

You could not be more wrong.

In what way?
Are pilots under greater threat? Or less?

[777JRM]

‘We aim to protect employment until the end of 2021.’

Interesting article from a company with far less liquidity than IAG.

https://airlinegeeks.com/2020/05/25/turkish-airlines-won-t-lay-off-employees-for-2-years/

[Dannyboy39]

So apologies for potentially being miles behind this story, but just read one of these points blogs (I know) a few minutes ago about lack of engagement with Unite and the GMB unions with IAG. Cruz is quoted that he wants to save as many jobs as possible and that the lack of this communication is damaging.

It then goes onto say that BA have then met all of their legal obligations and sack it's entire workforce on 15th June and then re-employ who they wish. Is this accurate?

[Bridchen]

Hi - that is essentially it. There is a lot more information on babetrayal.com, and if you look at Huw Merriman's Twitter, you will also find quite a few links on that. Thank you for at least taking the time to find out the facts. Unfortunately the press are mysteriously quiet on this, and unfavourable articles in most of the popular press disappear from search on Google.

[Bridchen]

I was in touch with an old friend from years ago, yesterday, who's in BA engineering. BA engineering do all Vueling and Iberia Express maintenance at line stations for just about no cost to those airlines. BA taking the cash hit again, which then masquerades as increased profits to the Spanish carriers.

[vikdream]

I was in touch with an old friend from years ago, yesterday, who's in BA engineering. BA engineering do all Vueling and Iberia Express maintenance at line stations for just about no cost to those airlines. BA taking the cash hit again, which then masquerades as increased profits to the Spanish carriers.

Simply bollocks

Stop looking south and blaming south. Airlines down south have their own problems. Not paying for maintenance is not one of them.

[Riskybis]

What’s the latest on redundancy’s ? Is the pilot headcount still large ?

[wiggy]

unfavourable articles in most of the popular press disappear from search on Google.

Yeah, sure, you mean articles like this that I found using Google a few moments ago?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8354761/British-Airways-lay-thousands-cabin-crew-hire-HALF-PAY.html


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/25/ba-plans-to-fire-workers-only-to-rehire-on-worse-terms-union-says


Look, it could be grim enough as it is, but a lot of the public are vaguely onside and aware - there's absolutely no need to make it worse by starting to undermine employee/union credibility in the public eye by resorting to circulating conspiracy theories, and there's also no need for certain unions to p.. some people off by clogging up in-boxes with thinly disguised junk mail.

[Number Cruncher]

What’s the latest on redundancy’s ? Is the pilot headcount still large ?

There have been no updates. That said, I believe that there will be an agreement in place to avoid CR. It is not in BA's interest to reduce its pilot workforce long term. Yes, it's a dire situation at the moment but things WILL recover. BA is in a decent position and will be very eager to recapture market share and capitalise on failures/temporary absences elsewhere.

BA spend a lot on recruiting its pilots. It invests hugely in their training. Why get rid of them to only have to recruit all over again. Its not a cheap process and we all know what a fussy bunch they are - it will take time.

At the pessimistic end, I see a case whereby if CR is required, those unfortunate may be put on some kind of future recall - at the pilot's choice, of course.

[stormin norman]

Everyone has a Retain vs Rehire cost .You can throw loyalty into the equation but it's the financial numbers that will dictate the outcome .

[FlipFlapFlop]

Everyone has a Retain vs Rehire cost .You can throw loyalty into the equation but it's the financial numbers that will dictate the outcome .
Yes.....but if the numbers are not significantly far apart then the moral justification for CR is destroyed.

[M.Mouse]

It then goes onto say that BA have then met all of their legal obligations and sack it's entire workforce on 15th June and then re-employ who they wish. Is this accurate?

Not accurate at all despite what some on here keep saying.

Contracts are being changed but not across the board.

[stormin norman]

Yes.....but if the numbers are not significantly far apart then the moral justification for CR is destroyed.
Completly agree with you on that.

[PilotLZ]

This to me is one of the more interesting comments on this thread which seemed to be glossed over when it was posted. The retraining bill if BA simply dismiss hundreds of the most junior pilots will be absolutely gigantic. I don't see this being a path BA will necessarily wish to go down. Particularly if temporary measures can be found which allow a swift return to flying when demand recovers.

I'd certainly vote in favour of any part time option, or indeed any option presented which saved jobs. I'm sure most of us would.
I fully agree. The training bill and inability to ramp up capacity quickly enough if the situation so requires can obliterate any savings from retrenchment.

And there's even more to it. Although someone might not like this one, there's one awkward truth standing against letting go of the most junior birdmen out there... The future of any given company, aviation and society in general is in the hands of those with 30-40 years of working life ahead of them. Sure, those with a couple of years left to retirement have their own highly valuable contribution to the system by virtue of their experience - but time keeps ticking away and in another couple of years getting on the wrong side of 65 will bring their careers to an end. And it will be the time for the ones whose jobs are currently at the greatest risk to take over. And I reckon that the transition will be far smoother and safer if said individuals spend the coming years flying part-time on a reduced income rather than struggling for survival somewhere completely out of aviation.

[TURIN]

I was in touch with an old friend from years ago, yesterday, who's in BA engineering. BA engineering do all Vueling and Iberia Express maintenance at line stations for just about no cost to those airlines. BA taking the cash hit again, which then masquerades as increased profits to the Spanish carriers.

As has been said, er, this is nonsense.
BA's Line Maintenance handle almost all IAG airlines including Vuelling, Iberia/Iberia Express and Aer lingus. They all pay BA for this service. Each line station takes this as revenue which offsets station costs. It's a win win all round. The money stays within the IAG domain but all parties pay. If anything, BA are profiting from it. There are reciprical services offered by Aer Lingus and Iberia.

[TURIN]

Not accurate at all despite what some on here keep saying.

Contracts are being changed but not across the board.

Could you elaborate on this? I only ask as the majority of staff have been under the impression that ALL staff are going to be made redundant on 15th June and those not made compulsory redundant (the 12000) will be offered new (inferior) contracts.

[Juan Tugoh]

Could you elaborate on this? I only ask as the majority of staff have been under the impression that ALL staff are going to be made redundant on 15th June and those not made compulsory redundant (the 12000) will be offered new (inferior) contracts.
One only has to engage ones brain for a few moments to realise this is rubbish. BA is not going to sack everyone, they would need cause. BA is not going to make everyone redundant, they are doing this to save money not blow a load unnecessarily on non required redundancy pay. Contracts may change but only those who do not accept the new contract or who fail to be accepted for the new contract will be made redundant. EVERYONEs’ job is at risk, that is whole point of the S188 letters, but only c12000 (Far fewer than the unions would have you believe) will be made redundant,

[777JRM]

One only has to engage ones brain for a few moments to realise this is rubbish. BA is not going to sack everyone, they would need cause. BA is not going to make everyone redundant, they are doing this to save money not blow a load unnecessarily on non required redundancy pay. Contracts may change but only those who do not accept the new contract or who fail to be accepted for the new contract will be made redundant. EVERYONEs’ job is at risk, that is whole point of the S188 letters, but only c12000 (Far fewer if the unions would engage) will be made redundant,


Agreed.
Despite trashing the brand further in the race to the bottom, IAG have shareholders (eg.Qatar 25%) who would not like their investment put at too much risk.

[clareprop]

Indeed, IAG seemed to have singled out BA only thus far! Why?

They're not really after flight crew, they want to use this situation as an excuse to remove old contracts across the longer serving cabin crew population.

[kontrolor]

just sack the managment! How disgusting!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/29/british-airways-outsource-work-redundant-employees-heathrow

[wiggy]

I only ask as the majority of staff have been under the impression that ALL staff are going to be made redundant on 15th June and those not made compulsory redundant (the 12000) will be offered new (inferior) contracts.

A certain amount of effort has been made by some parties involved in this to create that impression..

I think Juan has provided a more accurate description of the reality.

[Stick Flying]

Now that is more what I suspected. Those that are promoting the idea that the whole workforce is being made redundant and some chosen ones rehired are doing their cause more harm than good. If they actually stated that the company are trying to force new contracts or be made redundant is underhand enough to get support from outsiders. But false facts create concern that there may be more to it than is being let on.

[TURIN]

Semantics.

The effect is the same.
Your fired unless you sign this new shiny contract.
It is spin to suggest anything else.

So what would happen if the remaining staff who get offered a new contract turn around and tell BA to shove it? Is that it? BA ceases ops?

Looks like this thread has been infiltrated by the management spokespersons towing the company line.

[Stick Flying]

If that was aimed at me you are completely wrong on all accounts. I'm nout to do with BA, merely an interested party. Semantics? Maybe but unfortunately quite wrong facts. Trouble is when you are trying to drum up support the correct facts are better than lies. Just my 2 pence worth.

[TURIN]

Stick Flying, no far from it, I thought your reply was extremely measured and inteligent.

[Stick Flying]

Stick Flying, no far from it, I thought your reply was extremely measured and inteligent.

Apologies TURIN. This is the problem with threads diving off in many directions. And I'm getting older and struggling to keep up :-)

[Juan Tugoh]

Semantics.

The effect is the same.
Your fired unless you sign this new shiny contract.
It is spin to suggest anything else.

So what would happen if the remaining staff who get offered a new contract turn around and tell BA to shove it? Is that it? BA ceases ops?

Looks like this thread has been infiltrated by the management spokespersons towing the company line.

Sacked or made redundant there is a difference of several thousands of pounds. Sure you are still out of a job, but the unions could have some impact on that but are choosing not to. If you think I am a management stooge, crack on, it’s no skin off my nose what you think, but for the record I have nothing to do with BA management or IAG management or any other management. But if you are trying to shut down the debate by casting names and trying to “other” someone because they disagree with your world view, then jog on.

[M.Mouse]

Your fired unless you sign this new shiny contract.

My point is that that situation is only being applied to SOME sections of the workforce, not all.

The amount of mis-information being spread is actually detrimental to those under threat because it is exaggerating the situation. The situation is diabolical enough to garner sympathy on its own without being loose with the facts.

[FlipFlapFlop]

This thread has lost its way. Lots of comment from people with nothing to do with BA or IAG and not many pilots. TURIN getting bashed for not a lot. Bottom line, 12000 jobs to go from BA (only 12000 in the words of one external commentator above).....it is semantics as to what name you give the process. Cabin crew are effectively having their contracts thrown away and many will not get a new one. Those that do will see somewhat worse terms than the one chucked in the bin.

[TURIN]

I have just realised I have commited a most heinous crime.
You're not your.

My apologies.

Juan Tugoh, what on earth are you doing on this thread? No link to BA or IAG, are you just here to get under the skin of people who are going through a bloody tough time at the moment? If so, perhaaps it is you that needs to get the running shoes on.

M.Mouse , could you state, for the record, which sections of the work force are NOT being affected by this situation? I have tried to find out for myself but from Flight/Cabin Crew to Contact Centres, Engineering, Check In etc all seem to be affected.

[wiggy]

....Juan Tugoh, what on earth are you doing on this thread? No link to BA or IAG, are you just here...
.

I hate to get in the way of a good rant but I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion :hmm: Have you actually paused for breath and read exactly what J T wrote?


FlipFlapFlop

Lots of comment from people with nothing to do with BA or IAG and not many pilots.

..Not sure how you've worked that out, I've been here long enough to recognise some of the "handles"(I've actually flown with M.Mouse) and I can confirm that there definitely lots of comments from people who are BA pilots - as far as I can tell non management.

[TURIN]

I hate to get in the way of a good rant but I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion :hmm: Have you actually paused for breath and read exactly what J T wrote?

but for the record I have nothing to do with BA or IAG or any other management.

What did I miss?

[FlipFlapFlop]

What did I miss?
"I'm nout to do with BA, merely an interested party. "

[M.Mouse]

M.Mouse , could you state, for the record, which sections of the work force are NOT being affected by this situation? I have tried to find out for myself but from Flight/Cabin Crew to Contact Centres, Engineering, Check In etc all seem to be affected.

Everyone is being affected but not everyone is having a new contract forced upon them, pilots are one group.

The group which I know for certain are being hit hard, and in a totally immoral way, is legacy cabin crew. The rumours, exaggerated information and plain rubbish being publicised is, in my view, harming their cause. I have several very good friends who are legacy cabin crew. One couple are worried sick that their income is going to be cut by a very large percentage if and when they are offered the 'take it or leave it' new contract.

It is arguable that the legacy crew have had it very good for a long time but with the advent of MF after the last disastrous cabin crew strike (where UNITE were treating the return of staff travel to strikers as if it was some sort of victory!) the legacy crew were disappearing through natural wastage. What BA is intent on doing now is ridding themselves of the remaining legacy crew. It is immoral and wrong.

UNITE are a disgraceful waste of space. They could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. Every dispute in the past years that I can remember has been an utter disaster for cabin crew. Their current lack of performance would indicate that not much has changed.

[Phantom4]

IMHO it is vital that as many of the pilot community are retained whilst collectively taking a % deduction of salary in case there is a second lockdown in which CR would be inevitable.

[Juan Tugoh]

What did I miss?

I’ve made the phrase simpler for you, not BA management or IAG management or any other management.

[wiggy]

The group which I know for certain are being hit hard, and in a totally immoral way, is legacy cabin crew. The rumours, exaggerated information and plain rubbish being publicised is, in my view, harming their cause..

Very much agree...

[Plastic787]

If you don't want comments from interested outsiders I'd suggest moving to a company only forum.

That is true but I’d also suggest that interested outsiders on an airline specific thread then have an obligation to be well informed and stick to facts when discussing a topic with people who are likely to be armed with the actual information. There are a large number of posts that don’t fit that criteria.

(Not picking out you or any other individual just saying that would be generally good practice).

[777JRM]

Everyone is being affected but not everyone is having a new contract forced upon them, pilots are one group.

The group which I know for certain are being hit hard, and in a totally immoral way, is legacy cabin crew. The rumours, exaggerated information and plain rubbish being publicised is, in my view, harming their cause. I have several very good friends who are legacy cabin crew. One couple are worried sick that their income is going to be cut by a very large percentage if and when they are offered the 'take it or leave it' new contract.

It is arguable that the legacy crew have had it very good for a long time but with the advent of MF after the last disastrous cabin crew strike (where UNITE were treating the return of staff travel to strikers as if it was some sort of victory!) the legacy crew were disappearing through natural wastage. What BA is intent on doing now is ridding themselves of the remaining legacy crew. It is immoral and wrong.

UNITE are a disgraceful waste of space. They could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. Every dispute in the past years that I can remember has been an utter disaster for cabin crew. Their current lack of performance would indicate that not much has changed.


How do you know pilots are not having a new contract forced upon them?

It is highly likely that, to mitigate any CR, that pilots will have to take massive permanent changes in the Memorandum of Agreement, effectively changing the contracts.

[M.Mouse]

There will, I am sure, be changes like every other negotiation but not a wholesale change of contract that is being proposed for legacy CC. i.e. their current fleets disappear, the type of flying changes from LH or SH to a mix of both, salary structure changes massively, allowances rationalised, ranks disappear. That is what I see as a complete new contract and not just a tweaking of some Ts & Cs.

As far as I am aware there is no proposal to change pilot's salary scales or career path, etc.

[bex88]

M.Mouse, how do you know that? We have no details as of yet. The union and company are talking to reach an agreement or a best compromise. It may well be that pilots have some choices to make. Maybe we won’t have a choice, but I would think everything is on the table for negotiation with the aim of eliminating CR.

Having had so much time off I have learnt a bit about myself. No way could I not work if I did not need too (retirement is different) but I have also realised that I have put too much emphasis on the bottom RHS of my pay slip over my work life balance. Part time is something I would very much be interested in now.

[Plastic787]

I think realistically the obvious tweaks (the ones we know they’re after) will be vanity moves on LH will disappear coupled with airport hotels (we have to fight that one very hard but we all know it’s coming). I’d be surprised to see changes to the salary scales, particularly as we’re not seriously out of whack with the competition and in many cases substantially below.

[bex88]

I can see them wanting to harmonise it and or remove increments. That’s just my thought and I have no opinion on it. The rest will probably come down to us as a group.

[TOM100]

Airport hotels saves peanuts (and in many cases they are more expensive).

[Pickled]

I think realistically the obvious tweaks (the ones we know they’re after) will be vanity moves on LH will disappear coupled with airport hotels (we have to fight that one very hard but we all know it’s coming). I’d be surprised to see changes to the salary scales, particularly as we’re not seriously out of whack with the competition and in many cases substantially below.

"Vanity moves"? Fortunately the MOA specifies LIFO+ otherwise a DEP who joins on a fleet like the 747 could be stuck there constantly looking over his/her shoulder at the risk of compulsory redundancy? When more normal conditions inevitably resume then who would want to join on an older fleet with the prospect of many years waiting for a command, possibly also for SH?

[777JRM]

Airport hotels saves peanuts (and in many cases they are more expensive).


Correct.
And they are probably too noisy for undisturbed rest.

[Plastic787]

"Vanity moves?”

We know there’s a contingent who chase routes (or golf courses) every four years via Priam. Granted it’s not a huge amount of pilots doing it but you can imagine how management feel about having to foot the bill for it. We saw during the strikes it’s clearly firmly on their agenda seeing as it was one of the punishment items for the naughty #600.

With regards to airport hotels being more expensive we like to claim that but I’d be surprised. After all most of the easyJet hotels were at the airport or in the middle of nowhere.

[TOM100]

I promise you airport hotels are frequently more expensive (those of a reasonable standard to get undisturbed rest). Those few nights tops with EZY are frequently split duties so proximity to airport is a must. BA are not going to expend too much effort over airport v downtown to save chicken feed £’s.

[Plastic787]

BA are not going to expend too much effort over airport v downtown to save chicken feed £’s.

May I introduce you to Alex Cruz and Willie Walsh... ;-)

[Fursty Ferret]

We know there’s a contingent who chase routes (or golf courses) every four years via Priam

You might disagree with it but being able to change fleet and experience a completely new set of destinations and a new aircraft every five years is one of the main attractions of working for BA.

[wiggy]

I promise you airport hotels are frequently more expensive (those of a reasonable standard to get undisturbed rest). Those few nights tops with EZY are frequently split duties so proximity to airport is a must. BA are not going to expend too much effort over airport v downtown to save chicken feed £’s.

"Marginal gains"..TOM..marginal gains..Plastic787 is absolutely right in "introducing" you to the key players - WW has a whole department dedicated to "marginal gains" when it comes to hotel contracts..in fact "marginal gains" is probably what has led to that very department being based in Poland rather than Spain or the UK.

As for the "undisturbed rest" bit..well in order to prove to BA's satisfaction that your rest has been disturbed the union reps will tell you you need to take robust action...given the reluctance (historically at least) of many people to take that option if BA think they can get away with putting crews in a less than ideal hotel, at the airport or otherwise, they will...

In short I would say hotel standards are permanently on the company's "hit" list..

[777JRM]

Thandie Newton was in their onboard safety video.

https://twitter.com/thandienewton/status/1256888283281461248

[EcamSurprise]

I promise you airport hotels are frequently more expensive (those of a reasonable standard to get undisturbed rest). Those few nights tops with EZY are frequently split duties so proximity to airport is a must. BA are not going to expend too much effort over airport v downtown to save chicken feed £’s.

EZY night stops (which there are quite a few of in certain bases) are not split duties. They are counted as two separate FTL days with a Nightstop in the middle.

And don’t worry. They have a habit of finding ‘airport hotels’ which are usually a 20 minute bus rise from the hotel in the middle of nowhere. They’re not the expensive airport hotels that you might think..

[Dannyboy39]

EZY night stops (which there are quite a few of in certain bases) are not split duties. They are counted as two separate FTL days with a Nightstop in the middle.

And don’t worry. They have a habit of finding ‘airport hotels’ which are usually a 20 minute bus rise from the hotel in the middle of nowhere. They’re not the expensive airport hotels that you might think..
Depends where you're night-stopping... if you're overnighting in DUB for instance, this point definitely is correct. But from experience, if you've only got a max 12 hour gap between flights, do you want to be spending 20-30+ minutes travelling to a non-airport hotel location for an early morning departure? For instance, in AMM, you have one hotel; the next decent westernised hotel (Marriott) is 45 minutes away on very bad roads.

Their great rivals in AAL once coined a phrase: "you can save a million dollars, $25 at a time..."

[Plastic787]

You might disagree with it but being able to change fleet and experience a completely new set of destinations and a new aircraft every five years is one of the main attractions of working for BA.

I don’t disagree with it at all, in fact I concur it’s a major attraction to working here. But you have to understand how management view it to see the threat. Management have no interest nowadays in making this a desirable place to work. If it saves them money they’ll do it.

[anson harris]

I don’t disagree with it at all, in fact I concur it’s a major attraction to working here. But you have to understand how management view it to see the threat. Management have no interest nowadays in making this a desirable place to work. If it saves them money they’ll do it.

Quite. Management in almost all large companies don't care about you. They don't care about what you want, why you went to work for them, what's going on in your family life, anything at all regarding you - you are a cost stream and that is all. If they can optimise that cost stream by pretending to care about you, they will. The problem is that the rest of us tend to think like actual human beings rather than psychopathic monsters, so it always comes as a surprise when management do awful things. It's what they like doing and it's what they're rewarded for.

We all need to stop thinking of them as people and more as algorithms.

[bornfree]

Quite. Management in almost all large companies don't care about you. They don't care about what you want, why you went to work for them, what's going on in your family life, anything at all regarding you - you are a cost stream and that is all. If they can optimise that cost stream by pretending to care about you, they will. The problem is that the rest of us tend to think like actual human beings rather than psychopathic monsters, so it always comes as a surprise when management do awful things. It's what they like doing and it's what they're rewarded for.

We all need to stop thinking of them as people and more as algorithms.

This post is totally spot on Anson. Like the analogy with algorithms particularly.

[esscee]

Which is why management ought to be trimmed even more as they will have less people in the company.

[777JRM]

https://twitter.com/BeckettUnite/status/1266810820467527680

[TURIN]

Very sad news. I hope this is the last and only one.

[Longtimer]

Sad indeed but "disciplinary process" covers a multitude of infractions. We will never know the facts but was help not in place to take him through the process?. Our company had an "Inhouse" employee counselor (funded and chosen by a joint group of unions and management who staff could utilize in private. Records of their visit were sealed and never made privy to either union or managment groups. To make sure that was the case, his office was located in a large shopping mall so no one who visited his office was in view of other company members. Records were kept on a private (note online) computer with no access outside that office. Worked well and saved quite a few.

[wiggy]

Sad indeed but "disciplinary process" covers a multitude of infractions. We will never know the facts but was help not in place to take him through the process?.
.

Without wishing to discuss this specific case as you say BA the process can seemingly be triggered by almost anything, sometimes issues that can appear trivial. It's also fair to point anybody from any of the communities can get caught up in it.

The Unions usually provide support if asked (and you are a member).

[HZ123]

Having been a union member for 40 years I am of the opinion that they too care little. Their main purpose to ensue their survival. Within BA large numbers of staff and differing Operational sections have been severed/forfeited since the '80's and little from my recollection was forthcoming at the time from Union officials. The staff reductions were instigated by Lord King and Colin Marshall, the former been revered on a number of posts as a caring man. I have the greatest affection for both but I can assure all having worked on the periphery of the Board they were always keen to get 'rid'. Mr Marshall had no time for CC, that I do remember and at that time Ernst and Young were employed to plan a move to British Midlands' scales of pay for them. Divide and Rule a management style that has been deployed for years and this is no different with everyone looking out for themselves. Pilots as always at the top happy to watch other groups cast out and no doubt suggesting that at the outset, has it ever been different? No !

[wiggy]

H
Pilots as always at the top happy to watch other groups cast out and no doubt suggesting that at the outset, has it ever been different? No !

You were doing well until that point.

[ExSp33db1rd]

...........happy to watch Maybe
...........suggesting that at the outset.......... Not in my opinion.

I'm with Wiggy

[Magplug]

Pilots as always at the top happy to watch other groups cast out and no doubt suggesting that at the outset, has it ever been different? No !
The need to find someone to blame for one's own troubles is very familiar........... It's rather like being married!

Formerly nationalised industries have long since seen a major slimming down on contracts and working practices. The only problem is we still have managers who want to make a name for themselves and want a nice fat bonus for cutting even more. The current Covid crisis is a perfect opportunity and not one to be wasted in their eyes. In big companies like BA the cabin crew, engineers and ground-staff were always happy for the pilots to go first in the annual pay-round talks in the knowledge that they carried a lot of clout and would set the standard for those groups who followed. The rest of the time being at the top of the pile only attracts jealousy from those who are not.

@HZ123.... I wish you well but you will have to sort out your own problems.... and you only have yourself to blame if you fail. Pilots are above you on the manager's hit-list because we are more expensive but, rest assured, we are all on that list. Our industry is going down a vortex on pay & terms at all levels, all we are doing is hanging on the brakes.

[wiggy]

Our industry is going down a vortex on pay & terms at all levels, all we are doing is hanging on the brakes.

Ain't that the truth..

ITV tonight... (https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-01/british-airways-threatens-to-dismiss-19000-staff-unless-they-accept-worst-pay-conditions/)

Huw Merriman, chair of the Transport Select committee said he

...wants the government to either to legislate to prevent BA from proceeding or to ensure that the Job Retention Scheme cannot be used by companies that make staff redundant.

Last week, Merriman asked the prime minister about the situation at BA at the liaison select committee. Boris Johnson said he is “concerned about the way some companies are treating their workforces”.

Asked if he would step in on behalf of BA’s staff, the prime minister replied that he is “aware of the issue” and is “actively looking at what [he] can do.”

With flights grounded and staff furloughed, the unions can’t strike even if they wanted to.

On the face of it, BA holds the whip hand but that could change if the government gets involved.

[NoelEvans]

With flights grounded and staff furloughed, the unions can’t strike even if they wanted to.

How are things going with the last two airlines to go on strike in Britain?

[TOM100]

Noel - who were they ?

[White Van Driver]

Noel - who were they ? I believe Noel is referring to BA and Thomas Cook. Though I'm not sure the relevance as they are very different cases. One went bust pre-covid and the other is probably the best placed British airline to survive this pandemic.

[Dannyboy39]

The leader of the Unite union has called British Airways' crusade to sack the workforce "corporate thuggery" in an interview earlier today.

There is definite momentum and change in public opinion against the airline... except in 10 Downing Street of course.

[RexBanner]

Cruz is clearly rattled at the tide of public opinion shifting against them and the threat of LHR slots being taken away from them (even though it’s almost certainly an empty threat). He probably oversaw the latest video doing the rounds on social media that has turned into a PR disaster with heavily negative criticism in the comments on Facebook anyway. The situation is a great watch for anyone not actively involved in the car crash that is BA and BA Public Relations right now. For sure it’ll make a great case study in years to come at Business School.

[747-436]

The threat of taking away LHR slots won't work, if they took away slots BA would need less employees to fly them, so it would only cause more damage, and that taking away slots might not be possible anyway.

[Private jet]

You were doing well until that point.
Now that's a passive-aggressive statement if ever I heard one, and you've used it before, with opinions you don't like. Using statements like that you are promoting yourself as an unqualified arbiter, n'est pas convenable?...

[Smokey Lomcevak]

The threat of taking away LHR slots won't work, if they took away slots BA would need less employees to fly them, so it would only cause more damage, and that taking away slots might not be possible anyway.

On the other hand, if BA are determined to hold on to every LHR slot, it gives some sort of indication of how many aircraft - or at least movements - BA intends to use going forward. BALPA report that this information has not been forthcoming so far. Without it BA’s proposals for the number of redundancies required mean nothing and draw little credibility.

[wokawoka]

On the other hand, if BA are determined to hold on to every LHR slot, it gives some sort of indication of how many aircraft - or at least movements - BA intends to use going forward. BALPA report that this information has not been forthcoming so far. Without it BA’s proposals for the number of redundancies required mean nothing and draw little credibility.

Not if you intend to shrink BA and han over the slots to AL/Vuellig/IB/Level - under some kind of group agreement / codeshare. Lower wages, more profit. How can you shrink the airline by 25% and still want all the slots, plus 12 pairs gained in Mar from Flybe?

Taking the slots away does not threaten BA, it threatens IAG. What we are watching is the slow destruction of a premium airline for the benefit of LOCOs. It's all about the margins.

[Jet II]

On the other hand, if BA are determined to hold on to every LHR slot, it gives some sort of indication of how many aircraft - or at least movements - BA intends to use going forward. BALPA report that this information has not been forthcoming so far. Without it BA’s proposals for the number of redundancies required mean nothing and draw little credibility.

Surely its up to the individual Arline how many people they employ and how they employ them. BA might want to use sub-contract staff in place of permanent employees or outsource great swathes of the company, so the number of redundancies will have no bearing on the size of the operation going forward.

On the other point about the government taking away slots as punishment - not going to happen as to be seen to be fair you would have to do the same to any other airline that makes people redundant. The government cannot punish individual companies simply because they make more fuss in the media.

[TURIN]

Jet II
The punishment is not for the redundancies. It is for the way it is being handled during a period where BA is accepting government money in the form of the Covidvirus Job Retention Scheme. BA is also making all the staff effectivley redundant (despite what certain posters on here keep saying) and re-hiring on reduced pay and T & Cs. Not exactly ethical at the best of times but now its just morally abhorent.

If BA at the outset had offered some form of Voluntary redundancy scheme and initiated meaningful negotiations before issuing the redundancy notice then this thing would probably be done and dusted by now. There would have been a stampede in the rush to leave with a few quid in one's pocket .

[wiggy]

Now that's a passive-aggressive statement if ever I heard one, and you've used it before, with opinions you don't like. Using statements like that you are promoting yourself as an unqualified arbiter, n'est pas convenable?...

Umm...I thought this was done and dusted several days ago but obviously not.

Regardless of how you perceive my tone HZ123 was factually incorrect when he/she claimed "Pilots as always at the top happy to watch other groups cast out" and was making an unpleasant incorrect generalisation. That was a shame because the rest of the post contained some valid points.

I hope that is a bit more "conveable".

[Jumpjim]

I’m with Wiggy. That comment doesn’t represent myself or most of my mates

[Ancient Observer]

Jet II
The punishment is not for the redundancies. It is for the way it is being handled during a period where BA is accepting government money in the form of the Covidvirus Job Retention Scheme. BA is also making all the staff effectivley redundant (despite what certain posters on here keep saying) and re-hiring on reduced pay and T & Cs. Not exactly ethical at the best of times but now its just morally abhorent.

If BA at the outset had offered some form of Voluntary redundancy scheme and initiated meaningful negotiations before issuing the redundancy notice then this thing would probably be done and dusted by now. There would have been a stampede in the rush to leave with a few quid in one's pocket .

Turin,
most of your input is well worth a read. However, the "reduced pay and T and C" bit is not completely accurate. WW and some EF fleet will be on worse T & C. Not the MF fleet.

[wannabe024]

Turin,
most of your input is well worth a read. However, the "reduced pay and T and C" bit is not completely accurate. WW and some EF fleet will be on worse T & C. Not the MF fleet.

MF is mostly worse as well with few 'improvements'.

[Serenity]

BA not popular with politicians.

Coronavirus: British Airways threatened with loss of Heathrow slots after job cuts

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-british-airways-could-lose-grip-on-heathrow-because-of-redundancies-j9xtzntn6

[Jet II]

Jet II
The punishment is not for the redundancies. It is for the way it is being handled during a period where BA is accepting government money in the form of the Covidvirus Job Retention Scheme. BA is also making all the staff effectivley redundant (despite what certain posters on here keep saying) and re-hiring on reduced pay and T & Cs. Not exactly ethical at the best of times but now its just morally abhorent.


Unless any redundancies are carried out in violation of the Law then there are no grounds to punish anyone irrespective of how the Company decides to carry them out. It might be that the Government and some MP's dont like the idea of redundancies whilst the company uses the Job Retention Scheme but if the Legislation is does not specifically forbid it (and I suspect it does not given the speed with which it was introduced) there is nothing in Law preventing any lay-offs.

[TURIN]

Unless any redundancies are carried out in violation of the Law then there are no grounds to punish anyone irrespective of how the Company decides to carry them out. It might be that the Government and some MP's dont like the idea of redundancies whilst the company uses the Job Retention Scheme but if the Legislation is does not specifically forbid it (and I suspect it does not given the speed with which it was introduced) there is nothing in Law preventing any lay-offs.

This is where the law is an ass.

BA may well be breaking the law but because of the ridiculous way our legal system works, challenging BA can only be done after the fact. Even then it can only be challenged at tribunal and the award if successful is miniscule compared to the damage the redundancy causes. Such as the loss of a home due to mortgage default.

The maximum amount that you can be awarded as compensation for Unfair Dismissal is presently the statutory cap of £88,519, or 52 weeks gross salary- whichever is the lower. This is in addition to the basic award which can be ordered by the Tribunal of up to a maximum of £16,140. These figures are from 6th April 2020.

Unfair Dismissal (https://www.landaulaw.co.uk/faqs/what-compensation-would-you-receive-in-a-constructive-dismissal-claim/#:~:text=The%20maximum%20amount%20that%20you,are%20from%206t h%20April%202020.)

[TURIN]

Turin,
most of your input is well worth a read. However, the "reduced pay and T and C" bit is not completely accurate. WW and some EF fleet will be on worse T & C. Not the MF fleet.

Very kind of you. I often 'shoot from the hip' and get it wrong.

[Mr Cobra]

It’s not just BA that are trying impose new contracts on existing staff. Virgin doing exactly the same...using government furlough scheme, making redundancies, and going to offer new contracts to all remaining (ground) staff with greatly reduced terms and conditions.

[Ancient Observer]

Turin is right about the law being an ass. If you can only sue/claim about an employer's action after the fact, the employer does something and you then run the risk of a Tribunal, I am not sure how big a deterrent that is to bad behaviour.

Allegedly, BASSA/Unite/whatever are trying to launch action to get Protection Order put in place, but their grounds are thin and entirely untested in UK law.

[Bengerman]

The threat of taking away LHR slots won't work, if they took away slots BA would need less employees to fly them, so it would only cause more damage, and that taking away slots might not be possible anyway.

The loss of slots would hit BA very hard. If the plan is to pull out of LGW and retreat into fortress Heathrow then that is where the previous LGW flights that they want to retain would go, using slots from unprofitable flights from LHR. Over time a migration back to LGW could begin using crews based at LHR on miserly pay and conditions, with outsourced ground support and a relatively low cost base. What BA do not want is to lose LHR slots to their major competitors, knowing that once gone it would be unlikely that they would ever return.

[HZ123]

Possible cessation of BA op at LGW!.

I believe in a leaked BA LGW 1 st May memo it was stated 'there is no certainty as to when or if these services can or will return'.

BA have 74 routes accounting for 17% of LGW capacity being about 20% of all operatrions at Gatwick. There is direct competition on 75% of these destinations. With exception of check-in staff the ground handling/dispatch was outsourced some years ago. I doubt that operating a wing of BA there is relatively low cost.

May be just a bluffing?

[GS-Alpha]

where has it been announced that the plan is to pull out of Gatwick?
From yesterday’s interview with Willie Walsh on sky news:

What about this campaign from Unite for you to lose slots at Heathrow? If you lose 25% of staff will you need as many slots in the future?

“It is a challenge I will be honest with you, but don’t forget this is across the British Airways group, so British Airways has a significant operation at London City, at Gatwick and at other airports so it’s not just about Heathrow. But clearly we would like to for the future, secure all of the slots that we currently have at Heathrow. That may not be possible. It may require us to leave some of the slots that we don’t intend to operate, but we would like to see, given that slots at Heathrow tend to be at a premium, we’d like to see if we can retain all of those. If we can’t because the business can’t afford to do so that will be a regrettable decision, but it just puts into context the crisis we are facing today.”

So he did not directly say he would pull out of Gatwick, but he appears to suggest he would rather lose Gatwick and London City operations before losing a single Heathrow slot.

[Dannyboy39]

Possible cessation of BA op at LGW!.

I believe in a leaked BA LGW 1 st May memo it was stated 'there is no certainty as to when or if these services can or will return'.

BA have 74 routes accounting for 17% of LGW capacity being about 20% of all operatrions at Gatwick. There is direct competition on 75% of these destinations. With exception of check-in staff the ground handling/dispatch was outsourced some years ago. I doubt that operating a wing of BA there is relatively low cost.

May be just a bluffing?
But they (or Virgin for that matter) do not want to give up the slots - they only want to lease them out. Understandably, the likes of Wizz want some certainty in their operations rather than be kicked out when the market picks up.

Watching Wizz in the background to all of the other airlines floundering is quite something... it's almost as if they're in a parallel universe to everyone else.

I don't know how, but there needs to be a better mechanism of allocating slots - all the current grandfathering system does is protect the status quo and impedes competition.

[BirdmanBerry]

With regards redundancy, you cannot make a position redundant only to employ again in the exact same job role, the role has to have been diminished and a new different role created. For example, if you have a business with a van driver/logistics only position, you can make that position redundant but you could re-employ them (on different terms as they can re-apply) or someone else with a different role, such as warehouse and logistics.

So how you can make a Captain redundant and re-employ them on reduced terms I'm not sure as you can't them make them Captain and cabin crew, the position wouldn't allow it.

[Dannyboy39]

Welcome to the world of Aircraft Managers, Aircraft Assistant Managers and Aircraft Operating Engineers!

[Phantom4]

From IAG memo.
ReAcquistion of Air Europa.
‘Transfers IAGs Madrid hub into a true rival to Europe’s four largest hubs,Amsterdam,Frankfurt London Heathrow
and Paris Charles De Gaulle.
Reestablishes IAG as a leader in the highly attractive Europe to Latin America and Caribbean market.’

Spanish Practice erosion of British Airways

[777JRM]

From IAG memo.
ReAcquistion of Air Europa.
‘Transfers IAGs Madrid hub into a true rival to Europe’s four largest hubs,Amsterdam,Frankfurt London Heathrow
and Paris Charles De Gaulle.
Reestablishes IAG as a leader in the highly attractive Europe to Latin America and Caribbean market.’

Spanish Practice erosion of British Airways


Yet Spanish law offers greater protection (than UK) for employees’ rights?

[TURIN]

where has it been announced that the plan is to pull out of Gatwick? The cost base there is already relatively low. And how would they use LHR crew on ‘miserly pay and conditions’? If they are LHR crew they will be on the LHR pay scales, and therefore more expensive than current BA LGW crew...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52489013

[ILS27LEFT]

From IAG memo.
ReAcquistion of Air Europa.
‘Transfers IAGs Madrid hub into a true rival to Europe’s four largest hubs,Amsterdam,Frankfurt London Heathrow
and Paris Charles De Gaulle.
Reestablishes IAG as a leader in the highly attractive Europe to Latin America and Caribbean market.’

Spanish Practice erosion of British Airways

So IAG, which is the Spanish owner of the UK national carrier BA, is investing money to make MAD a true rival of LHR (which means IB, Vueling etc vs BA). It is all pretty clear.
Is the UK government going to allow this?
Does the UK Gov want to protect the UK economy and UK jobs?

I genuinely believe the UK Gov needs to move quickly to avoid permanent damage to the flag carrier and therefore to the UK Economy.

[bucket_and_spade]

LGW closure story above is over a month old. Internal company comms indicate the LGW operation will continue.

[TURIN]

LGW closure story above is over a month old. Internal company comms indicate the LGW operation will continue.


Yes, I know but I was just answering the previous post. The threat to permenantly close LGW was one of the opening salvos in BA's carefully orchestrated press release. Frightened the bejesus out of everyone. It's a common tactic, threaten the worst then come back with a really bad offer thats not as bad but achieves the company goal.

[Jet II]

Yet Spanish law offers greater protection (than UK) for employees’ rights?

Which might explain why unemployment in Spain is over 3 times worse than the UK - businesses will do everything to avoid recruiting people who they may not be able to get rid of easily in a downturn.

[Jet II]

So IAG, which is the Spanish owner of the UK national carrier BA, is investing money to make MAD a true rival of LHR (which means IB, Vueling etc vs BA). It is all pretty clear.
Is the UK government going to allow this?



WW covered this in his interview on Sky. It is not IAG who are buying Air Europa, the purchase is being funded by Iberia out of their budget who are an independent operating entity within the Group and whose Management make their own commercial decisions..

[GS-Alpha]

WW covered this in his interview on Sky. It is not IAG who are buying Air Europa, the purchase is being funded by Iberia out of their budget who are an independent operating entity within the Group and whose Management make their own commercial decisions..
When dividends are paid or shares are bought back, where does the money come from? How are individual OpCo cash reserves contributed? Whilst they may say an acquisition by another OpCo has no effect on the others, I do not believe it for one moment. The Spanish companies have long hated the contributions BA makes towards its NAPS pension deficit for instance, and I am sure that was a big driver behind its closure a few years back.

[TURIN]

WW covered this in his interview on Sky. It is not IAG who are buying Air Europa, the purchase is being funded by Iberia out of their budget who are an independent operating entity within the Group and whose Management make their own commercial decisions..

So, why is WW involved? Surely this BA redundancy plan is just management making their own commercial decisions. Sorry, I don't buy it. If IAG are not involved with this Iberia purchase, a major financial transaction by any measure, then what is the point of them being there. Lets face it, WW is steering this entire process.