IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs [Archive] - Page 6

777JRM

13th Jul 2020, 20:16

You can only say it’s a better outcome for many than expected, but still dreadful for many too. The reality is 850-900 would be redundant if it were not for Balpa and the pilot workforce. Our measures will help many significantly and at very least pause rather than stop the careers of those who find themselves redundant.

It is crap, it makes you cross but I understand why we are where we are. I feel gutted for anyone who is CR, it could even be me, but I am encouraged by the career returns agreed to.

True, it is good to see the workforce helping each other out.
Quite a contrast to the behaviour of the management.

It is a shame that, having helped BA/IAG prepare for such a downturn with massive profits, shareholder returns, and high liquidity over the last few years, the reward is to be permanently screwed further, with some possibly losing their livelihoods for it.

Northern Monkey

14th Jul 2020, 11:07

If we have a long term revenue problem we don’t need to worry about our jobs. No business can survive such a loss of revenue for a sustained period. Just don’t even think about what may or may not happen. It will only make today miserable.

I didn't really ask the question from a "lets throw up our hands in desperation and despair" point of view. Maybe that didn't come across.

IAG will have a plan. It must include a reasonable worst case scenario of a terrible winter with no meaningful recovery until 2021 in our key markets. Once they square away the consultations it will be most interesting indeed to see what they have to say about it.

bex88

14th Jul 2020, 12:24

Ok I see what you mean.

How will we ride out the immediate rough patch without cutting the airline to the point that we cannot relaunch a purposeful recovery going forward.

Dave

14th Jul 2020, 16:53

Probably the best deal available given IAGs tactics.... however.....

Am I right in saying the majority will be "expected" (if not by BA, but by "peer pressure" from their colleagues) to go onto 87.5% part time (therefore 87.5% of the new lower payscales)....... so that 300 pilots can sit at home for two years on 66.6% pay?

I know people have families, mortgages, bills, and I don't want to see anyone redundant or suffer.... but how can it be right that 300 pilots are paid 66.6% to do nothing for two years while we also have pilots being paid 50% for 50% work, 58% for 58% work etc..... What I'm saying is someone doing work for the company will be paid LESS than someone sitting at home, and how can that be right?

Also, how can we "support" 300, but throw up to 450 (hopefully less) into Compulsory redundancy and Zero income? Why greatly support some, while throwing others under a bus?

Finally, what protection will be put in place to guard against some of the lucky 300 being paid 66.6% of BA salary, and going and getting a job elsewhere? If they get a job elsewhere (presumably in a different sector), they should have to declare the amount gained and either that amount, or half that amount, is deducted from their BA (actually colleague's) money!

I am all for looking after the team, and I don't want ANYONE redundant ideally. But the points I've raised above do concern me.

hunterboy

14th Jul 2020, 17:44

I’m sure someone will come across with a more detailed reply , but my 2 penneth:
The 2 years in the pool is up to 2 years . I imagine many will be keen to get back flying . If they are more picky, the salary is 33%. Hardly a fortune, more like keeping the wolf from the door with belt tightening. If someone decides to hold out for that long haul fleet cos they commute from Aberdeen or Nice, why shouldn’t they be able to get a job in Waitrose or Carrefour to top up the pay protection?
One thing I do notice in BA over the years is the amount of green-eye that has developed. I wonder if other professionals squabble at what others are getting or if it’s just a pilot thing ?

Thegreenmachine

14th Jul 2020, 18:02

Dave as I understand it, any part time would be to save compulsory redundancy not to save money for the community retention scheme.

As one of the 450 I largely had the same thoughts as you. I applaud and support any effort to save anyone from redundancy but it leaves a slightly sour taste that we are only able to save some at the apparent expense of others.

GS-Alpha

14th Jul 2020, 18:04

I guess you’re feeling safe from the CRS pool then!

Think of it this way; those pilots who will end up in the CRS on 30% or 60% of basic, (which is probably more like 20% or 50% of their normal pay), are actually contractually due 100%. The only reason there is no work for them to do is because BA is not making an additional 300 pilots redundant. Contractually, the vast majority of the people taking the big pay cut within the CRS are way too senior to actually be at risk of redundancy. So think of your pay cut, (and the even bigger sacrifice made by the poor buggers in the CRS), as being part of the collective response to keep 300 of our most junior colleagues employed. It is a real shame we could not all be employed on part time contracts to share the financial pain and the work more evenly, but apparently they wouldn’t go for that idea.

Do you honestly think the people in the CRS want to have no work? As for barring them from doing another job so they can somehow pay their mortgages! Are guy for real? You would prefer they lose their houses would you? I wonder if it was possible to volunteer to be in this wonderful CRS you seem so envious of, whether you would actually put yourself forward for it?

GS-Alpha

14th Jul 2020, 18:10

Thegreenmachine. Apparently VR interest has been huge. I’m hoping for a high interest in the part time options to save as many of you guys as we possibly can. The company weren’t interested in making part time compulsory, but if enough volunteer, it would be truly fantastic if we could somehow end up saving everyone! I know it is unlikely we can save everyone, but the more the merrier I say, and I really hope we can save your job.

wiggy

14th Jul 2020, 18:30

Thegreenmachine. Apparently VR interest has been huge.

Be interesting to hear how much of that huge interest remains, given that the size of settlement is now known.:ooh:

If you're a handful of months off leaving the company anyway, or just want to get out of dodge then taking the current deal makes sense ( and I gather some have now committed to going end July if the company releases them, that has yet to be finalised :rolleyes:)...but I think a fair few are hanging in until end August and not committing until as late as possible in the hope BA come up with a better deal.

The Foss

14th Jul 2020, 19:04

Were expressions of interest not made after the figures were sent out? Understand there could be a few that registered in order to buy more time before making the final decision who have since decided to stay, but hopefully take-up will be healthy.

GLCYZ

14th Jul 2020, 19:08

Confirmed today that BA CityFlyer will be closing their EDI base, which has 52 pilots and 55 cabin crew.

wiggy

14th Jul 2020, 19:12

Were expressions of interest not made after the figures were sent out?

I gather ;) it's a never ending circle of e-mails..you only got your own bespoke figures once you'd expressed an initial interest by e-mail.

sunnychase

14th Jul 2020, 19:40

Dave

Given I'm likely to end up in the CRS, if I bid for all fleets and end up on roughly 50% of my normal income (in fact it's less as there's no NCP which was pretty common but ignoring that fact there's no allowances which is a HUGE loss). 50% of my basic just about covers my mortgage payments. I still have two loans and a whole host of bills including council tax, water, electricity blah blah blah resulting in me being approx minus 700 per month before I've even started paying for petrol - let alone food and two kids!
Frankly, I'm taking a hit on pay and being put in the CRS which is resulting in a more junior pilot remaning on the new 'full pay' or whatever it'll be. Whilst I'd prefer to take this hit as it keeps a fellow colleague employed, based on our contract (LIFO) then it should actually be the more junior pilot being made redundant and me keeping full (80% etc) pay. It doesn't state said senior pilot will take big pay cut for possibly up to two years to keep junior pilot employed - it says L.I.F.O.

For you to say we shouldn't be allowed to work elsewhere is utterly pathetic. What would you suggest, we default on our mortgages, declare ourselves bankrupt and rent forever more because you don't think it's fair if we work somewhere else whilst BA don't want us flying? Given there aren't any flying jobs, most of us will be in Lidl stacking shelves on £9ph.

Another point is that NO ONE should feel pressure from their colleagues to go part time. Many of us have 30 years left. To make a decision now that will have a significant effect on the rest of our careers such as forever part time - because of peer pressure - is wrong. Do it if you can/want to/feel it's right/wife insists. Don't do it out of pressure.

stormin norman

15th Jul 2020, 01:03

Welcome to the real world.

Flap 80

15th Jul 2020, 05:52

sunny chase, an excellent post.You are exactly correct, contractually LIFO is our base line.It is understandable that BA wish to protect the A350/787 and I’m fortunate to be on the latter with 27 years service.
All this talk of “solidarity” comrades reminds me why I stopped paying 1% a decade ago.
It may be harsh but in times like this looking after #1 is what my family wants to hear.
Sounds rather like the “financial distribution suggestions” are straight out of the Socialist training agenda by Union reps who are seeing them entering CRS.
True?

fivecandles

15th Jul 2020, 07:28

Having seen how management in a number of airlines has behaved a return to a more socially responsible system is no bad thing.

Looking after #1 is not a lesson I want to pass on to my children.

I speak as a man who cheered on Maggie during the miners’ strike.

kcockayne

15th Jul 2020, 10:42

There are quite a few of us about ! One thing that the last thirty odd years have taught me is that they are all idiots - Government, bosses & unions.

whatdoesthisbuttondo

15th Jul 2020, 14:59

The Blu Riband

15th Jul 2020, 15:36

Flap 80

Nope, not true. And you sound selfish and smug. Hey, but you're ok so f@ck your colleagues eh?

The Blu Riband

15th Jul 2020, 15:38

contractually LIFO is our base line.

negotiated by the union btw, which you don't subscribe to.....

Riskybis

15th Jul 2020, 15:48

Tui BALPA cc and the company have just come up with a deal resulting in zero redundancies or demotions and no long term changes to pay and conditions.

It’s a fantastic example of what CAN be done when both the union and management want to protect jobs and work together.

TUI have been amazing !! I think many will chuck an application in after the air has cleared !
MIYA in times like these company’s show the true colours

Raph737

15th Jul 2020, 16:21

hunterboy

15th Jul 2020, 16:24

Re:TUI, I would wait and see how the dust settles before thinking bullets have been dodged. I can see managers coming back for more if this drags on past the Summer. I don’t know when TUI makes most of its money , but I would be pretty concerned if they weren’t flying pax soon.

Raph737

15th Jul 2020, 16:30

Obvioulsy people are cautious, however they are flying and the bookings are higher than expected for August. The belt is tight and the measures are in place for a year, hopefully next year, from April to October, the loads will be sufficiently high so the aircrew can feel more relaxed. That said, there were several cuts made elsewhere, it’s a different beast as to what BA is after all. The way the management approached the whole thing was second to none!

bex88

15th Jul 2020, 16:40

Pure LIFO or a weighted matrix was never realistic given the shear scale of the crisis. The CRS is a good scheme and it will have pilots in it who are being paid more than those who are working. It goes both ways

Be grateful of a job, be grateful of the CRS. Some will have neither. It’s **** but we will only get through it by not turning on each other. The alternative is fire and rehire. On that basis potential CRS occupants would be in a very precarious position.

speed freek

15th Jul 2020, 18:02

.... but how can it be right that 300 pilots are paid 66.6% to do nothing for two years while we also have pilots being paid 50% for 50% work, 58% for 58% work etc..... What I'm saying is someone doing work for the company will be paid LESS than someone sitting at home, and how can that be right?

Finally, what protection will be put in place to guard against some of the lucky 300 being paid 66.6% of BA salary, and going and getting a job elsewhere? If they get a job elsewhere (presumably in a different sector), they should have to declare the amount gained and either that amount, or half that amount, is deducted from their BA (actually colleague's) money!

Hey Dave, great post. Go fornicate yourself.

I hope your children or your marriage won't ever suffer because you ended up on the wrong fleet, with the wrong seniority, and 66% of junior FO pay keeps you awake at night but you keep telling yourself "if I get it I'm the lucky one because I still have a job". Along with two others because one shelf stacking job at mimimum wage doesn't quite make up for the loss of earnings and my family insist on food and a roof over their heads. Sorry we're all such a burden.

sunnychase

15th Jul 2020, 18:05

Bex88,

Why would those in the CRS end up in a precarious position? Quite simply, we have a contract. Independent legal advice sought by several/many from differing lawyers/solicitors has been very encouraging suggesting (yes, not 100% I know) that if BA to make people redundant and the order disagrees with our contracts then we would stand in a very strong position. Of the two that I have spoken with, both have copies of our contracts. Arguably if BA was about to go bust then things may be different, but it isn't. It still has a HUGE cashpile available to use and what's more it has masses of offers of cash in terms of funding from multiple reliable sources.

"The alternative is fire and rehire". You can't simply make stuff up like this, it scares people left right and centre and is factually incorrect. It's the type of stuff Mr Cruz or the DFO would send out in order to convice pilots to agree to a bad deal - bully them into it.
The business is not about to go bust (read independent information / companies house info / business analysts opinions) - it is quite simply illegal to fire and rehire in this position.
Our strength lies in our contracts which both we and BA signed when we joined. We are both bound by it and will be subject to significant financial penalty if we don't adhere to it.

777JRM

15th Jul 2020, 20:17

Article regarding the threat of fire and rehire by the bullying gangster sociopaths.

‘Many European countries have legislation preventing this kind of Dickensian industrial relations policy – ironically including Spain and Ireland, home of Iberian and Aer Lingus, both part of IAG.’

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/the-fire-and-rehire-practices-at-british-airways-are-immoral-and-should-be-illegal

Private jet

15th Jul 2020, 20:57

50% of my basic just about covers my mortgage payments. I still have two loans and a whole host of bills including council tax, water, electricity blah blah blah resulting in me being approx minus 700 per month before I've even started paying for petrol - let alone food and two kids!

Please tell us why you are more deserving than anyone else? Some would say that you have dug your own hole, seduced by Conservative dogma that if you are "ambitious" enough, you can't lose.........

sunnychase

15th Jul 2020, 21:54

Pretty simple really... I'm not more "deserving" than anyone else. We all "deserve" equal based on equal loyalty, and given we aren't all equally loyal (some chose/choose to work elsewhere first then join present company) that gives us the variable (seniority). More significantly I believe if you don't more or less adhere to LIFO then as a career becoming a pilot becomes worthless. What happens when the next slightest downturn happens? CR, manipulated to get rid of those who are most expensive. This makes our profession relatively unique: we cannot move to other companies on similar salaries nor in similar positions.

As for digging my own hole.. If that's holding a modest house on an estate with a cheap car and some rather large training loans to repay then yes, I've dug my own hole. Tut tut.

wiggy

15th Jul 2020, 22:16

Whitemonk Returns

16th Jul 2020, 07:57

Please tell us why you are more deserving than anyone else? Some would say that you have dug your own hole, seduced by Conservative dogma that if you are "ambitious" enough, you can't lose.........

How has nobody mentioned that spending 50% of your basic income on your mortgage payments is terrible financial planning!?

Cuillin Hills

16th Jul 2020, 08:52

Meanwhile...news is at least some of those who registered an interest in VR off the popular fleets (specifically 787), a few quite senior, are being denied parole.

I hope that doesn't mean more CR elsewhere to make the numbers balance....

For info, this is very similar to how it worked when VR was available in Monarch at the end of 2014.

Senior Birmingham based Captains were denied VR due lack of Captains at Birmingham whilst slightly less senior Captains at Gatwick took up the opportunity of VR as Monarch had a surplus of Captains at Gatwick (a long established base).

Company requirements.

In BAs case, replace a base with an aircraft fleet..

Sorry.

JOSHUA

16th Jul 2020, 10:20

How has nobody mentioned that spending 50% of your basic income on your mortgage payments is terrible financial planning!?

I’m guessing you’re of the previous generation? Seen the price of properties in S/E England?

Alternatively, pay rent into someone else’s pocket, likely similar costs to a mortgage without the security of your own home or the potential for future capital growth...

I was born in the 70’s and have had it ok (could’ve done a lot better had I understood financial planning better in my more junior years and that would’ve involved taking on Mortgage debt).
To suggest poor financial planning to those who’ve had little choice but to take on large debt to progress a career or have a half decent home for their families, is a little crass. What choice have more recent generations had? Bank of mum and dad (lucky few); don’t follow a dream or sign contracts = stay in the soul destroying previous employment that may or may not have paid well?
Borrowing to 50% income may not be wise, but perhaps there was little other choice - after all, where does anyone get to in life, without taking some risk....

wiggy

16th Jul 2020, 10:21

In BAs case, replace a base with an aircraft fleet..

Sorry.

It won't effect me personally but it's leaving a sour taste in some mouths..

Busdriver01

16th Jul 2020, 11:04

It would be fairly scandalous to say you’re trying to save as many jobs as possible, and then reject VR applications from those who are trying to help you achieve your ‘aim’.

stormin norman

16th Jul 2020, 11:21

Some dont seem to realise that in this game the company has the bat and the ball.
BALPA may not be everyones cup of tea but from the initial starting point proposals they appear to have done pretty well.

Speedbird148

16th Jul 2020, 11:55

Meanwhile...news is at least some of those who registered an interest in VR off the popular fleets (specifically 787), a few quite senior, are being denied parole.

I hope that doesn't mean more CR elsewhere to make the numbers balance....

Couldn’t a leaving date be agreed for those wanting to voluntarily leave the ‘favoured’ fleet(s) once an appropriate replacement is trained from one of the ‘unpopular’ fleets? I’m not party to any of this but isn’t that the idea of the pool of circa 300 retained pilots?

3Greens

16th Jul 2020, 12:03

How has nobody mentioned that spending 50% of your basic income on your mortgage payments is terrible financial planning!?
probably because anyone who did; would sound like a pompous tw@t.

GS-Alpha

16th Jul 2020, 13:33

I’m not especially surprised they are denying VR from the 787. They didn’t really want to offer VR at all, but probably decided to, because it gives them the flexibility to pick and choose who they let go. Also, they were not keen on part time for all (which would have removed the need for any CR) because they didn’t want 787 and A350 guys going part time and increasing the retraining load onto those fleets.

TopBunk

16th Jul 2020, 21:44

Apparently BA have announced by internal email this evening that the B747-400 fleet will not return to service.

A VERY sad day as a retired BA B747-400 captain.

GS-Alpha

16th Jul 2020, 21:51

Yes very sad. It has been pretty much inevitable since this all kicked off, but it is still sad to see it officially in black and white. It does say ‘subject to consultation’, whatever that means?

TopBunk

16th Jul 2020, 22:00

GS

I would think that the consultation is more about what happens to those on the fleet rather than the aircraft being brought back, unfortunately :cry

GS-Alpha

16th Jul 2020, 22:09

Yeah that’s what concerns me, as one of those on the fleet.

TopBunk

16th Jul 2020, 22:14

GS

My heartfelt thoughts and best wishes are with you and my former colleagues (and current friends) on the fleet.

GS-Alpha

17th Jul 2020, 04:31

Thanks TopBunk.

Whitemonk Returns

17th Jul 2020, 05:57

JOSHUA

Despite most of what you said being true (I'm almost 15 years younger than you if your published age is correct) it dosent change the fact that having a mortgage that high is a terrible idea, particularly as a pilot. I don't live in London so that helps but my total housing commitments (mortgage, elec etc) were about 25% of my FO take home salary and less than 20% of a Captain's. Now I can understand to some extent people taking a risk at BA both due to the 'job for life' thinking and also London house pricing but even something as simple as temporarily losing your medical could plunge you into immediate financial crisis, never mind long term furlough or losing your job, it's simply a really bad idea, as is now being demonstrated.

wiggy

17th Jul 2020, 06:22

It does say ‘subject to consultation’, whatever that means?

I suspect/believe it's "consultation" with the lessors etc, though I wouldn't be completely surprised if some UNITE think they should have a say in whether BA should continue to operate them....

Not great that the e-mail went out at just before 2200 UK time.....

hunterboy

17th Jul 2020, 06:26

I think we have to be careful not to judge other people’s lifestyle choices and focus on the fact that nearly everybody lives up to their means. Most of my income goes on fast cars and fast women. The rest I just waste.
I think it is fair to say there will be many BA and non -BA staff that will suffer in the coming months and year as the redundancies wash through the economy. Unfortunately, unlike many of our EU partners, benefits are pitiful, the U.K. preferring a one size fits all basic safety net approach, rather than being able to draw on aid proportional to how much one has paid in. Let’s all try and have a bit more sympathy for our fellow citizens.

NoelEvans

17th Jul 2020, 07:16

probably because anyone who did; would sound like a pompous tw@t.
Pompous to some.
Realistic to others.

Whitemonk Returns has got it spot on in his most recent post.

NoelEvans

17th Jul 2020, 07:28

Not great that the e-mail went out at just before 2200 UK time.....BA seem to be experts at appalling timing. I worked for a BA owned subsidiary once, with BA managers. We were given drastic news (compulsory moves and for several of us demotion) the week before Christmas. "Contact your managers for more information" we were told. Could we contact those managers (all BA employees, who had the cushy safety net of going back to BA)? No, they were all on leave for Christmas.

stormin norman

17th Jul 2020, 08:17

When is it ever good timing ?

I think it will be back to the negotiating table for BALPA and the other Unions.

TURIN

17th Jul 2020, 10:27

How has nobody mentioned that spending 50% of your basic income on your mortgage payments is terrible financial planning!?

1988. Interest went up to about 15.5%. My mortgage interest alone went up to about 110% of my total income! That was fun.

wiggy

17th Jul 2020, 10:47

Remember it well but mention double digit interest rates to the youth of today and you tend to get a "that can't happen", and TBF I suspect the politicians in the UK would somehow have to make sure it did not happen..for obvious reasons.

Anyhow, back to the timing of BA's e-mail..rumour has it the Press had the plan yesterday evening and so BA had to get the e-mail out..

Jwscud

17th Jul 2020, 10:53

If you were a cynic, you might suggest it was leaked by the press by the same people who were "forced" to put an email out at an industrially propitious time.

3Greens

17th Jul 2020, 14:43

Pompous to some.
Realistic to others.

Whitemonk Returns has got it spot on in his most recent post.

i didn’t say it was a good idea. just that if someone were to “point it out”; they’d sound like a...

Uplinker

17th Jul 2020, 15:06

1988. Interest went up to about 15.5%. My mortgage interest alone went up to about 110% of my total income! That was fun.

Ditto. I bought my first in 1984. 15% interest rate. Everyone said go for the absolute max you could afford. For my first few months I had no spare money and basically survived on baked potatoes from a large sack that cost me £2.50, an old fridge that cost me £5, and cheap, basic furniture from the 2nd hand furniture shop.

Things got better though. Eventually.

bex88

17th Jul 2020, 17:24

The whole VR thing. LH guys off 747 have been receiving approved VR. Some of the other fleets SH LHR and the above mentioned LH have been getting declined. This has been questioned and it was a no for exit in July/August but a deferral with the date to be confirmed. That would indicate that BA wants to get its house in order and then allow VR to go when they have them covered.

NoelEvans

17th Jul 2020, 19:43

Uplinker

We bought our first in early '88. Mortgage rate of 9.7%. "The lowest you'll ever see", we were told, "buy to the max you can afford". We cautiously bought a smaller house where the payments were 25% of my income, leaving spare for comfort. Then within a year those 15% interest rates hit everyone. Our 'spare' was gobbled up but we lived on. Everyone else was crying about 'negative equity' (I clearly remember an article in the 'Log' headed "For 'Negative Equity' read 'Debt'"). We had that house for 10 years and although it was far from 'palatial', everyone in the family remembers it fondly. Being able to weather through that era comfortably has been an excellent lesson in caution. I have earned 'more than an MP' for very few years of my career, but we have been very happy with what we have had. Especially right now.

Good luck everyone.

Cloud1

18th Jul 2020, 22:26

Flap80 must be a delight to fly with....Enjoys the benefits the union got him but had BA said 787’s to go, he’d be outside with a “BA betrayal” banner calling foul play.

Good luck to you guys, sounds like you need it with colleagues like that!
TUI is right now the best pilot gig in the UK hands down, great agreement by both parties.

There is quite a fundamental difference between TUI and BA. First of all, they have a much smaller fleet so are less affected by cutting back aircraft. They had planned a lot of leasing this summer which can be changed whereas BA simply have too many aircraft now. Those aircraft need trimming back and so do overheads. Additionally BA were already trying to scrabble together savings from the previous industrial action - a bit of a controversial topic - but many cost saving projects were under way to recoup a lot of loss accrued during that action. TUI didn’t have that financial burden.

Also TUI crew “types” are more streamlined and not full of complication which we see at BA (more so CC rather than FC) and welfare costs are lower compared to BA who have to have separate accommodation agreements for different crew. Mixed fleet crew for example can often stay in “cheaper” accommodation vs other crew who may be required under their agreement to be downtown incurring additional expense.

TUI are generally a good company but anyone that thinks the grass is greener is somewhat naive - it’s not and things are hard everywhere. Just because cuts are not happening right now at a given company doesn’t mean they won’t happen within the next 6-12 months.

Raph737

19th Jul 2020, 00:06

So you’re teaching me about what TUI and BA are? Don’t call me naive, If only you knew....

I understand those agreements at BA very well, I’ve given several of my years to the airline and my partner flies there. I also know what TUI is about and I can tell you from experience on both airlines that the grass is greener. After all, It’s the BA Pilots and crew who are having sleepless nights right now whilst the TUI’s are congratulating their leadership team for doing the right thing.

We can agree to disagree on this, but to me, on top of job security there must be respect and transparency. When was last time Alex Cruz did a vlogg to speak directly to his staff? Because TUI Group CEO, and the airline’s managing director were both releasing communications and holding webinars since this crisis started. Everything was laid bare to staff, from financials to strategy and the questions could be asked directly to the top guys without censorship or fear.

You are right about looking into the future, but we know that the relationship between BALPA and TUI is much healthier and we now know that there is trust and respect between them. Can you say the same about BA?That old “mystique” about flying for the flag carrier is long gone, and some guys were knocked down a notch or two when the company sent them the S188. There are examples on this very forum!

Do you know what is really touching the naïveté line? Is believing that TUI group and it’s complexities (cruise ships, hotels/resorts worldwide, 150 aircraft, 70K staff) with much shorter cash flown than BA, didn’t have a financial burden.

BA was recovering from strikes? Well TUI have six 737Max’s siting around and compensation from Boeing was only agreed now, over a year later, who was paying for it? The others were severely delayed, hence the wet leases. They also had higher debt, whilst BA’s previous financial results showed a healthy wallet. TUI announced severe cuts, 8000 staff to go, although they were overheads, some Staff in Germany lost their jobs already, So I think you’re wrong there as BA was in a much more privileged position.

This is about leadership and priorities, and BA’s are hellbent on ensuring they get their way even tho there were better solutions to deal with their staff. BA is showing their pilots that they are not as special as they thought they were, by putting them in the same bin as the cabin crew.

At the moment, I see little hope to the Unite/GMB cause, because our prime minister is inept and the government so far got it terribly wrong. He was questioned in the PMQ’s two days ago if he was going to do something about BA. His response was that there was no “magic wand” to save everyone’s jobs.

The government washed their hands and Cruz has green light to proceed. The emails for the 1-2-1 meetings with crew were send this week and they are going forward. Even Ryanair had more class in dealing with it’s staff during the crisis....you’re trying to convince me that BA is still the top UK job in aviation?

So my friend, it’s simple, in 6-12 months I do not know where TUI will be. I know that it looks positive now and I know that there isn’t any opportunistic ideas in order to attack the staff. It could change but the evidence suggests that it’s unlikely. But also, one thing is looking more likely now is that in 6-12 months time, the BA pilots T&C’s will be different. They will earn less, work harder and have the feeling that they do not have the respect from their employer. I say this with sadness as people close to me are affected by this.

There is no way to defend a business like that!

TURIN

19th Jul 2020, 00:13

There is no way to defend a business like that!

Spot on, as is the rest of your post.

3Greens

19th Jul 2020, 05:32

Raph737

I guess that the massive bailout from the German goverment helped a bit too....but as for the rest of your post, bang on. Last decade was a cash cow; Cruz and Walsh probably believe their own hype a bit too much. Now, their complete lack of leadership and and sense of empathy and morality is devoid and laid bare. I simply cannot fathom out what the CEO of BA thinks about prior to either typing one of his incredibly depressing emails, or before he records one fo those ridiculous videos. Truly astonishing. I wish TUI a rapid return to success as I have many pals there.

wiggy

19th Jul 2020, 06:52

Well said Raph....right on the nose.

The "management committee's" style/tone of comms has been consistently depressing and I think has on occasions caused great distress to many people.

Cloud1

19th Jul 2020, 09:01

Raph737

Parts of this I agree with; the government have been utterly useless in protecting the aviation sector. When VS were asking for a bail out and there was controversy over Branson the government made it crystal clear - probably due to protest by many - that airlines had to seek their own cost saving initiatives first. This undoubtedly includes reducing fleet and associated staff levels. So this could have ever minimised had the government thought about it a bit better when they were doing their initial response plan.

We will have to agree to disagree though on the main message of my post. I have met crew who have been critical of TUI management as well although the hostility and negativity against Cruz and Walsh is certainly extraordinary but I don’t really understand why anyone would continue to work in a company if they lack that respect. Leave. Pre-Covid there were other flying opportunities around although that cannot be said now.

I haven’t said BA are top dog at all but I have worked for several outfits in my time and I am amazed by how many people seem to think BA are so bad and everywhere is better yet seemingly do jack all about it and just stay where they are.

Ryanair have been criticised in the past for how they “treat” their employees. Everyone is different and perceive the management of a company differently. I have seen posts on this forum about how the retirement of the B747 is a ploy to get rid of crew - I mean FFS. Those are gas guzzling machines requiring a high number of bums on seats which simply cannot be filled hence why VS have got rid of theres. It makes business sense and was predictable but no, some people think it’s just about the crew. It is that attitude I find hard to digest. The way some crew comment about management on the company yammer page is a disgrace as well.

I maintain my original stance; the grass is not always greener. BA are far from perfect but I have yet to find a company that is. TUI and BA are two different companies with a different structure, different network and portfolio, different fleet size and less operational complication developed over years of union input and negotiation.

wiggy

19th Jul 2020, 09:13

I have seen posts on this forum about how the retirement of the B747 is a ploy to get rid of crew - I mean FFS. Those are gas guzzling machines requiring a high number of bums on seats which simply cannot be filled hence why VS have got rid of theres. It makes business sense and was predictable but no, some people think it’s just about the crew. It is that attitude I find hard to digest.

There are certainly some in BA who think that every single business decision is a personal attack solely on them.

At least one of the unions standard MO seems to be to encourage that frame of mind...

wiggy

19th Jul 2020, 19:29

BA threatened to sack the entire 747 pilot group unless BALPA paid a huge price for LIFO...

I haven't heard that in any discussions I've had away from this place - can you give a hint as to your source...?

the BA / IAG board cam back with the classic line..."we need to sack pilots to mirror other departments".

That I can very easily believe...I also think it's possible the Board see it as an opportunity for a bit of pay back for last years IA and also to finally put to bed forever the idea that BA is an airline that will always go to great lengths to avoid making any of it's pilots redundant..

Cloud1

19th Jul 2020, 20:05

Or....just or....it could be that the airline is getting rid of a load of planes and will not progress with expansion due to the sudden and ongoing down turn in demand. Thus they don’t need that many Pilots? Just a whacky idea.

Threethirty

19th Jul 2020, 21:13

Unlikely, the slots are still there to be flown.

wiggy

20th Jul 2020, 06:45

Cloud1

I don't think the reduction in hulls comes as a surprise to anybody (outside it seems some at UNITE).

The problem is how the company is handling the excess in pilots.

It's been alleged that the company is highly resistant to any proposals from BALPA that would keep everybody on-board, at least for now...there's a bit of a feeling that the underlying mindset at Board level is that they want to be seen to be making some pilots redundant as part of the current process...

Survival Cot

20th Jul 2020, 07:33

Interesting how a decision seems imminent of maybe considering a lifeboat for several hundred, of which a percentage will be top earners & a long way through the career path. Some with the CRS salary may be earning more than a SH surviving Captain who will be left supporting those unproductive retention salaries and retraining costs with a significant pay adjustment to foot the bill.

And yet a number of CR may well have training loans well over 100k. This appears as a company and workforce that prides “wellbeing”, “care of mental health” and “career development” and yet groups such as this can fall into the abyss whilst at the same time allowing some of the comfortable seniors into the life boat, either on gardening leave or bolstering the CRS salary with alternative work options. One must remember the thousands of other workers in other departments and companies facing the gravest of difficulties. This delivers a dubious signal to other departments that will not aide a unified workforce. If this strategy was used on the Titanic, the women & children would have all perished, thankfully there was some gentlemanly behaviour with that disaster.

Question: Are wages going to be well spent putting the suggested group into the lifeboat, and allowing the future generation whom should be rebuilding this mess to drown??? With any moral backbone, whilst difficult, the answer is plain to see.

Question: What happens if the industry has a further downturn? A further salary adjustment for a bigger lifeboat??

Question: Will those in the CRS repay in any way the working community (or the CR group) the majority of which will never be able to aspire to their remuneration on their return??

Question: It is generally accepted that the whole community should accept alterations to pay and conditions given the precarious outlook with almost impossible forecast conditions for the pandemic. If a pay reduction is to be used to support and protect a vulnerable group then that is no doubt an admirable stance, however there are countless more worthy causes out there. Do you really think this particular group within the wider context of society’s difficulties fits a “worthy cause”?

This is not a solution based on square morals and principles, a responsible British employer ought not to sign up to this complex pyramid act, & if they do there ought to be individual consent without any feeling of detriment to position. Time perhaps to look at ones consciences.........

Plastic787

20th Jul 2020, 08:25

Question: What happens if the industry has a further downturn? A further salary adjustment for a bigger lifeboat??

In keeping with the sailing metaphors I think it’s patently obvious that in the event of a further downturn the CRS will be the first ones cast adrift, which is why anyone with a choice would not want to be in it. There’s not a single pilot who will escape CR that will be wishing to trade places with someone in the CRS Pool. It’s not a paid holiday, it’s one foot out the door. An important distinction.

White Van Driver

20th Jul 2020, 08:50

I agree that the majority would rather be working than in the CRS. I certainly would rather work. But don't forget those in the CRS will be able to work outside BA to supplement their income. If they treat it as an opportunity to get into another industry they could actually do very well out of it.

However I disagree that the CRS will be the first to be cast adrift in the case of round 2 redundancies. If the current figure of 450 redundancies was to be increased to say 550, the CRS wouldn't be touched but another 100 from the bottom would be made redundant. In the case of more redundancies later this year or into next year, they'll keep the CRS in tact and just chop off from the bottom using the same matrix that has been agreed for this round.

wiggy

20th Jul 2020, 08:55

TBH I think we need to be wary of stereotyping .. "comfortable seniors", thinking all new joiners are paying back 100K loans, and that every skipper on the jumbo is going to be rolling in it/having a comfortable time on CRS...

Anyhow back to the lifeboats, women and children first and voluntarily leaving, taking pay cuts, taking part time in order to help...

I think the problem some are perceiving now is if you offer up your seat on the lifeboat it now appears there's no guarantee that the company will actually fill that seat with somebody " more deserving" ..and I suspect that is starting grip people who have perhaps already volunteered to step back, and will also perhaps also make it more difficult to get volunteers to give up their seats in the future..:\

I think I'll leave there since as you can tell I've exhausted my knowledge of boaty things...

stormin norman

20th Jul 2020, 10:45

If somebody can post the current BA/IAG trading figures ( including current cash burn , forward bookings, and cash left in the bank ) it just might make some people look at things a bit differently.

bex88

20th Jul 2020, 13:27

The CRS is not a nice idea thought of and funded by BA. It is a response from the pilot workforce and is funded by us. There is no free give away to the pilots. Cut through it all and there is a 20% reduction in crew.

Under this devastating scenario the MOA went out the window and the CRS is our best effort to provide some sort of adherence to it. Without it I think we would see redundancies by fleet.

GKOC41

20th Jul 2020, 13:48

Cloud1

Tui in my experience always had a good relationship with BALPA as both Management and the Union have a mature outlook rather than 'ye who has the last laugh' which goes on at many Airlines with some showing their true colours now. Sure there are always the 5% unhappy with Management but they are the usual ones that the management and no doubt the Union spend 95% of their time dealing with. CV19 has however bought many BA Nigels down to a level that many Aviation staff have faced during their careers. If I'd have joined BA XX years ago I'd still be there rather than my current airline number XX (and I mean XX not X)

GS-Alpha

20th Jul 2020, 15:01

Under this devastating scenario the MOA went out the window and the CRS is our best effort to provide some sort of adherence to it. Without it I think we would see redundancies by fleet.
I doubt BA would risk the litigation of throwing the MOA out of the window. We would certainly see a lot more compulsory redundancies off the bottom and then demotions to fill the FO positions though. BALPA’s main aim has been to save jobs and the CRS is indeed achieving that, but I do not believe the majority of the CRS pilots were ever at risk of redundancy themselves.

bex88

20th Jul 2020, 17:05

Under normal circumstances with a smaller headcount reduction I would agree. The MOA has already been cherry picked and ignored.

I have heard “the 320 will bear the CR”, actually that really is not true as a fair number of crew joined onto LH fleets.

The CRS is probably the best outcome given the situation and the original proposal. It’s still rubbish but less so.

White Van Driver

20th Jul 2020, 17:34

I do not believe the majority of the CRS pilots were ever at risk of redundancy themselves.
They would not have been at risk if LIFO was a major part of redundancies. But the complete opposite if BA had gone ahead with redundancies by fleet as they had wanted.

However I disagree that the CRS will be the first to be cast adrift in the case of round 2 redundancies. If the current figure of 450 redundancies was to be increased to say 550, the CRS wouldn't be touched but another 100 from the bottom would be made redundant. In the case of more redundancies later this year or into next year, they'll keep the CRS in tact and just chop off from the bottom using the same matrix that has been agreed for this round.

I should just add to this that the cost to BA of the CRS is zero. No point in firing those pilots in later redundancies as savings will also be zero. (The working BA pilots are funding the CRS... salaries, training onto other types, and even the pay point differential between them and new PP1 hires until their retirement)

ATIS

20th Jul 2020, 20:11

Think a whole hr dedicated to BA on LBC right now

thetimesreader84

20th Jul 2020, 20:14

777JRM

20th Jul 2020, 21:04

If somebody can post the current BA/IAG trading figures ( including current cash burn , forward bookings, and cash left in the bank ) it just might make some people look at things a bit differently.

If true that IAG liquidity stood at €10.5 billion pre-Covid, and stated cash-burn of £20m per day, that equates to survival of approx 1 year.
Further, if needed, Qatar have said they would inject more equity into IAG, since they view it as a long-term investment.

The cargo revenue goes to an entity called IAG Cargo, so even though BA flies it, this profit is not attributed to BA.

WW interchanged IAG and BA numbers to suit his arguments, and he wasn’t called out on it.

Atlantic Explorer

21st Jul 2020, 09:45

Theres more to IAG than BA, so that cash burn figure needs to take account of the other businesses in order to get a true figure of a survival period.

Jumpjim

21st Jul 2020, 10:51

The CRS is a mechanism to keep 747 pilots employed but not flying at the expense of junior pilots (who would be flying but are now unemployed) and everyone remaining’s pay.

I’ll let you decide if that’s fair or not. I know what I think.

That is a massively oversimplified and antagonistic view of what's going on.

BA flatly refused a deal to retain all the pilots, a deal which was offered by BALPA and the BACC. So to say the CR is due to the 747 pilots is not only flat wrong, it also puts the blame for CR on your colleagues and not the company position.

wiggy

21st Jul 2020, 11:07

That is a massively oversimplified and antagonistic view of what's going on.

Nicely put..I had started to construct a response to that post but had so much trouble being polite that I decided it was best not to continue.

777JRM

21st Jul 2020, 12:32

Theres more to IAG than BA, so that cash burn figure needs to take account of the other businesses in order to get a true figure of a survival period.

True.
However, the other businesses in IAG seem to be getting govt assistance and treating their staff far better than BA ever could (eg. temporary solutions, furlough).

747-436

21st Jul 2020, 13:16

If true that IAG liquidity stood at €10.5 billion pre-Covid, and stated cash-burn of £20m per day, that equates to survival of approx 1 year.
Further, if needed, Qatar have said they would inject more equity into IAG, since they view it as a long-term investment.

The cargo revenue goes to an entity called IAG Cargo, so even though BA flies it, this profit is not attributed to BA.

WW interchanged IAG and BA numbers to suit his arguments, and he wasn’t called out on it.

Some of that cash is also likely to be money for tickets already paid for, and a fair bit of it is likely to need to be refunded.

Doors To Manuel

21st Jul 2020, 21:18

If somebody can post the current BA/IAG trading figures ( including current cash burn , forward bookings, and cash left in the bank ) it just might make some people look at things a bit differently.
This guy, Robert Boyle, former IAG director of strategy has got his head screwed on and is publishing some sensible factual stuff on his blog.
If you pop over here you will find it
https://rboyle.co.uk/2020/06/12/you-dont-know-what-youve-got-till-its-gone/

If you only want a bite-sized chunk, here it is.

So let us do a crude calculation of the predicted liquidity position of IAG and Lufthansa at the end of Q2, by which time both companies are expected to have recommenced “a meaningful operation”. Lufthansa will have liquidity of €4.25 billion (the March position), plus the €9 billion stabilisation package, less three months of cash burn at €800m a month giving €10.9 billion. IAG gave a figure of €10 billion for their liquidity at the end of April, which I think went up from up €0.5 billion from the position at the end of March due to €1.3 billion raised from the UK and Spanish governments, offset by cash burn for April. That suggests a cash burn in April of €836m, slightly below the figure I calculated above. By the end of Q2, they will have burned another €1.9 billion, giving them €8.1 billion. Expressed in terms of their “normal” cash operating expenses when operating at full capacity (where Lufthansa is 1.7x the size of IAG), this gives Lufthansa 115 days of liquidity compared to IAG’s 147 days. Of course they both have many more days of liquidity than this, as this metric assumes zero revenue and full operating costs, but it is a good basis on which to compare the two companies.

Given the amount of assumptions that have gone into these calculations, my conclusion is that both companies will start the third quarter with similar levels of liquidity compared to the size of their pre COVID cost bases, with IAG in a somewhat better position (c 25% better). The big difference, of course, is how much backing it will have required from governments to get to that position. For Germany, it took €9 billion, compared to €1.3 billion for IAG, of which the UK government has only provided €0.3 billion.

3Greens

21st Jul 2020, 22:51

Thanks for that. I had the pleasure of listening to Robert talk once and he is indeed a switched into chap; good orator too.
thats am excellent précis if where things are; and indeed points to positivities for Q3 and beyond compared to what is in the recent past. Still not in anyway out of the woods but I’d say the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.

WHBM

22nd Jul 2020, 00:13

[Quoting another] "Of course they both have many more days of liquidity than this, as this metric assumes zero revenue and full operating costs, but it is a good basis on which to compare the two companies".
I'm afraid that rather takes away from the logic of the argument, particularly for one with all the figures available. If I went to my bank manager and said "here's my cash flow projection, except I haven't put anything in for revenue, or for operating cost changes I've made", can you imagine what the reaction would be ...

Jet II

22nd Jul 2020, 13:58

Doors To Manuel

The problem with that article is that he is comparing German Government support for a German company with UK Government support for a Spanish company.

polax52

24th Jul 2020, 22:02

Doors To Manuel

Assuming that there is no significant revenue during the next 5 months, liquidity would be zero. Does IAG have further sources of liquidity? Is it's credit rating investment grade?

stormin norman

25th Jul 2020, 08:10

BA will survive and prosper but it needs to get a shift on in its reorganization.

The UK government needs to get more proactive in opening up cross border air corridors.

777JRM

25th Jul 2020, 08:25

polax52

Allegedly, IAG has about a year of liquidity (survival) if it did nothing.
Cargo and repatriation flights continue, and gradually people are flying again.
New route to Montego Bay announced.

If IAG became desperate, there would be a rights issue.
Also, Qatar have said they would inject more equity into IAG if necessary.

slast

25th Jul 2020, 08:59

777JRM: "If IAG became desperate, there would be a rights issue."
Yes indeed....
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/iag-gears-up-for-2-75bn-rights-issue-zrddj95kh

HZ123

25th Jul 2020, 11:15

On a more mundane issue for some but of great concern to many is what is happening to the pension deficit ? I agree that BA need to take action as it is extremely unprofessional to keep the workforce in this dreadful limbo!

Northern Monkey

26th Jul 2020, 08:15

Makes sense to do the rights issue from a place of relative strength (existing liquidity). This is the announcement I’d been waiting for. Assuming it is successful this gets us through the winter and into (with luck) vaccine territory.

Ex Cargo Clown

26th Jul 2020, 11:25

HZ123

I know this much, from their latest missive. NAPS lost 10% of it's value, now I'm no pensions expert, but that doesn't sound good.

777JRM

26th Jul 2020, 11:45

Don’t forget, pensioners are drawing on it, and since 2018 nobody is contributing to it (apart from BA to fund the deficit).
Also some people are taking it all out as a Cash Equivalent Transfer Value, to invest elsewhere.

The concern some may have is that if BA were to become insolvent, or create a situation, that would force NAPS into the Govt’s PPF.

stormin norman

26th Jul 2020, 12:39

Ex Cargo Clown

Short term liquidity is good .Its the long term that has to be addressed.

Walnut

26th Jul 2020, 15:07

All the guys taking VR will be going with a pension, this global sum for each pilot has to be transferred out of the fund to pay for their pension. A glass wall transaction in effect Obviously this reduces the funds value, but at the same time reduces the funds liabilities NAPS has been in deficit with the Trustees expectation that BA had a number of years to make good.
This has not happened forcing BA to make emergency payments This will have been a major consideration in BA decision to offer a less than generous VR payments

Christopher Robin

26th Jul 2020, 18:24

Lots of chat on voluntary redundancy just wondered what package has been negotiated for those made compulsory redundant ?

M.Mouse

26th Jul 2020, 23:08

I believe it is the statutory minimum which is capped at £16,140. There was no negotiation.

Jumpjim

27th Jul 2020, 06:43

That is not correct.

Abbey Road

27th Jul 2020, 08:33

If it is incorrect, how about explaining why it is incorrect?

777JRM

27th Jul 2020, 08:49

Walnut

I believe the pension is only safe when you reach the nominated age for drawing it, ie, 55 or 60.

No money is transferred out unless a member has used an IFA to request a CETV transfer.
The ‘pot’ stays with BA Pensions who are very good investors.

TURIN

27th Jul 2020, 11:37

Christopher Robin

Statuatory plus Pay In Lieu Of Notice (PILON).

That figure will depend on your age, how many years worked at different ages plus the notice period. Three months seem to be the norm here. Gov website has a calculator that will work it out for you. I was quite surprised that even though I have been in full time employment for forty years I hadn't hit the cap.

M.Mouse

27th Jul 2020, 16:00

Jumpjim

So what is incorrect?

The compulsory redundancy pay, as I understand it, is the statutory minimum redundancy payment.

TURIN states that it is plus PILON. PILON is just that, payment instead of of working your notice period, which is not redundancy pay.

I believe my statement is correct that compulsory redundancy payment is the statutory minimum unless you know otherwise.

Walnut

27th Jul 2020, 16:43

777JRM

I believe you are wrong when a person draws a pension either through early retirement eg ill health, NRA, or VR as is the case here the pension becomes crystallised. The money does indeed stay in the scheme BUT it is ring fenced, so if the scheme is in deficit as NAPS is then the employer has to make good the individuals shortfall. As I suspect the majority of the VR’s are over 55 and in NAPS, BA will have a cost here
One consideration is if BA folds and NAPS moves into the PPS, these pensions already in payment are protected fully, only any future index linking would be capped
if a person requests a CETA then the sum available will be reduced if a scheme is in deficit.

UnfortunateInversion

27th Jul 2020, 18:10

Hard to know how to feel about all this collapse now.
Back in the days of FPP I almost got in, and am still pretty certain the deciding factor in my failure was being mid 30s and unmarried - as they specifically asked the question about whether working short hall from Gatwick would suit my young family.
The next year I didn't even get invited to the flight school assessment, which kind of suggests I scored a black mark.
Feels like a lucky reprieve now. Would almost certainly have just lost my job with a chunk of the training loan left to pay and be so out of date on my other world skill set as to be unemployable in the current environment.
Looks like those who keep their jobs will be on significantly lower salaries too - compounding the reduced salary bands when I was applying.
Funny how you think something was a disaster, then it turns out a lucky escape.
I also took great pleasure in posting what happened at the team game assessments here after the apparent black balling. Always wondered if they changed the hike through the US desert after that.
And now for those keeping their jobs in the current crisis, what next? If A350s have achieved fully autonomous flight, how long before passengers start to feel automation is safer than human pilots?
Hard to know how to feel about the collapse, but not hard to know how I'd feel about being in it.

777JRM

27th Jul 2020, 18:44

I believe that it is true that ill-health can trigger the pension before age 55.

I hear that, for an individual quote, CETVs have jumped nearly 30% in value since last year.
Apparently this is based on the future bond/gilt yields, and might encourage pilots to transfer out now, just in case BA does fold.

Walnut

27th Jul 2020, 19:23

It’s also has under funding. as a major driver, if someone wants to leave then the money he takes out is what his individual share is of the scheme. If these numbers you quote are true then the scheme is in serious default
A pilot who takes VR which is accepted by BA could be making a wise decision as it’s BA making up the shortfall
With a few years to NRA or 60yrs then his pension is locked in

Kanyon

28th Jul 2020, 06:50

Stuart Sutcliffe

28th Jul 2020, 07:17

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet, as it is now out there in the public domain, but Len McCluskey, UNITE's Gen Sec, yesterday wrote to Alex Cruz, CEO at BA, and threatened industrial action:

Dear Alex,

I am in receipt of your email dated 26 July and I am both staggered and offended by your arrogance.

In the opening paragraph you state “it has taken this long for you to realise and accept this”. This reference infers that I am only now understanding the financial difficulties that British Airways face. How dare you suggest such a thing. I have attempted for months to try to get you to understand the need to treat your workers with respect and dignity and this is the only way to get through this pandemic together. It is your staff, not you, that have for many years, built the good name of British Airways and contributed billions of pounds to its profitability year on year.

Your decision to adopt a scorched earth strategy with a ‘Fire and Rehire’ approach was always despicable. You and your management team have dragged the good name of British Airways through the mud. Have you ever asked yourself why so many MPs from all parties, at the highest level, have condemned British Airways or why newspaper and media outlets have been appalled at your actions? Perhaps you don’t understand that the British sense of ‘Fair Play’ runs deep in the psyche of the British people.

I am advised that no sooner are certain issues on process agreed then the company management renege on them, it beggars the question as to who is running the show – so much so that it is my intention to seek meetings with Antonio Vazquez Romero and IAG.

Also, please don’t insult me by asking ”how many of my members I have spoken to?” When you know full well that you have received thousands of heartfelt emails from your staff that you have ignored and or deleted without even reading. My shop stewards and reps speak to members constantly, dealing with the stress, anxiety and heart ache caused by your management style and strategy. Instead of criticising Unite reps, you should actually listen to them, instead of pretending to do so in order that you can tick some consultative process box and you might, at long last, realise that the only way to have a lasting peace and avoid months/years of industrial unrest is to work with us to achieve an acceptable way forward.

You have now published a timetable to Fire and Rehire thousands of your workforce on 7 August, we will work every hour between now and then, to convince you not to do so.

You can take this letter as our commitment to do that. However, you can also take this an intention to defend our members by moving towards industrial action with immediate effect.

Yours sincerely,

Len McCluskey
General Secretary"

Atlantic Explorer

28th Jul 2020, 07:39

Yeah, that’s exactly what the company needs right now and the perfect solution to the crisis. Good one Len. :ugh:

Not my job mate

28th Jul 2020, 08:33

Unite only know one way to negotiate and that is to threaten strike action.

777JRM

28th Jul 2020, 08:46

And yet, in the past, this kind of action has yielded results for them?

I remember when the pilots agreed to take a 2.61% pay cut, after the financial crisis I think, and some other groups managed to avoid it.

Remember WW saying ‘a reasonable man gets nowhere in negotiations’.

wiggy

28th Jul 2020, 09:39

VR update:

BA said people would be notified last week wether their VR would be granted or not.

That then changed to being notified this week.

It is now changed to be no later than 17th Aug, a mere two weeks notice of wether you will be flying a BA jet on 1st Sept or not.

I hear it's been similar for the small tranche leaving 31st July:

Permission to leave only confirmed by e-mail mid July.

Actual leaving instructions only e-mailed out end of last week.

PC767

28th Jul 2020, 09:56

Its rapidly becoming the only choice available. BA’s actions are not about saving the company during Covid, there are about using Covid as cover to dramatically restructure the business and massively increase future profits/bonuses/dividends.

From my non-pilot point if view the enhanced VR is nothing more than CR + PILON + a few quid. There is no negotiating on T&Cs, just consultation on redundancy numbers. The intention is to fire and rehire from August 7th. Frankly the ‘new’ job isn’t worth having, financially, physically and morally.

I have been placed in a position, along with many other colleagues, of having little to lose but lots to maintain by taking action. Using Covid the smash T&Cs has been a huge mistake, it could potentially cost the business much more than was necessary.

BALPA recommended their deal. Where is it? When is the ballot? What has happened, is all not well?

M.Mouse

28th Jul 2020, 10:47

The ballot is out. BALPA have negotiated from a position of weakness, i.e. against a ruthless and uncaring employer holding all the cards, and they appear to have done the best job possible.

I understand that BALPA wanted to explore methods of retaining ALL pilots with the entire pilot body making sufficient sacrifices like pay reductions, part-time, etc. but apart from the 300 retained in the Community Retention Scheme(CRS) BA intend making the rest of the surplus redundant. The reasons for this intransigence are unclear but possibly BA not wanting to see the pilots, uniquely amongst all workgroups, not suffering compulsory redundancies (CR). Who knows?

After some adjustment for disciplinary record and performance issues and a couple of other tweaks the criteria for CR then comes down to LIFO. The defence of LIFO is well understood but has the perverse effect of ridding the company of the cheapest pilots, retaining the most expensive and, for those on redundant fleets, allocating conversion courses to them. There is a double whammy for some of the junior vulnerable group because they are being cast adrift with their training loans which paid for their BA training.

Like all redundancies it is a worrying and distressing time for a few hundred unlucky people.

wiggy

28th Jul 2020, 11:12

Its rapidly becoming the only choice available. BA’s actions are not about saving the company during Covid,

M. Mouse has summed the situation with regard to BALPA quite nicely.

Meanwhile:

The BA Long haul Fleets are carrying not a lot of pax ATM and there's stuff all sign of a major recovery, particularly on the highly important North Atlantic.

Load factors on Short haul flights can be missleading since most routes are running at reduced daily frequency. In addition HMG's actions over the weekend will not have help passenger confidence and forward bookings.

Given the above surely even the most pro-Union, least receptive to the management POV individual must realise that BA, like pretty much any airline not offered state aid, is actually in a genuine "fight for survival";) ?

UNITE/BASSA have did not help themselves by not engaging with the company but here we go again, crunch time and..it's all BA's fault.

Sounds like a bit of a case of if in doubt fall back on using the only tool in the toolbox you are used to using, regardless of whether it's an appropriate device or not.

Good luck using the hammer but watch you don't hit your thumb.

Cloud1

28th Jul 2020, 11:34

I am sorry but I find Len’s letter totally unacceptable and pretty childish. Obviously I say that without seeing Alex’s email to Len but the whole thing screams playground school kids rather than professional organisation.

Industrial action at a time where we need to get as many planes in the sky as possible is extremely damaging. Whilst the threat may be there with a view that it will seek some results, going ahead with it may well be one of the final nails in the coffin and will not deliver any empathy from other employees caught in the firing line.

I honestly don’t know that there is a solution to suit all but going on strike is not the answer in my opinion.

PC767

28th Jul 2020, 12:33

The situation for Unite was that BA wanted only to consult on job loses. By not engaging in meaningful consultation Unite bought time for the leverage campaign to have effect and to delay the fire and rehire for staff. We would have been removed on the 15th June.

Once Unite found ground to meet BA, BA engaged in consultation, not negotiation - a significant difference and now the BA proposal to slash T&Cs is set for 7th August.

We all understand that Covid is a major issue which a huge detrimental effect upon airlines and we are prepared to do what we can, within reason to help. BA are not interested, they’ve seen and seized the opportunity to create a permanently cheap labour force. Nothing temporary about it. What, I ask genuinely not acerbically, T&Cs did BALPA negotiate away. Was it the total destruction of variable pay, the striping of seniority, the need to reapply for the roles crew have undertaken for years, a harsh sickness and absence routine, a change of route flying, loss of days off, etc etc.

I am no fan of industrial action but BA only sought to tick consultation boxes and to implement destructive changes to staff terms and pay.

WHBM

28th Jul 2020, 17:26

BA’s actions are not about saving the company during Covid, there are about using Covid as cover to dramatically restructure the business and massively increase future profits/bonuses/dividends.
From the outside it does look like that.

In our own business, principal cost salaries, we have taken salary reductions, on a sliding scale from the lowest paid staff (no change) to the top management (over 50%), this to be temporary until positive cash flow is restored. Who knows, we might have to take a further reduction. Emphasised as temporary, and not to score some future advantage. And you take all the team with you.

BA's actions look similar to what a past generation called "war profiteers".

White Van Driver

29th Jul 2020, 04:17

I believe it is the statutory minimum which is capped at £16,140. There was no negotiation.

we were not given the calculation, but some clever people back-calculated to find that the VR offer was statutory minimum + PILON + 10% annual salary.

But the kicker is that the PILON doesn't get pension contributions (as a CR notice period would).

This reduces the effective uplift to around 3 weeks (depends on which pension you are on).

So VR ≈ CR + 3 weeks pay

kungfu panda

29th Jul 2020, 08:38

If as I understand, BA are losing nearly a Billion pounds a month it will not continue as a going concern. Nothing will change in the near term. If the vaccine is successful and distributed quickly and herd immunity is established then demand may start returning for next summer. That is the optimistic view. There are a lot of IF's e.g. anti vaxiners, lack of efficacy, demand itself etc.

My opinion is that the UK will need a national Airline going into Brexit. Therefore I think that BA will be re-nationalised.

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 08:59

Doubt it. The shareholders, such as Qatar, might have a say about that.
Besides it would be a minefield since BA is embedded in a TopCo called IAG, based in Spain.

I wouldn’t trust the UK government to run a bath, let alone an airline.
They should stick with what they’re good at: raising taxes and changing their minds every two weeks.

kungfu panda

29th Jul 2020, 09:08

You're dreaming if pinning hopes to Qatar. They'll be the first to bail out. Like they did with Air Italy which Qatar had high expectations, they expected it to become the new Italian National carrier. They were forced to bail out of Cargolux because of the unions, who couldn't accept conditions which Qatar wanted to apply. Qatar will want to make money at your expense, they're no white knight and they're not particularly nice guys. Do me a favour, forget Qatar. The nationalisation is much more likely.

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 09:53

Qatar are no worse than BA ‘Management Committee’.

esscee

29th Jul 2020, 10:51

Phrase "Devil and the deep blue sea" springs to mind!

kungfu panda

29th Jul 2020, 11:04

Yes but it's not realistic. Qatar certainly want equity for any cash put in, they absolutely don't want junk bonds. The current market capitalisation is £3.7B. As a non EU state, Qatar can own 49% of IAG, they currently own 25%. Therefore if you issued, by further rights issue, shares which Qatar could buy, that cash could not exceed £1B. That's 1 additional month of survival.

The most likely future outcome is nationalisation.
OR
The Norwegian NAS outcome... You can read about that on the other thread

M.Mouse

29th Jul 2020, 11:14

White Van Driver

You are quoting VR. My reply was answering the question asking what had been negotiated for CR.

CR is the statutory minimum subject to the cap of £16,140.

autothrottle

29th Jul 2020, 11:24

Be careful with this. Governments that Nationalise tend to streamline more aggressively before selling off. Pay is also cut. Look at Lloyd’s Banking Group in the time that HM treasury effectively part nationalised in 2009, thousands of jobs gone and thousands of positions gone with even more gone when it sold its last tranche of shares.
‘Stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea’ is an accurate analysis.

747-436

29th Jul 2020, 11:30

Looks like BA are going to shut the HQ:

https://www.headforpoints.com/2020/07/29/british-airways-closing-waterside-head-office/

wiggy

29th Jul 2020, 11:32

Be careful with this. Governments that Nationalise tend to streamline more aggressively before selling off. .

Fair warning..I suspect some in the company think somehow they can force re-nationalisation and this will solve all their problems.

wiggy

29th Jul 2020, 11:56

Looks like BA are going to shut the HQ...

And move it to East base at Hatton Cross...

It is our understanding that the airport operations team will move into the British Airways offices at Terminal 5, whilst the global operations team – including senior management – are going into Technical Block C at Hatton Cross.

Rename it Speedbird House and it truly will be back to the future ..

Walnut

29th Jul 2020, 12:32

I believe the idea that the airline is in danger of nationalisation is credible. After all the trains buses and tube system are effectively being Government funded with very few passengers. Various countries eg Germany are taking equity stakes in exchange for funding.
Once Brexit takes place IAG will have to be broken up if BA is going to be allowed to function freely in the U.K. It is planning to sell Waterside so clearly it is in a deep hole as the cash raised, assuming it is saleable, is only going to be minimal
The UK will need a national carrier with the two contenders Virgin and EasyJet unable to provide the complete coverage needed. What might make the Government pause is the potential for an almost financial bottomless pit

kungfu panda

29th Jul 2020, 12:39

That is exactly what I think. There two of us, almost a done deal...

M.Mouse

29th Jul 2020, 13:18

Once Brexit takes place IAG will have to be broken up if BA is going to be allowed to function freely in the U.K.

Please explain because you clearly know something we don't.

kungfu panda

29th Jul 2020, 13:29

IAG will be broken up. Not sure that it'll have anything to do with Brexit but each country will want to save their national carrier. I imagine that the British government will foresee a need to have a national carrier post "transition ".
I mean, how can they plan on trade with the far reaches of the commonwealth and the world without a practical Airline.

I think that we are rapidly going beyond the point of believing that IAG can survive in it's own right. Maybe some are still clinging to hope.

wiggy

29th Jul 2020, 13:44

I imagine that the British government will foresee a need to have a national carrier post "transition ".

The danger is any assumption (if there is one ) that that carrier would have to be "rump" BA.

Given BA's popularity with the general public one vote winner might be Virgin for long Haul, some iteration of Easyjet to pick up Short Haul?

I get very uneasy with the rhetoric I'm hearing from some of my cabin crew friends that the government won't let BA go/BA fail. I hasten to add I don't think we are anywhere near that ATM but there's some dangerous talk doing the rounds.

M.Mouse

29th Jul 2020, 14:01

I read a lot of fanciful guesswork but you have written nothing based on hard facts,

kungfu panda

29th Jul 2020, 14:13

Hard fact: Company losing £31m per day
Hard Fact: Summer passenger numbers/Recovery less than hoped
Hard Fact: Distribution of a Vaccine will not be before the end of Q1 2021
Hard Fact: BA has 5 months worth of Cash
Hard Fact: If successful a rights issue will raise £2.8B giving an additional 3 months cash

What do you mean, there are insufficient hard facts? Guesswork? The writing is on the wall, the same as it was with Norwegian.

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 15:07

These aren’t hard facts.
BA have stated a cash-burn of £20m per day.
The rest is speculation.

HZ123

29th Jul 2020, 15:12

Every time I see the daily loss figures they appear to go up by another million or so?

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 15:14

kungfu panda

Who knows?
How did British Leyland work out?

Jaguar Land Rover is a British company, wholly owned by an Indian company, Tata, since 2008 I think.
Looks like the 49% rule is being abused?

kungfu panda

29th Jul 2020, 15:18

777JRM

No, within reason, what I said were clear facts. I understand the need to stick your head in the sand. We did at Norwegian. We could see what was going on from 2015. There was time to digest reality. With BA the situation has happened so fast, there's not been time to overcome the shock and become pragmatic.

Superpilot

29th Jul 2020, 15:43

Norwegian had an unsustainable growth model, low profit margins and extreme bad luck with airframes/engines. Hardly comparable.

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 15:45

Here’s a clear fact:

https://simpleflying.com/british-airways-newquay-pso/

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 15:48

Contradiction?

kungfu panda

29th Jul 2020, 16:43

Norwegian had an unsustainable growth model, low profit margins and extreme bad luck with airframes/engines. Hardly comparable.
They were losing money at a mathematically unsustainable rate with a certain outcome. Totally comparable.

Northern Monkey

29th Jul 2020, 16:54

BA will undoubtedly require a bailout. The only question is will it be public, private or both. Personally my money is on the latter, followed by the former.

The politics are interesting. As others have said, does the government really want Brexit Britain to suffer the embarrassment of its national airline going bust within a couple of months of striking out on its own? Not to mention the practicalities of being an island trading nation with no connections to the outside world. Personally I don’t think the conservatives have the stomach to watch Lufthansa, Air France and others move in and take over at Heathrow, it’s just too much of an embarrassment too early in the project. The politics of providing a bailout are easier in some ways and harder in others. We’re a national disgrace on the one hand but we are (were) highly profitable unlike virgin and while we are owned by a Spanish company, we’re not owned by a billionaire tax exile. Fairly good odds that the taxpayers get their money back eventually too.

Personally I think IAG makes for a fairly enticing medium to long term investment opportunity. Profitability was high before Covid, anyone sensible knows that the demand will return and resume its previous expansion over coming years but we will have slashed the cost base in the meantime. Some fairly chunky returns to be had somewhere down the line potentially. The only question I have as a private investor in the meantime is, how much am I going to be diluted?

The current drastic restructuring of the business has all been done with one eye on these realities. Who do you think the shiny brochures about a different future are designed for? It’s not us! When they eventually go cap in hand to shareholders / HMG they will be able to say, “look, we sacked as many as we reasonably could, we retired the old planes, we gave everyone pay cuts, rewrote contracts, we even closed the headquarters down and sold the artwork for gods sake!”

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 19:13

Not to mention the practicalities of being an island trading nation with no connections to the outside world.

You forgot shipping.
Maritime presence helped create the world’s largest empire.

And it still goes on: have you seen the size of some of these ports, especially in China?!

But I agree: maybe a rights issue, Qatar join in to lower their average price (they say they are in for the long-term), maybe the UK govt too if they spy a profit for the taxpayer.

IAG Cargo appears to be doing well, increasing their prices during Covid, and their LHR facility is as big as T5!
With a monopoly of slots at LHR, I wouldn’t write them off just yet.

Walnut

29th Jul 2020, 19:24

It’s been asked why I believe IAG will not survive Brexit.
At the moment it is an amalgamation of 4 airlines 2 Spanish 1 Irish I British. As such with the British separation then it will be impossible to apportion shares of two different trading regimes.
EU slots are freely exchanged at the moment, When the U.K. leaves slots will become national, after all that is what is being discussed Re fishing rights, with no apparent agreement
So you have 3 airlines in the EU orbit and one standing outside Impossible to reconcile

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 19:53

An example of IAG benefitting from the demise of another carrier:

https://simpleflying.com/aer-lingus-opens-new-regional-base-in-belfast-city/?redir=1

Regarding Brexit fears and shares in different trading regimes, UK companies like Astrazeneca are listed on both the London and New York stock exchanges, so it can be done.

Walnut

29th Jul 2020, 20:51

Yes it is common for companies to trade on different exchanges, but IAG will be a company with two different trading cultures after Brexit. Please explain how revenues could be pooled. I believe the EU and the U.K. will be at loggerheads over this. Which legal jurisdiction will decide, this goes to the heart of the current talks

777JRM

29th Jul 2020, 21:45

I would expect that if IAG pays tax to both the UK and the EU27, then they will work it out.

Dannyboy39

31st Jul 2020, 06:54

IAG lost 4bn EUR in the first half of 2020. It was obvious there are clear financial problems, but still you look at that and have you jaw on the floor. Still close to 1m EUR per HOUR.

https://www.ft.com/content/55a792e3-dd76-4e3a-9c0b-c22bebd9e1df

As a result, they are seeking to recover a lot of this in a rights issue.

Passenger capacity operated in Q2 down 95.3% on 2019 and for the six months down 56.2% on 2019
Second quarter operating loss €1,365 million before exceptional items (2019 operating profit: €960 million)
Operating loss before exceptional items for the half year €1,900 million (2019 operating profit: €1,095 million)
Exceptional charge in the half year of €2,137million on derecognition of fuel and foreign exchange hedges for 2020 and impairment of fleet
Loss after tax before exceptional items for the half year €1,965million, and 2020 statutory loss after tax and exceptional items: €3,806million (2019 profit: €806 million)
Cash of €6,016 million at June 30, 2020 down €667 million on December 31, 2019. Committed and undrawn general and aircraft facilities were €2.1 billion, bringing total liquidity to €8.1 billion, meaning at the current burn rate, they have actual cash for another 9 months, with absolute financing available for another year.

https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Files/I/IAG/press-releases/english/2020/Interim%20Management%20Report%20for%20six%20months%20to%20Ju ne%2030%202020.pdf

Cloud1

31st Jul 2020, 08:05

And it would be nice if the Unions comment on this given that they have been so vocal on BA’s restructuring proposals so far. They are also threatening industrial action to impact the few flights BA are operating.

- Significant losses in revenue and profit
- Restructuring across the entire business with some T&C changes to enable flexibility to get through similar challenges in the future (I.e unpaid leave)
- Mothballing Waterside
- Selling paintwork from lounges for goodness sake

Any other ideas what BA can do to realistically make savings now and importantly sustain those for the next 3 years?

Walnut

31st Jul 2020, 08:06

Yes terrible numbers, hence the rights issue announced by WW today.
When I last looked the share price at 187p puts the company outside the FTSE 100 at a future valuation
Hence BA will find future borrowings will be harder ie not investment grade
Qatar who currently have a 25% share have said they will take up their share, with defaults I can see their share increasing up to 49%, the max allowed
Assuming the January to March period they broke even that means the true cash burn is circa €600 pm so this extra cash buys them 4 months
At this point the airline will be Nationalised but maybe with a twist. Qatar will buy the other half cheaply and come to an arrangement with the U.K. government on ownership

777JRM

31st Jul 2020, 09:04

If BA were to be spun out of IAG and nationalised, why would American Express invest £750m in a multi-year deal with IAG Loyalty?

777JRM

31st Jul 2020, 09:09

Amongst the highlights for the six months announcement was this:

“Based on our current capacity planning scenario, IAG would reach breakeven in terms of Net cash flows from operating activities during quarter 4 2020“

esscee

31st Jul 2020, 09:49

Amongst all this madness, anybody know how many managers are to be "cut". For that matter whether they will have their pay cut or "fire and re-hire" but at a lower pay level?

wiggy

31st Jul 2020, 09:52

And it would be nice if the Unions comment on this given that they have been so vocal on BA’s restructuring proposals so far. They are also threatening industrial action to impact the few flights BA are operating.

I risk appearing picky but even so the point should be made that ATM "the Unions" doesn't include the pilots' association, BALPA.

We are awaiting the ballot result on acceptance or not of measures applicable to the pilot group.

bex88

31st Jul 2020, 11:08

Amongst all this madness, anybody know how many managers are to be "cut". For that matter whether they will have their pay cut or "fire and re-hire" but at a lower pay level?

I am sure there is going to be a absolute blood bath. Closing waterside, get your personal items before the 7th of August. Does anyone really think waterside is coming back? Don’t make this a us and them.

HZ123

31st Jul 2020, 11:30

ESSCEE: Indeed the letters of notice have been or are en route to Cabin Crew and the rest of the BA ground staff. A friend (opps control) of mine should they decide to continue in employ of BA will lose £20000 from their salary. Another CC a more junior staffer will lose £10000. As sad as the complete situation is, it is a mere reflection of what will happen to many employees world wide in all types of employment.

Those quoting returning to profit by whatever date is surely a best / benevolent estimation or an assumption. I fail to to understand where passengers are going to come from when so many will be unemployed or on reduced incomes. I hope there is a return to profit but it can only be a greatly reduced income!

kungfu panda

31st Jul 2020, 11:46

A successful rights issue depends on investors believing that demand will come back prior to the company running out of Cash. That looks increasingly unlikely.
The British government will nationalise the company when it's worth nothing I.e. the shareholders will not get anything. OK OR (ii) the creditors will take control as in the Norwegian case OR (iii) as somebody said, there'll be a deal between Qatar and the UK government to take control.

Qatar taking control is extremely unlikely because Qatar Airways is wholly owned by the Qatar government. I would imagine that the Qatari government wholly owning BA would be politically unpalatable. Air Italy were prevented from extending services to the United States because of the Qatari money involved. That lead directly to the closure of Air Italy. Qatar has received criticism over human rights, the financial backing of terrorist organisations and it's relationship with Iran.

Maxfli

31st Jul 2020, 11:53

"................It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."Winston Churchill (https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/winston-churchill-quotes)

The harsh reality is that the steps taken thus far (across all IAG OpCos) have failed to stem the haemorrhaging of cash.
If revenues remain at their current level, 50% salary will be unsustainable, let alone 80%.

dc9-32

31st Jul 2020, 12:00

BA retiring it's only A318 and so the LCY-SNN-JFK link is lost.

777JRM

31st Jul 2020, 13:28

Some optimism:

“...an additional 1,875 cargo flights operated in quarter 2. Cargo revenue for quarter 2 was a record €369 million, up from €281 million in quarter 2 2019”

Cloud1

31st Jul 2020, 14:41

I risk appearing picky but even so the point should be made that ATM "the Unions" doesn't include the pilots' association, BALPA.

We are awaiting the ballot result on acceptance or not of measures applicable to the pilot group.

Yes quite right to point that out so thank you, I should have been more specific. I understand BALPA have actually been doing something productive rather than damaging the brand on a public and social platform. A much more professional approach.

wiggy

31st Jul 2020, 15:03

Problem now is we are still awaiting the result and there are disturbing rumours starting to circulate that BA moved the goalposts in the last few days/hours.......

CaptainSox

31st Jul 2020, 16:24

Would you kindly share this rumour Wiggy?

BALPA should at least acknowledge a yes or no decision ballot outcome?

All the best to all involved, it truly is terrible.

Cloud1

31st Jul 2020, 16:26

wiggy

I think it’s a similar story with office staff; things may be changing from what was expected. The pessimistic amongst us may think that Unite (and the other unions) approach is going to lead to further job losses elsewhere in the business. The longer this carries on and the longer BA are unable to make any feasible savings in reducing head counts the more ruthless BA will become. As I say that’s the pessimistic view and not one that will be shared by everyone.

I can see them auctioning off things from the museum next.

777JRM

31st Jul 2020, 16:42

CaptainSox

It is possible that the financial results are being used as leverage to change the deal that was voted on?
Shameful.

What next? An even worse ‘deal’ being imposed?

bex88

31st Jul 2020, 17:21

There is no point showing our hand by sharing the result if BA have backed out. If they have changed things then the vote is pointless anyway.

wiggy

31st Jul 2020, 17:23

Would you kindly share this rumour Wiggy?

Not much I can add, other than the membership expected to hear the (electronic) ballot result much earlier today.

Nothing has come out from BALPA.

Current rumour is, as cloud1 has said, is that the situation is changing faster than BA expected and they (BA) now want to change the details of the agreement post ballot closure.....

Drc40

31st Jul 2020, 18:11

Woah...let me get this straight. You negotiate a deal, it’s accepted pending voting approval. Voting occurs to presumably accept said deal then other side says “wait, we change our mind”. Is that it in a nutshell?

wiggy

31st Jul 2020, 18:43

That's the current popular rumour..

The electronic ballot closed 1600 BST last night (Thursday).

Late last night there was a cryptic comment from the Company Council (CC) about a delay in announcing the result because they were "awaiting final agreement documents from BA management"....read into that what you will but a fair few members quiet understandably went :confused: :confused:

Of course it could all be innocuous, and the 24 hour plus delay in announcing the results could be down to IT probs or similar but in the absence AFAIK of any statement from the CC, the mention of awaiting documents last night, and the Q2 figures this AM it's not surprising that rumours about a goal post move or worse still an attempt at a bait-and-switch are doing the rounds.

wiggy

31st Jul 2020, 19:59

Result announced..

85% in favour of accepting proposals..

15% Against

Turnout 87%

No further info on why the delay or if proposals had indeed changed.

Edit to add BALPA Media Release:

Release date: 31/07/2020

Pilots in British Airways have voted to accept the deal negotiated by BALPA in response to BA’s formal notification of 1255 pilot job losses and their threat to fire and rehire the remaining pilots on worse conditions. The deal means that there will be temporary 20% pay cuts reducing to 8% over two years and towards zero over the longer term. Regrettably, there will still be some compulsory redundancies which are currently estimated to be 270 although that number will fall as mitigations take effect. There will be no fire and rehire of pilots.

BALPA General Secretary Brian Strutton said “Our members have made a pragmatic decision in the circumstances but the fact that we were unable to persuade BA to avoid all compulsory redundancies is bitterly disappointing.”

The ballot result was 85% to accept the deal on an 87% turnout. British Airways employs 4300 pilots.

overstress

31st Jul 2020, 20:19

That’s not quite right, Wiggy, the email from the BACC did give more explanation...

wiggy

31st Jul 2020, 20:47

Apologies, the "no further info.... " was bad phraseology by me.

bex88

31st Jul 2020, 20:53

Sound like there has or will be changes. Either now or separately by agreement outside of the vote to get it over the line

Bergerie1

1st Aug 2020, 05:58

A dose of economic reality from today's Times:-

What a way to bow out. Willie Walsh retires on September 24 after 15 years at the controls of first British Airways and then its parent IAG. And look at his parting gift to shareholders: a half-year loss of €4.2 billion pre-tax and confirmation that he’s asking around for €2.75 billion of refuelling.

How’s that for perspective on claims from the Unite union that the BA owner is merely suffering a bout of “temporary” turbulence and that Mr Walsh is relishing the chance to settle old scores with the cabin crew? As he puts it: “The idea that there is some unfinished business is complete nonsense.”

Indeed, if Mr Walsh’s last ever IAG figures aren’t a wake-up call for the Unite boss Len McCluskey, it’s hard to guess what is. Ditto for a bunch of delusional MPs, led by Huw “Make it Up” Merriman, the Tory who’s somehow chairman of the transport committee. No one is happy that a pandemic has forced BA to cut up to 12,000 of its 42,000 staff or that, as a last resort, it would “fire and rehire” the rest on new terms if they won’t agree “reasonable” changes to legacy contracts. Mr Walsh understands “this is distressing for everybody”.

But he’s right that Unite is “blind and deaf to the reality” of this crisis, complete with an absurd threat to strike when most planes are already on the tarmac. So, too, are the 100-plus MPs who’ve joined the union in a kamikaze campaign to strip BA of Heathrow slots. They need to look at the latest figures.

Yes, they include a €1.27 billion hit from “overhedging” fuel that IAG wasn’t using and writedowns on the older planes being retired early. But second-quarter operating losses were a record €1.37 billion. BA, the biggest airline in a group also spanning Iberia and Aer Lingus, was the hardest hit. In the three months to June 30, it lost £711 million. Compare the quarter after 9/11: a loss of £187 million. Or the worst quarter of the financial crisis: £309 million losses.

Covid-19, says Mr Walsh, is an “unprecedented crisis”. To boot, he reckons it will take “until at least 2023 for passenger demand to recover to 2019 levels”. First-half passenger revenue fell 61 per cent. And BA is in the eye of the storm. It’s dependent on long-haul traffic, not least its transatlantic business shuttle where Mr Walsh is braced for a “structural” drop in demand. The half-year results show the hit to BA: from €873 million operating profits to €1.09 billion losses.

The upshot? A group that for all its €8.1 billion liquidity is lugging around €10.5 billion net debt: a vast sum for a business valued at €3.3 billion on shares down 9 per cent to 164¾p. Hence the cash-call. It’s led to IAG’s biggest investor, Qatar Airways with 25.1 per cent, claiming two board seats, even if Mr Walsh insisted it was “not the price” of its “irrevocable” support. Hence, too, the need for restructuring to give IAG a “viable” future and “protect as many jobs as feasible”.

Of course, Mr Merriman thinks Mr Walsh’s efforts at BA a “national disgrace”. But luckily the MP doesn’t run the airline. As Mr Walsh noted, that job requires “doing what’s necessary” even when you “don’t want” to do it. He didn’t want to bow out like this.

Cloud1

1st Aug 2020, 07:58

Says it all. Thanks for sharing 👍🏼

wiggy

1st Aug 2020, 08:00

if Mr Walsh’s last ever IAG figures aren’t a wake-up call for the Unite boss Len McCluskey, it’s hard to guess

It might have had some effect, I'm hearing that there has been some movement in the last few hours on the advice being given to members of UNITE/BASSA.

Probably best if somebody with more insight can confirm, deny, or provide more detail.

Survival Cot

1st Aug 2020, 08:00

Bergerie1

There is no doubt the numbers speak for themselves in pure business terms. Indeed, action is required and will unfold.

However this is not solely about business, it is a company that is portrayed proudly as the British National Flag carrier.

What constitutes the title of “National Flag Carrier” and how to you quantify the benefits??

What part of the very core of BA today is actually British?

In my view the use of “British” does need tighter scrutiny and proportionate
influence/control from the British government as a cost for using our flag. This usage needs to be born in mind when criticising our elected MP’s whom are merely working very hard protecting British values and British jobs.

Dannyboy39

1st Aug 2020, 08:15

You really expect the Tory-backed Times to speak highly of unions - Unite in particular?

Just me who smells a rat? Of course, totally glad that only a few hundred pilot jobs have been cut and paycuts reduced to zero in the medium term, similar to the deal negotiated at RYR. How have we come from a place where there would need to extremely severe long term cuts, to this softer option? Was BAW's bluff called or are others in other departments now going to be shafted accordingly?

Cloud1

1st Aug 2020, 08:29

Change the record Danny. Yes Pilot jobs are being cut as are cabin crew, ground, engineering, office, management. For god sake people need to accept that there will be redundancies as there have been across the entire GLOBE. I really don’t know what else can be said to the tunnel visioned people out there believing BA can afford to keep the same number of staff on the same salaries and with the same conditions.

Cloud1

1st Aug 2020, 08:30

Survival Cot

It is a load of tripe; no one cares that BA isn’t British at the management core when they are expanding and doing well. It is only when times are hard and things change that it suddenly becomes an issue.

777JRM

1st Aug 2020, 08:34

Sure it’s bad, with BA obviously the hardest hit.
When you are making 60-80% of the profit, and everything stops, you fall the furthest.

For anyone with short memories: IAG profits in the last few years, to compare with perhaps the worst economic situation in history that we are now experiencing.

2016: €2.48bn
2017: €3.01bn
2018: €3.23bn
2019: €3.29bn

Not forgetting: special dividend paid out in 2018 of €700m, and the saving from NAPS closure of c.£800m. in 2018, and €1bn spent in share buybacks.

When compared with these numbers, BA’s loss doesn’t seem so bad.
But it will probably worsen for the rest of 2020, especially with the way governments are behaving.

At least IAG Cargo is doing really well, with record revenue.

IAG is still looking at Air Europa, maybe for a reduced price.

There are over 150 potential vaccines in development according to National Geographic.

WW said we would not return to 2019 levels until 2023.
If true, then 2023 should be a bumper year.
We just have to get through 2020-2023 first.

NoelEvans

1st Aug 2020, 08:51

We just have to get through 2020-2023 first.
That sums up just about everyone's position everywhere.

What was, isn't.

Not for quite a while.

parkfell

1st Aug 2020, 09:22

......IAG is still looking at Air Europa, maybe for a reduced price.......
.

Why acquire it at all?

Cast your mind back to RBS expansion which ended in tears.....

Max Angle

1st Aug 2020, 09:41

Going back 74 pages the title of this thread now looks rather optimistic, wouldn't be surprised if this costs 24000 jobs in the end, we are completely and utterly screwed (edited to add) at the moment with no obvious way that we can stem the huge losses in the near future.

stormin norman

1st Aug 2020, 10:14

I wouldn't say screwed, but expect further pay cuts (Temporary hopefully) until a return to profitability.
I'm sure a process was agreed by BALPA if the financial situation was to deteriorate further.

kungfu panda

1st Aug 2020, 11:04

You are burying your head in the sand mate. The share price went down 6% yesterday from a really low base. This is institutions selling while they still have money left. The expectation of a good outcome is only speculative.

777JRM

1st Aug 2020, 11:11

The share price drop was due to the rights issue announcement.
This will probably be approved by shareholders in September.

Since we do not yet know the share-pricing for this, there is uncertainty causing the sell-off.

If they go for fair-value, say £2.50, the share price will likely rise to that level.
Qatar may have a say on the issue price since they are having 2 on the board, and may not wish to suffer too much dilution.

kungfu panda

1st Aug 2020, 11:19

Rights issues sell shares at a discount and not a premium. If you're pinning hopes to a rights issue, that may raise 2 months of Cash, then you're in extreme trouble. The reliance on Qatar shows desperation. Air Italy were not allowed to increase flights to the US due to Qatari money.

777JRM

1st Aug 2020, 11:32

The rights issue has been mulled about for some time, maybe even when the price recently went above 350p, who knows.

Sure it will be at a discount at the time of announcement, then the actual share price will hover at that level.
I expect Qatar and others to pick up some IAG shares at bargain prices, with a longer-term view.

Current liquidity of €8.1 billion isn’t quite ‘desperation’.
Apparently, they have bridged loan facilities for a further year.
The rights issue will increase liquidity by a further c.€3bn.

And they still want to buy another airline?
Hardly ‘fighting for survival’ just yet.

kungfu panda

1st Aug 2020, 11:38

Was it you that told me to deliver hard facts?

The €8.1B includes the rights issue. That is hopeful by itself. Bridging loan, hopeful, at best. Buy another Airline, don't make me laugh.

air pig

1st Aug 2020, 11:47

You really expect the Tory-backed Times to speak highly of unions - Unite in particular?

When did you last read the Times, not recently I'm sure.

777JRM

1st Aug 2020, 11:53

kungfu panda

The rights issue hasn’t happened yet.

Here’s a hard fact (they are not allowed to lie or spin to the City):

"IAG continues to take action to strengthen its balance sheet and liquidity position including more than halving its operating cash costs and significantly reducing its capital spending. At the end of June liquidity stood at €8.1 billion. Based on our current capacity planning scenario, we would reach breakeven in terms of Net cash flows from operating activities during quarter 4 2020.”

FlipFlapFlop

1st Aug 2020, 11:59

I have had it with this thread as I suspect most pilots have. The Armageddon views of several current posters is truly depressing. I cannot imagine why current crew would want to impart such negativity amongst their colleagues unless they either had an ulterior motive or are just plain unpleasant.

kungfu panda

1st Aug 2020, 12:00

777JRM

Yes. At the End of June. It's now August and everything looks a whole lot worse than it did in June. That's why the share price is languishing.
You're talking about a rights issue that raises nearly the total market Capitalisation of IAG. That is unrealistic. If Qatar put in that kind of money, it's shareholding would be upwards of 70%.

kungfu panda

1st Aug 2020, 12:23

BA will survive maybe as a result of the combined effort of Qatar and the British government. It will not survive in it's own right as a going concern. The Qatar money maybe a big issue to the Americans.

777JRM

1st Aug 2020, 12:27

kungfu panda

Qatar may be legally limited to how much of IAG they can own.

This implies that other institutions will be able to take part in the rights issue.

Walnut

1st Aug 2020, 12:32

I believe the rights issue is because the Board realise that it’s the cheapest way to gain some more time.
As WW has repeatedly stated the company has barely 20% revenue at the moment, with L/H to the states almost zero.
They have a willing buyer in Qatar so the issue should be funded. Someone has mentioned why Qatar? I believe it’s because they too have problems with the Saudi over flight ban, they have plenty of cash and are always looking to diversify. Look at their huge investments in the City. So this is not a normal transaction, just pragmatic for both parties.

kungfu panda

1st Aug 2020, 12:34

777JRM

Yes absolutely. Qatar will put in €800m. IAG want to raise €2.7B.

But the share price is dropping fast because institutions are selling, not because of the rights issue. If the rights issue actually went ahead the shares right now are probably worth around 90p.

lear999wa

1st Aug 2020, 15:50

I'm an outsider looking in. But let me get this straight. Ba pilots have accepted a paycut, meanwhile Ba owner Aig is still proceeding with the acquisition of Air Europa. It looks like you guys have been hustled. And I thought that the french were the surrender artist's.

hec7or

1st Aug 2020, 17:03

Yes but whatever the rights and wrongs of the deal, mergers and acquisitions are normally made via lease, leverage or share offers whereas salary comes out of revenue....now read the previous posts about revenue.

TURIN

1st Aug 2020, 21:30

Perhaps if BA had approached this whole afair in a more professional manner we would be further towards a solution now instead of banging heads. Remember, the opening salvo to this was BA announcing 12000 plus compulsory redundancies and further redundancies for everyone else with an offer of a new contract on vastly inferior pay and T & Cs.
If, just if they had got around the table first, talked about the problem and discussed solutions in an open and honest exchange as has happened during previous crisis we could have avoided all this animosity and come out of this with a bit of pride and a spirited attitude to the future. But no, what we have is a bitter, dissalusioned workforce who will either walk away next week despising their previous employer or you will have the chosen ones, equally bitter and angry but forced into accepting their lot as their is no alternative.

Remember it wasn't so long ago that BA was sending everyone pin badges and invites to '100 year' celebrations because "our people are our biggest asset". What a crock!

This could have been handled so much better. Only one person is to blame.

777JRM

1st Aug 2020, 22:44

Maybe a few others are complicit too - those gangsters known as ‘Management Committee’.

Agree with the above: the actions of a bully.
BA seems to like picking fights: pilots, cabin crew, engineers, ground crew, government, even its own customers, have been victims.

kungfu panda

2nd Aug 2020, 04:07

The current version of BA is in it's death throws. The only way to have saved it would have been to furlough 80% of staff indefinitely and quickly, without any discussion. Which of course would be legal in the U.S. but is not in the UK. If they had done that then they would already be calling people back from furlough.

wiggy

2nd Aug 2020, 06:54

To paraphrase a former colleague (I believe he's one of those who has taken VR): the management at the company has spent years terrorising it's staff with threats of job cuts - the "T "word was definitely used.

It's been the management style for a long long time and it has resulted in Unions whose first response to claims of a crisis is the company is crying wolf..and that in turn has resulted in the banging of heads that TURIN mentioned.

The whole management/union dynamic has been one of perpetual confrontation/low level conflict, even when the billion plus euro/STG profits were briefly rolling in.

RetiredBA/BY

2nd Aug 2020, 08:38

Actually I think TWO are to blame, W and C.

777JRM

2nd Aug 2020, 09:17

Wiggy

Correct.
When the profits rolled in: sorry folks, nothing for you, but AC gets a 61% raise.
When the economy tanks: sorry folks, YOU have to suffer, because WE spent the money on share buybacks, special dividends, fines for incompetence, and fuel-hedging.

SaulGoodman

2nd Aug 2020, 09:51

Be extremely aware when Qatar wants to increase it share in IAG. Expect maintenance to move to Doha, expect all kinds of nasty things to occur. At the end of the day they only look at their own interests. And then you have the geopolitical issues between Qatar and the rest of the gulf on top of it.

777JRM

2nd Aug 2020, 10:27

It’s a bit late for London property then.

kungfu panda

2nd Aug 2020, 11:47

You're still thinking about Qatar as a white knight. You need to read other people's experiences with these guys. The culture of the company will be toxic like you've never seen before. And forget BALPA, they certainly won't talk to those guys.
They want BA for the North Atlantic routes. The Americans don't want more Qatar flights.

TURIN

2nd Aug 2020, 11:54

Its already moved out of LHR. No heavy maintenance anymore. No paint shop. TBA a once cutting edge workshop and hangar facility is now a Sim school. CraneBank, gone.
TBD, a world class engine overhaul and test facility, bulldozed. TBE, Stores for a private company. TBB, workshops and Concorde maintenance hangar, gone.
Very sad and shorted sighted of consecutive management policy.

777JRM

2nd Aug 2020, 13:17

kungfu panda

Nonsense.
You misunderstood the point that they are buying up London property.

They are no saviour at all.
Do they not support terrorist groups to destabilise the region?

GKOC41

2nd Aug 2020, 16:04

BA Director of People has gone according to CH Aviation does that help

3Greens

2nd Aug 2020, 16:41

I see the headline but no actual story.? Is that a credible website?

777JRM

2nd Aug 2020, 16:51

BA Director of People has gone according to CH Aviation does that help

Not really.

The COO stated that even if CV19 hadn’t happened, he would be ‘coming after’ the staff anyway.

How nice.

3Greens

2nd Aug 2020, 17:41

BA Director of People has gone according to CH Aviation does that help

just to add, is this Angela Williams? Who was to leave this year anyway? Or her replacement who came from IAG cargo? If the former then it’s old news, the latter would be more errr, interesting.

777JRM

2nd Aug 2020, 19:07

The latter.

clipstone1

3rd Aug 2020, 09:23

BA have already won against the crew. Accept VR before close today, if you don't, you'll be considered for a role on the new mixed fleet contract at c50% wage cut. if you are not selected for new contract, you will get statutory redundancy not the enhanced VR. if you are offered the new contract but decline, you may not be eligible for redundancy at all (don't believe this to be legal, pretty sure redundancy would need to be paid anyway)

standard BA bullying, but from what I hear, significant numbers of legacy crew have already taken he VR.

3Greens

3rd Aug 2020, 09:57

I wouldn’t describe it as “BA has won”. Sure the companies attitude has been a disgrace from the start, but the crew have been extremely badly advised by their union. Advised to ignore all emails and comms from BA, UNITE refusing to meet BA etc, then last week a massive. Climb down and told all crew to read emails and to consider the VR offer? Coupled with an extremely aggressive letter from Len to Cruz, threatening industrial action! Industrial action Len? Really? Your MF colleagues have been signing contracts and Completing the online assessments for weeks and taking up the slots that the legacy crews have been advised not to consider.
UNITE are one trick ponies and Len Mclusky will abandon it now and move on as he has been out manoeuvred from day1.

autothrottle

3rd Aug 2020, 11:22

clipstone1

I’m sorry to say , it is legal. Been done in BT , HSBC and Centrica owned British Gas going through it now.
Good luck to all at the moment.

stormin norman

3rd Aug 2020, 11:47

3Greens

Nobody wins out of this one. The Company,Staff and Shareholders .

I think the Staff Unions failure to bargain collectively has let the members down.

74woko

3rd Aug 2020, 12:20

Looks like it might finally be the end for 'BASSA runs BA, darling'.

777JRM

3rd Aug 2020, 15:07

Along with the signing of a new deal between IAG Cargo and Malaysia, the free money from the UK taxpayer to IAG for operating the Newquay service (not forgetting furlough cash), here’s a possible windfall of £163m for IAG.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/02/ba-expects-pay-just-20m-data-breach/

wiggy

3rd Aug 2020, 21:51

Looks like it might finally be the end for 'BASSA runs BA, darling'.

Well it certainly looks like many of the more senior crew members have seen the writing on the wall in the last few days and have opted for VR...looking at the appropriate farcebook page I can see that it looks like a lot of good people are going or have already gone.

Dave

7th Aug 2020, 18:16

Bit of a long post, bear with me.......

So I'd say the redundancies are purely "political" and could have been avoided.

Lets say we're losing to CR 270 pilots basically on LIFO (assuming almost no one has conduct issues, and very few have performance issues).

So 270 x 50,000 salary = 13.5 million a year. (50,000 chosen as whilst some will be pay point 1 or 2 DEPs, many of these will be self sponsored or future pilot programme, so their basic is not a lot more than 30k,)

Well 13.5 million is only just over half a day's cash burn (according to Willie) so point 1 is that it will hardly save the company.

Point 2 - Flight Ops did not avail themselves of any of the Government's money through the Job Retention Scheme (furlough). Now regardless of whether BA decided to "top-up" as they did with Cabin Crew etc, the fact of the matter is that they could have easily furloughed 3000+ pilots (given the flying programme to date) for up to 8 months, so:

3000 pilots x 2500 per month x 8 months = 60 million direct to BA from the Government "for free".....

That's the 270 CR pilot's salary for 4.4 YEARS!!!

So if we'd used the Government money, we could've afforded to keep these 270 pilots on for the next 4.4 years! Makes you think doesn't it!!!

And now a couple of questions...

Question 1 - So we are putting 300 in a Community Retention scheme at a cost to the remaining pilots of circa 8%.... What then happens if there are further redundancies required in the future in the event of passenger traffic not recovering... Do the new redundancies (mainly more senior than the CRS 300) get pushed out to compulsory redundancy, or do they replace the 300 in the CRS? There's no right or wrong answer, but has it been considered? I don't think it has!

Question 2 - Given the CRS is likely to be including a fair number of "surplus" Captains, the "cost per head" in the CRS is likely to be quite high. Given the 270 redundancies are likely mainly pay point 1 or 2 SSPs and FPPs with a few pp1/2 DEPs, surely the extra cost of including them in the CRS could've only been an extra 2-3%? So would we have been willing to make the "cost" of the CRS 10-11% instead of 8%? Especially as it should reduce over time I would think most would say yes?

Question 3 - Why do we have just CRS and compulsory redundancy? Why not have the 300 CRS and then when someone returns to BA there is a vacancy in the CRS for one of the pay point 1/2 ppl who's been made CR to at least get some funding? Ok it would mean the 8% doesn't drop, but given the CRS only runs for two years, again maybe we as a community would've accepted this?

Question 4 - What is there to stop a 55-60+ pilot taking CRS for up to two years (say from 747 fleet), being offered a course on another fleet and turning it down and deciding to retire? The pilot community will then have funding this person for two years when they knew they wouldn't return and just wanted to max their cash before retiring?

Sorry for the long post, but I do wonder if BALPA have fully thought this through? I find it interesting that the reps doing the negotiating have made very sure that their particular demographic (fleet, paypoint) is well looked after, even if it means some other demographics suffer!!! (But then wasn't that always the way with BALPA?)

wiggy

7th Aug 2020, 18:53

Your comment about CR being political is valid and I suspect the whole pilot community is aware of that. I'm afraid given the long history of "the BA way" when it comes to various employee groups at BA looking over the fence and seeing how other groups are treated I can see why it has happened but yes it sucks.

I think your Q4 is valid one, I've not seen anything to prevent somebody behaving in the way you describe but I may have missed it in all the "traffic" on this whole subject.

3Greens

7th Aug 2020, 19:15

there’s nothing to stop it at all, BUT I doubt it will happen in practise. Chances are they’ve passed up the offer of VR to do so, and if they’re offered an early course, and turn it down; they leave the business. They’ll have gambled on the VR sum and lost. To make it work they’d have to stay in the CRS for the whole two years to even break even.
so, whilst there’s nothing to stop it, I just can’t see anyone taking that gamble.

GS-Alpha

7th Aug 2020, 20:56

Point 4 just will not happen for the motives you suggest. An individual would have been better off taking the VR. I think there will be some attrition with people finding better alternatives and deciding not to return to BA though. I am highly likely to end up in the CRS, but I for one will be spending the time working on embarking on a new career. I have not got enough working years left in me to sit about pinning all my hopes on BA actually make good on their promise, and allowing me to return to flying two years plus down the line. If my new chosen career suits me better by the time BA decide to invite me back, I cannot see me staying loyal to BA. If the new career isn’t working out as I hoped, then I’ll gladly take the offered course.