IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs

[bex88]

The whole thing is stupid. In the uk the infection rate is 517 per 100,000 and where I live as of this morning 572. Why is everyone so fearful? The government quarantine policy any country with more than 20 cases per 100,000 must be quarantined is protecting nobody and damaging the wider economy, not just aviation. By that logic the whole of the uk should be quarantined. Government policy is driven by the media and nervous nellies. One of my parents is shielding and rightly so, however they are not demanding that everyone else shield too.

should I go to work tomorrow or quarantine? After all cases are above 20 per 100,000. By the same logic as a male under 50 with no underlying health conditions I am more likely to be killed driving to work than by Covid. Perhaps I should quarantine my car until that statistic improves too.

To continue the same response now more is known is only going to do great economic and social hardship.

[TURIN]

Could we please take the covid discussion to the various threads already running in JB please. Leave this for the BA staff redundancy discussion.

[GS-Alpha]

I see BALPA are still suggesting that the only C744 in the CRS are those who did not bid for short haul which is false.

They also state “Some C744 move to C32L; likewise P744 to P32L”.
The first half kind of implies no C744s move to P32L, and the second half is completely untrue. No P744s have a successful move to P32L. In MD’s post on the forum, it was possibly a typing error, but to repeat it again in the official newsletter suggests they are purposefully trying to make the deal seem better for the 747 community than it actually is. There are C744s in the CRS who bidded aspirationally for absolutely everything and therefore, together with most of the P744s, were beaten to a seat by the Gatwick pilots. BALPA are suggesting otherwise and it is untrue.

[RexBanner]

There are C744s in the CRS who bidded aspirationally for absolutely everything and therefore, together with most of the P744s, were beaten to a seat by the Gatwick pilots. BALPA are suggesting otherwise and it is untrue.

Devil’s advocate here (and vested interest) but because Gatwick and Heathrow were split into different fleets you were going to end up with more senior pilots getting shafted either way. The Gatwick fleet is moving up the road to Heathrow to form part of an expanded LHR Airbus fleet. It would be a complete nonsense to move the aircraft and the routes but tell Gatwick pilots that they weren’t allowed to fly them. I think the P&P word for that situation occurring would have been displacement.

More senior Gatwick pilots were originally going to be told that they couldn’t displace junior Heathrow pilots flying the same aircraft. Yet in the same breath they should sit quiet whilst being told that more senior 747 pilots were not only being retrained to fly their aircraft but being pay protected into the bargain? That would have utterly shafted the Gatwick Airbus pilots, who let’s remember are type rated on a BA fleet in operation and currently flying from Heathrow. The 747 lot are not. I’m all for seniority but it didn’t apply when it came to displacement we were told. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

The whole thing is an utter buggers’ muddle.

[Busdriver01]

The deal isn’t good for anyone. Round two is coming and paying for lifo won’t work a second time. If I were putting my money on it I’d say balpa now know this and are just trying to calm the masses before big bad BA come along and swing the axe again.

[GS-Alpha]

Rex, there is no need to play devils advocate. My beef is not with what has happened, it is with the fact that BALPA are misleading the community, by spinning the truth and also actively telling porkies about the result.

[RexBanner]

With that I wholeheartedly agree. LIFO applies unless you’re a 787 or A350 pilot (you don’t need to have even started the training) or you’ve been a pilot
for a subsidiary airline or you’re an FO on the Jumbo.

[GS-Alpha]

Which Jumbo FOs had any kind of immunity to LIFO?

[RexBanner]

You misunderstood. I’m just saying that they’ve not received the protections of LIFO in the MOA that listening to Balpa would have you believe have been upheld as part of the deal. There are several groups to which the “general principle of last in first out” from the MOA has been played fast and loose.

[GS-Alpha]

Oh I see what you mean. Yes that is true.

[Le Chiffre]

I struggle to see the future looking anything like we thought it would at the start of the year.

The need for business travel has drastically reduced and most people are doing things remotely that they would previously have done in person before.

The days of managers and directors travelling from London to LA 3 times a year for meetings are probably over, now they have got used to the idea of doing this over Zoom at no cost. The likes of Google used to book out half of Vegas for conferences and fly thousands of people in from all over the world. I can't see this happening again any time soon, but it may eventually return, perhaps. My O/H used to work in Berlin, flying out on Mon morning and returning to London on Thu night to WFH on Fri. This has long since stopped with no sign of ever resuming - she is doing everything from home.

The issue is basic economics for any large airline. Supply will massively outstrip demand for the forseeable future. Running at 20-30% capacity and losing £20 million a day is not sustainable.

Unless the confidence to travel can quickly be restored round 2 of compulsory redundancies is a virtual certainty. If they are operating on LIFO (which has to be done very carefully in order to be legal) then anyone with under 5 years on short-haul is probably 'in the zone'.

[CW247]

A lot of business travel is for generating sales leads and meeting with customers. You simply don't risk missing out on a business deal worth 10k+ to save on a flight ticket. Your competition might view things differently and you will always lose out.

WFH will end up being the silent killer of our economy if we're not careful. The impact on small businesses in city centres is already causing concern and you can tell that the government's stance is changing.

[Survival Cot]

You misunderstood. I’m just saying that they’ve not received the protections of LIFO in the MOA that listening to Balpa would have you believe have been upheld as part of the deal. There are several groups to which the “general principle of last in first out” from the MOA has been played fast and loose.This thread proves time and time again how unprepared and out of date the MOA is for a redundancy situation, lacking any detail leaving it open for these diametrically opposed debates.

Sadly another bout of redundancy is a real possibility. The agreements made on the first round try to appease those with strong LIFO views resulting with employees directly paying for CRS & retraining costs. Neither of these initiatives feature in the MOA resulting in cost zero for the employer.

The root cause was an arrogant view that BA never makes pilots redundant. This attitude created a lack of a clear a written agreement/process hence the mess and infighting.

If there is further pressure on society as Covid bites even more, further redundancy without clarity of process is a real possibility. More infighting will no doubt ensue.

There is with any debate, pockets of animosity, hopefully isolated to the few, for me my focus is anything I can do for the vulnerable as this crisis deepens....

[RexBanner]

Unless the confidence to travel can quickly be restored round 2 of compulsory redundancies is a virtual certainty. If they are operating on LIFO (which has to be done very carefully in order to be legal) then anyone with under 5 years on short-haul is probably 'in the zone'.

Which would leave close to 80% of the Airbus First Officers redundant. Given how BA protected the 787 & A350 fleets due to a perceived inability to lose any pilots off the fleet and run the schedule I struggle to see how they would countenance having to fill 400+ positions on a fleet that is doing the bulk of the flying at the moment. I’m not saying that the Airbus fleet will end up classed as a “high efficiency” fleet this time around but - given the plan is to protect the LHR slots with this very aircraft - it’s a lot more likely than last time.

In short there can be absolutely zero confidence in how a theoretical Round 2 would play out. Are Balpa willing to sacrifice more pay for a bastardized version of Lifo again? We’ve taken a big hit to pay and ended up with junior pilots winning the fleet lottery (some with about a weeks service to the company when the crisis hit) being securely ring-fenced whilst mega senior SFOs on the Jumbo sit in peril in CRS. I know there were the very best of intentions behind it but was it good value trying to uphold the principle of LIFO (and paying handsomely for it) only to end up with that result?

Nobody at this point can predict what the outcome of Round 2 would be. Let’s hope and pray it doesn’t get there. As stated earlier, BA will be close to 1000 (Headcount Equivalent) off the books in 2021 compared to the beginning of 2020 pre crisis (using totals of planned retirements, VR, CR, CRS and PT). There comes a point with the economies of scale where the business cannot shrink and remain viable because it’s impossible to service the debt (see Norwegian). So the very viability of BA as a going concern is compromised if further hairdressing continues (ask a more clever accountant for the precise figure on that). But if the business doesn’t come back in short order the viability of the company is compromised for the more obvious reason. In short the company has bigger problems.

[FlipFlapFlop]

WFH will end up being the silent killer of our economy if we're not careful. The impact on small businesses in city centres is already causing concern and you can tell that the government's stance is changing.

It certainly will. Will not be long before businesses focus on WFH costs. If you can do your job from home then there is no reason why the same job could not be done from home in Warsaw or Chennai. Be careful what you wish for.

[krismiler]

Already being done: https://blog.hubstaff.com/virtual-assistant-companies-in-india/

[Banana4321]

A lot of business travel is for generating sales leads and meeting with customers. You simply don't risk missing out on a business deal worth 10k+ to save on a flight ticket. Your competition might view things differently and you will always lose out.

WFH will end up being the silent killer of our economy if we're not careful. The impact on small businesses in city centres is already causing concern and you can tell that the government's stance is changing.
This is a biased view perhaps based on the poster's own experiences.

I can state that I have flown 40 long-haul flights a year, for many years, and NEVER EVER met a customer. This is for one of BA's Top 3 customers.

Not only that but customers aren't letting any Tom, Dick or Harry into their building. Plus their staff are working from home too.

This is rose-tinted specs, and far, far removed from the actualle.

[krismiler]

Pax numbers should return by 2023 according to IATA, but RPKs will take until 2024 which indicates that people will be travelling shorter distances at first. Figures regarding the breakdown into F/C/Y would be interesting as well if they were available.

We can assume a general trade down so long haul becomes medium haul and business becomes economy, so whilst the numbers are there, the margins are greatly reduced.

Airlines which are heavily reliant on long haul premium traffic, such as EK and SQ will take the longest to recover. Airlines such as Ryanair, which have little exposure to the business traveler segment, will benefit from the general downgrade in spending, and also operate a fleet of smaller aircraft which are easier to fill. Utilisation is already maximised as they have no need to coordinate schedules to accommodate connections as it’s point to point.

Business travel will still take place but there will be less of it due to general belt tightening and some replacement by video conferencing. Expect the premium price over economy to be reduced as airlines discount to fill the seats for a few years.

[ZFT]

interesting but what we are seeing here is international economy prices are increasing to reflect the general lack of choice. I hope your assessment is correct but somehow I doubt it!
Time will tell.

[king surf]

Just a few of my thoughts.
If a second round of CR's happen then I cannot see the remainder of the pilot workforce taking another large slice of their salaries to pay to save more jobs. BALPA can bleat all they like but the ball is firmly in BA's court and they will ultimately do what they want to do in the end.
If LIFO is used again than this will wipe out a lot of short haul pilots which the company will not want to see as it is the busiest fleet at the moment.

The problem for BA is the USA which is a huge part of its market. New York alone generates a billion dollars in revenues alone.
BA over the years has got rid of so many routes over the years( dozens) and have put all their eggs in one basket with the USA. BA flies some 50 times a week to California alone. The company got greedy in everything it did and no matter how hard the workforce worked it was never enough
BA also did not learn its lesson after 911 which forced the 747 classic out of the skies. Ultimately before Covid BA was running an ageing thirsty fleets of aircraft and this crisis has exposed this.
The Summer is over and I feel the next set of quarterly figures will make grim reading .
Apologies for being negative but personally I am struggling to see a way forward without some sort of government intervention and soon.

[White Van Driver]

My pick is that round two will happen by the end of the year. I think it will be by seat and fleet as all the training courses to active fleets are now full from the supplementary bid and the CRS is already at the maximum size as stipulated by the company. The 787 and A350 will stay safe. The CRS pool will stay safe as they are already off BA's books. The B777, A380 pilots will suffer heavy losses, and the A320 fleet will suffer a haircut. I guess the company will re-use the same matrix again, but this time the matrix will be run several times, once for each seniority list (seat/fleet) - I get that this isn't LIFO any more. Anyone on the A380 or in the bottom 30% of their respective seniority lists of the B777 or A320 should be making plans in case my prediction is correct. (for clarity I am included in this)

This is all very much IMHO, purely guesswork. I truly hope I am wrong for my colleagues and myself! It'll be interesting to return to this post in 6 months time and score my predictions.

[FlipFlapFlop]

I thought this was a rumours and news network, not a platform for amateur guessing. Especially when the guessing is so depressing. Time to take a break from this place.

[White Van Driver]

maybe my conjecture was misplaced. as you rightly point out it's neither rumour nor news. apologies for bringing the tone of the thread down even further! A break from this sort of forum is often a good idea!

But I really do believe that making a start on plan b in my (and presumably your) position would be a wise move.

[hunterboy]

It can’t hurt to have a plan B can it? All about planning ahead. I don’t see how BA will deal with up to 800? more 777/380 excess pilots without it being painful. If thinking about it helps them get ahead of the curve , then that would be a good thing.

[thetimesreader84]

I think one things for sure, if there’s a round 2 (and I can’t see how there won’t be at this point), BALPA will have very little input into the consultation this time.

[TURIN]

I had plan B mapped out back in May. Plan C is in development.

[king surf]

Shipping a coronavirus vaccine around the world will be the "largest transport challenge ever" according to the airline industry.

The equivalent of 8,000 Boeing 747s will be needed, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) (https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-09-09-01/) has said.

There is no Covid-19 vaccine yet, but IATA is already working with airlines, airports, global health bodies and drug firms on a global airlift plan.

The distribution programme assumes only one dose per person is needed.

"Safely delivering Covid-19 vaccines will be the mission of the century for the global air cargo industry. But it won't happen without careful advance planning. And the time for that is now," said IATA's chief executive Alexandre de Juniac.

Have Ba been too quick to turn their 747 fleet into cans?

[Fostex]

Do you honestly think there is limited long haul airliner/cargo capacity out there at present? A global airlift plan will be required, as it was for PPE, but the capacity is there, it just needs organised. BA won't be bringing back any 74s.

The major difficulty of mass distributing a vaccine is the public health infrastructure on the ground, not to mention the publics willingness to actually be vaccinated - not the distribution between countries.

[ATC Watcher]

There is no Covid-19 vaccine yet, but IATA is already working with airlines, airports, global health bodies and drug firms on a global airlift plan.
The distribution programme assumes only one dose per person is needed
Well first from what I read in the specialized press, an effective vaccine is likely to require 2 doses a few weeks/month apart, as the antibodies do not seem to last long against this virus. .
But that aside , most large countries have vaccine productions plants able to deliver enough for their local populations . ( i.e. China, India, Europe, USA, Japan , etc..) so the demand for air transport will be limited to smaller countries. and are likely to be a one-off run in a limited period of time . Do not really see the problem .


The major difficulty of mass distributing a vaccine is the public health infrastructure on the ground, not to mention the publics willingness to actually be vaccinated - not the distribution between countries.
Quite agree with that.

[Ancient Observer]

Any info on what the BA/Unite deal "in principle" is?
(Not that either BA or Unite have any principles)

[autothrottle]

Not sure if this is what you refer to in the “BA/Unite “ agreement in principle, but a friend of mine who is WW cabin crew apparently got a letter (today?) stating his pay cut was now 15% and not the huge cut he was due on a new contract. Interesting that the winter schedule had huge cuts in it and yet a “softer “ deal has been done with Unite.

[PC767]

There is also a lay off clause in the variation to the current contract. And a divide between MF and legacy pay even though they will work together. Fireworks.

[autothrottle]

So people left on VR , only for the T&C’s to change again after they all left? They offered MF a small rise and Legacy a massive cut, now those are superseded again. Incredible.

[stormin norman]

A lot of people who left on VR must be kicking themselves today.

[wiggy]

From what I've read it not themselves that they want to kick..

[wascrew]

autothrottle

Another "A friend of mine" post. I'm pretty sure that all the people who took VR were fully aware of the draconian cuts to their salaries and T&C's changes which led to their decision. Get "your friend" to post the letter they " apparently" got ?

[wiggy]

wascrew - The point is the T&Cs available to legacy crew prior to the VR commit date were changed after crew members had locked in their decision to leave...

As I understand it from friends who are former or current cabin crew, legacy and Mixed Fleet:

All the crew were made aware of the proposed significant changes to T&Cs well before their "decide" date.

On the basis of the information they had at their decision date many legacy crew chose to take VR (many left it until literally the last minute before pressing the exit button).

Very shortly thereafter the company and the Union suddenly reached agreement on changes to T&C that reduced the damage and made the T&Cs for those remaining somewhat less arduous.

Result is the legacy crew who chose to stay on at BA have certainly done better than they were expecting (,hence autothrottle's post)

Some of those that left BA via VR may feel slightly like they've been the victims of something a little, shall I say, questionable?

Having said that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't have happened this way if UNITE/BASSA had got into the room with BA a bit earlier than they did - who knows...

I do have some sympathy with some of those on legacy Fleet who took VR..I also have a lot of sympathy with Mixed Fleet.

[autothrottle]

The friend is a relative who is cabin crew. I won’t be asking them for their letter. My point was that the union that person belongs to has failed those that took VR in the most basic way. I thank you for you passive-agressive repost ,which probably explains your handle.
Now give me a good rate and jog on.

[wascrew]

Thank you Wiggy . I guess this is a " rumours" forum so people CAN post heresay , unsubstantiated or not . Personally, I prefer hard facts particularly throughout all this Covid nonsense ,not just here but multiple other forums too. I subscribe,to many other forums ,one in particular is for serving or former crew members and I qualify as such,who were quite vociferous about the scandal of the " new" terms they were offered,which,as you say led to many of them making the decision to call it a day. No-one on that particular forum has mentioned these " revised" terms ,which is why I questioned the previous "friend of relative of" poster. If it is the case, that subsequently after Unite/Bassa eventually went to the negotiating table terms were changed, then shame on them! I will "jog on" until I have found out the facts !!

[Twiglet1]

Most of what I've seen from wiggy tends to be on the mark.

[AdrianShaftsworthy]

Wiggy speaks the truth. Now a 15% pay cut max for legacy crews. Slight increase for MF. The devil may well be in the detail though......

[M.Mouse]

Wiggy is entirely correct. I have two very good friends, married legacy CC, they did NOT take VR but were mightily upset at the expected pay reduction. They now feel that the actual reduction, overall, is much more tolerable.

BASSA are, and always have been, a dreadful union which has rarely ever looked after the best interests of its considerable membership.

[Bc65]

If anyone is really that interested the basics of the proposal can be found on the public BASSA site in the NEWS section

[Bergerie1]

From what I read here, wiggy is one of the few who gets his facts right. In my experience BASSA were always pretty useless.

[starbag]

On every communication from BASSA leading up to the VR cut off, they clearly stated that the IFCE proposals were just proposals, negotiations were ongoing, and you should only take VR if you were absolutely sure you wanted to leave. I'm not sure how much clearer they could have made it. BASSA are quite used to BA's games, putting forward a crappy deal to persuade people to leave and then offering a better deal once they have. I don't think BASSA can be blamed for people's knee jerk reactions, and their failure to carefully read communications.

[M.Mouse]

Except that BASSA/UNITE refused to sit down with BA until very late in the game. That is not representing or negotiating.

[SaulGoodman]

Do you honestly think there is limited long haul airliner/cargo capacity out there at present? A global airlift plan will be required, as it was for PPE, but the capacity is there, it just needs organised. BA won't be bringing back any 74s.


in fact, I KNOW there is! Cargo is booming due lack of capacity. Yields are already high and rising. Problem is the capacity for temp controlled cargo i.e vaccins

[Alrosa]

starbag

Point taken, but as M.Mouse has implied, by refusing to enter into consultations with BA for so long, BASSA may have robbed their membership of the opportunity to agree a better deal - and all that may have resulted from that.

Sadly it’s now too late.

[Count Niemantznarr]

Except that BASSA/UNITE refused to sit down with BA until very late in the game. That is not representing or negotiating.

Unlike BALPA, UNITE and the GMB unions had Section 188 notifications issued by BA. Why wasn’t a Section 188 notice given to the pilots Mr Mouse?

No wonder BALPA got on and negotiated having been bestowed with this privileged bespoke advantage. The other unions had a gun to their heads called ‘Fire and Rehire’. Apparently legal in the UK,(not for much longer), but not in the lands of Aer Lingus or Iberia.

It is BA who refused to negotiate but instead decided to impose a scorched earth policy under the guise of the pandemic.

Still, the problems of other staff pale into insignificance compared to that of BA’s pilots. How noble of senior flight crew marooned on the dead 747 fleet demanding conversion courses and LIFO. Junior pilots heaped with flying school debt, mortgages and young families cast out, because those at the top want to stay on another year.

Altruism seems to be in short supply on the flight deck.

[White Van Driver]

BALPA was issued two section 188 letters in April(?). The first for 1080 redundancies, and a couple of weeks later another for a further 175 redundancies plus the same "fire and rehire" used across the board.

We entered the consultation with the same gun to our heads that GMB and UNITE had.

I'm not sure where your venomous tone comes from, but it's entirely misplaced here.

[M.Mouse]

Altruism is often talked about but, like 'safety is our primary concern', only happens if it doesn't cost much. True altruism is rare.

Pilots were served a Section 188 notice.

UNITE/BASSA carried out a widely reported public campaign about BA's opportunistic raid on Ts & Cs. I am sure that if they had been willing to talk and BA refused that would have been reported and worked against BA. UNITE/BASSA thought that stamping their feet was better despite WW disabusing them of that tactic in 2008. BASSA has always represented their members badly and is led by people with little acumen. I think you are incorrect in saying BA would not talk.

Pilots on dead fleets being retained at the expense of juniors is as a result of past agreements. It was LIFO in all but name. It is patently absurd to keep surplus top earners and give them a costly conversion course at the expense of an already qualified on type junior (cheaper) pilot but that is an agreement prevalent in aviation. I am sure BASSA would be upset if agreements were ripped up on a whim. I remember reading a well respected BALPA rep saying that it is what protects loyalty and long service and I also remember thinking it is almost unique in that in any other walk of life if you are surplus then bye, bye however long you have worked for the company.

[wiggy]

Unlike BALPA, UNITE and the GMB unions had Section 188 notifications issued by BA. Why wasn’t a Section 188 notice given to the pilots...


As both M.Mouse and White Van correctly state Section 188 notices were issued to BALPA.

[Count Niemantznarr]

The Section 188 notice was not given to BALPA until a few weeks had passed, as Alex Cruz admitted yesterday when he was in front of the Commons Transport Select Committee. He was unable to explain why BALPA was not included initially.

No doubt for reasons of fairness, BALPA was subsequently given the same treatment. However, the tone had been set with the other unions.

[Count Niemantznarr]

M.Mouse

Perhaps you can explain how the pilots strike was settled last year, because some BALPA members were quite vocal about it being “unfinished business”?

[Survival Cot]

The dispute last year was “settled” because the arguments were lost & the group came back to work with their tails between their legs.

The comparisons here between CC & FD redundancy infer equal communications via section 188’s. Pilots never had a threat of dismissal and re-selection for rehire on the first section 188, so very different.

Regarding comments on LIFO, the Transport Select Committee yesterday required data on average ages for the various groups affected by redundancy/CRS compared to those retained. When this data materialises there may well be redress/scrutiny with relation to the 2010 equality act.

[Ancient Observer]

I do not know who the Count and Survival are. However, making inaccurate "factual" comments do not help in Disputes.

[cessnapete]

I think the Count is/ was a BASSA member heavily involved in the CC Strike, which led to the formation of Mixed Fleet. Possibly not the greatest result for their members.

[M.Mouse]

Perhaps you can explain how the pilots strike was settled last year, because some BALPA members were quite vocal about it being “unfinished business”?

I have no idea. Complete fiasco from start to finish in my view but totally irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps BASSA were advising BALPA?

[Lordflasheart]

...
According to the Count's own noble writ, he appears to have been "a (relatively) young BA 747 co-pilot" in 1982.

Since then he seems to have morphed into BASSA cabin crew (as Cessnapete suggests) and retired from that as well. He's not listed in Burke's Peerage. Does that explain anything ?

[Wirbelsturm]

Regarding comments on LIFO, the Transport Select Committee yesterday required data on average ages for the various groups affected by redundancy/CRS compared to those retained. When this data materialises there may well be redress/scrutiny with relation to the 2010 equality act.

Sorry to say that age has little to do with it. BA recruit a selection of ages as it recruits Ab-Initio pilots, Direct entry pilots from other airlines and ex military pilots. So you will find a 'joining age' spread from '20 ish' to '40 ish' without a problem. It also seems that BASSA were quit happy to follow LIFO with respect to the MFU from what can be gather from social media. :E

[Count Niemantznarr]

I think the Count is/ was a BASSA member heavily involved in the CC Strike, which led to the formation of Mixed Fleet. Possibly not the greatest result for their members.

With a memory as poor as yours, I trust you no longer have access to a flight deck.

Let me remind you how BA pilots assisted as strike breakers in 2010, which directly led to the formation of Mixed Fleet. Unfortunately the novelty of this new fleet soon wore off on BA flight crews, who started to bid away from MF trips.

As for your own dispute last year, it was a total failure but caused BA to issue a profits warning . No doubt the company have a score to settle there. The cabin crew action in 2010 bought the Legacy crew another ten years, and only ended with the Covid crisis. As for the situation now, feeding the crocodile ten years ago hasn’t helped BA pilots at all.

[Raph737]

Ouch....
I remember that very well and I do wonder what those pilots think of their actions today. I mean, if I volunteered to break my colleagues strike based on a company lie, then years later the company treats me like dirt and disregards my loyalty, then I’d feel like an absolute buffoon and a hypocrite. They have gotten very wrong a lot of times (BASSA) but one thing we have to give it to them, is that they didn’t fall for the company porkies and the pilots did. Sorry, but it’s true....

[wiggy]

the novelty of this new fleet soon wore off on BA flight crews, who started to bid away from MF trips.


Now you are really talking nonsense....I don't think many of us (certainly on Long Haul) looked at the bid packs and thought "oh that's a mixed fleet trip , I must bid "away"..On the 777 I certainly saw no shortage of senior'ish pilots in places ranging from TLV to SIN.

BTW since for whatever reason "the strike" has been brought into play with: "Let me remind you how BA pilots assisted as strike breakers in 2010" would either you, or perhaps Raph737 who seems to have a view on well BASSA did, care to remind us how many UNITE members operated as Cabin Crew during the strike, and how many of those were BASSA members actively breaking their own strike?

FWIW I operated as PIC 4 longhaul sectors on the 777 over that strike period and the crew composition was typically 50% BASSA ( first two sectors the CSD reported for duty and worked, on the other two the position was filled by a Purser working up), 25% either non-Union Ground Staff or UNITE Ground staff and the other 25% was made up typically by 2 or 3 pilots...so lets not try to perpetuate the myth that the pilots caused the BASSA strike to fail.....plenty of UNITE/BASSA members worked.

[Ancient Observer]

Count, and others, clearly do not care about Redundancies in 2020.

They are too concerned with re-running the BASSA cock-ups of 2010.

at this rate, this thread should be moved to Jet Blast.

[M.Mouse]

Let me remind you how BA pilots assisted as strike breakers in 2010, which directly led to the formation of Mixed Fleet.

If I recall correctly in 2010 WW gave each department a savings target and imposed a deeadline along the lines of 'reach agreement by xx date or I will impose changes'. BASSA, in their true 1970s style had a mass meeting at Kempston Racecourse and on a show of hands voted for 'no more negotiation'. All the other unions negotiated their departments savings.

WW was the first BA CEO who said what he meant and meant what he said. MF wasn't even on the table at the time, he wanted things like the ludicrous Disruption Agreement. For those unaccustomed to the agreements made when BA was a nationalised industry, in a nutshell, an example would be a Singapore London flight might divert to Manchester due fog. The CC would have to have two local nights in a hotel in Manchester before positioning back to LHR where they would then take their 'minimum base turnaround' days before being avilable for work.

WW must have thought all his birthdays had come at once because he promptly introduced MF while BASSA demonstrated their stupidity. When the strike was settled it was a joy to see BASSA claiming that the return of the strikers suspended staff travel as a victory.

As it happens I thought that pilots working as CC during the strike was foolish given the inevitable antagonism this would cause when eventually everybody was back at work after the disruption.

[thetimesreader84]

And now BA are coming back for the pilots. 270 left on CR and not much interest in the derisory VR. Nowhere near the magic 1130 target listed by BA when BALPA finally got an S188

just to put some meat on this bone. Yes, about 270 pilots were made compulsory redundant, but against the S188 target we have;
270 CR
220 VR approved (apparently; and rumours were > 300 applied)
300 in CRS (“off the books” as paid for by the rest of us)
50 to RAF, Etc

Total that up, it comes to 840 pilots leaving the business. They’re rough figures, so we could reasonably say 700-900 pilots are no longer working for BA. Much closer to the approx 1100 that BA wanted.

I’m not saying BA won’t be back for more (I think they will be), but I do actually think they are satisfied with the outcome for round one.

However Balpas response to a clearly deteriorating situation, and their application of the phrase “consideration should be given to the principal of LIFO” was and is wrong. LIFO May prevent pilots being “in the wrong place at the wrong time” but its application at BA has definitely allowed pilots on golden ticket fleets to be in the right place at the right time, and I’m yet to be convinced it’s any more fair.

[RexBanner]

Balpa can dress it up however they like but the fact is that it ceased to be LIFO the moment you had pilots with a weeks service to the company remain whilst more senior pilots walked the plank. Don’t even start on pilots length of service with a subsidiary airline counting towards their length of service with BA. Lets face it though, people have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their own, nothing about the process is fair however you choose the victims. But it’s extremely disingenuous to dress it up as something it’s not.

[Raph737]

It looks like the announcement of a second national lockdown is coming in the next 48hrs, so the “my union is better than yours argument” is the least of your problems, and any aircrew irrespective of the airline they work for. The real enemy here was an incompetent government/ PM who looks like that they wont extend the furlough scheme for aviation, another full month grounded and we will be talking about CR in every UK airline coming October 31st. Who cares you have a grudge against BASSA, you’re all equally screwed!

[Thegreenmachine]

RexBanner

Amen to that. I was in the 'safe zone' until leapfrogged by about 100 folk, some of which hadn't stepped foot onto a company aircraft in anger yet. Seniority is not everything it seems.
​​​​

[Survival Cot]

Agreed. What is needed is an MOA with agreed, and transparent detail on redundancy, obviously maintained & guided by evolving current laws. It follows that a responsible employer should not shift costs of that agreement onto the remaining workers. How individuals subsequently choose to square their morals with charitable organisations/paths beyond this should be a personal matter for them.

[HZ123]

Ralph: Point taken and not entirely in disagreement but the government i.e.us the taxpayer cannot keep paying furlough to the aviation industry as surely it has far more important calls on the funds?

[stormin norman]

The deals on pay and conditions going forward may be concluded but I suspect long periods of unpaid leave are just around the corner.

[kungfu panda]

IAG is a penny share as of right now.

[Dave]

PLEASE can someone explain why BA didn't furlough (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme CJRS) ANY pilots?

It just doesn't make sense!

Presumably BALPA didn't want pilots furloughed? But look at these figures:

Given the schedule since March, BA could have furloughed ALL 747 and 380 pilots, and probably 40% of A320 (given LGW not flying), probably 60% of 777 pilots, and 40% of 787 and A350 pilots. If not even more than this! We REALLY have not been flying much as an airline!

So lets say 3500 pilots (leaving 1200 active), for 7 months (April to October), at 2500 GBP per month per pilot. That takes us to:

61,250,000 GBP (61.25 MILLION).

"Free" money from the Government to BA and thence to the pilots.

BUT hold on a minute.... We just made the ~250 newest pilots (with the exception of about 2 who weren't the most junior) redundant..... so lets assume they are all on Pay Point 1, and a mix of DEP and SSPs. So lets say 50,000 salary each....... That 61 million from the Government could have paid their full salary for.....

4.9 YEARS!

What were you doing BALPA?

This money could have kept people employed at least until October, and could have meant more funds for a better VR deal and therefore more leaving voluntarily "off the top of the list" thus retaining people who would otherwise have been made VR.

So WHY? Why was the Government CJRS not used? I just do not understand it!

[Busdriver01]

Because they [WW and I suspect JM] had a political score to settle and they were going to achieve it at any cost. Not only did they get retribution for last year but they destroyed the idea that “BA has never made a pilot CR” setting themselves up nicely for achieving whatever they want in the future.

[thetimesreader84]

I have it on very good authority that it was discussed, however BA wanted to furlough by fleet, seat and base. BALPA declined fearing it would undermine the all important LIFO*. Jury’s out whether it was the right call I guess (I know what I think)

*LIFO unless on a particular fleet and don’t have all your uniform yet, or have worked for another airline for a while.

[Pickled]

Dave, the reason is that BA wanted to maintain flexibility, as they stated at the time.

it was believed that a recovery might be underway by June and it was important to be ready to capitalise on any rebound.

[Paddingtonbear]

🙄

Timesreader84 summarises the current situation and BA in general, up perfectly.

Those that left easyjet for the BA 'dream' and now finding themselves on the scrap heap must be absolutely kicking themselves. As soon as every single easyjet pilot realised they had skin in the game, then the real show of solidarity began. BA? It soon became very clear it was every (most) man/woman out for themselves when their personal fate became clearer.

The current CRS (for a mix of 300 mainly 747 captains and FO's earning on average £110k on 66% pay) cost the workforce 8%. What would it have cost percentage wise, to keep an extra 249 very junior pilots, earning on average £55k, on say 40%-50% pay? Was it really that difficult to negotiate something like that? Who is the real baddy here?

I remember the Balpa brigade entering the room on induction day telling us how it's in all our interests to sign up to the Union. What they should have done is entered the room holding up signs on sticks saying 'be prepared to one day bend over and take one for the senior boys'. This could well be the start of a long slow death for Balpa.

[wiggy]

🙄
The current CRS (for a mix of 300 mainly 747 captains and FO's earning on average £110k on 66% pay) cost the workforce 8%. What would it have cost percentage wise, to keep an extra 249 very junior pilots, earning on average £55k, on say 40%-50% pay? Was it really that difficult to negotiate something like that? Who is the real baddy here?
.

Yes from what I heard it was difficult to negotiate "something like that" and the real baddy here is some in BA management.

As I recall it the claim was BA management were highly resistant to any plans put forward by BALPA that would have prevented any pilot CR...and I'd suggest that was very much down to the political factors Busdriver01 has mentioned.

[Paddingtonbear]

and I'd suggest that was very much down to the political factors Busdriver01 has mentioned.

Ah yes, that other total debacle orchestrated by you know who. The debacle that fell off a cliff and was never mentioned again after the terribly sad demise of Thomas Cook. The debacle that you're now suggesting has led to 249 pilot redundancies. Well, it was all worth it, wasn't it.

[Locked door]

Paddington Bear

BALPA put forward several strategies to prevent any redundancies, all were rejected by BA management. BALPA aren’t the bad guys, you should project your anger elsewhere.

Rumour has it the redundancies are payback for the (totally shambolic and I’ll advised) strike combined with enhancing BA’s negotiating position going forwards. Bear in mind it was the newest BALPA reps that orchestrated that strike.

As much as LIFO+ sucks for those at the bottom of the seniority list (and I speak as the second most junior pilot in the company on 911) it is the right thing to do, otherwise no pilot can ever commit to a big financial decision. Also bear in mind those at the ‘top’ have been at the bottom, many have rebuilt careers after redundancies, think Gulf War 1+2, 911, sars etc.

[Paddingtonbear]

you should project your anger elsewhere

I don't have the energy to be angry. I'm far too busy working out how I'm going to keep a roof over my family's head.

Good day to you.

[Busdriver01]

A few extra things to remember:

- BA wouldn’t allow more than 300 HCE (or FTE? Never did get this) in the CRS
- BA didn’t offer any part time off the back of the part time bid “to save as many jobs as possible” - they only gave part time to people who went for it at the start, which if I have been told correctly has left those people going into the pay cut on a lower contract than they should’ve been on while not saving any jobs.
- JM actually said AB had given out too much part time already - it’s clear that he simply didn’t want to achieve zero CR. With training costs covered by the pay cuts, the unit cost of having everyone part time shouldn’t have increased. Most other major airlines have achieved it. But then they don’t have WW,AC or JM.

The lack of solidarity shown by those who knew they were safe, to those who were not, by way of lack of applications for part time is obviously woeful (I heard only 900 bids were actually made, compared to say, eJ where they had something in the high 90%) and that is something all BA Pilots should reflect upon - it was expected that everyone would go on strike for the pay rise (and I doubt the large majority of the CR group felt like they needed a pay rise) but when it comes to it, everyone for themselves.

However, it wouldn’t have made a difference if all 4300 pilots bid for part time because BA weren’t going to offer it anyway.

[ASRAAMTOO]

thetimesreader84

Interesting, the BALPA official view communicated to members was the BA would not consider it rather than BALPA and BA could not agree on how it would be done! Bearing in mind the fact that things are not picking up it will be interesting to see if BA and BALPA can agree a mechanism to use the chancellor's recent jobs saving scheme to actually save jobs!

[Jet II]

As much as LIFO+ sucks for those at the bottom of the seniority list (and I speak as the second most junior pilot in the company on 911) it is the right thing to do, otherwise no pilot can ever commit to a big financial decision.

Not quite sure what you mean by this - practically every job in the entire economy and even most jobs in BA dont have LIFO, yet the people in those jobs have long and successful careers and make big financial decisions all the time.

[thetimesreader84]

I don’t want to name names, but my “source” was in the room when such things would have been discussed. While they could be spinning a line, I’ve no reason to doubt them.

As for lifo+ it’s been done to death. I don’t think it’s particularly fair, and while it may stop you being in the “wrong place at the wrong time” it relies on you joining the right company (on the right fleet also it seems) at the right time. As I said, I don’t see how that’s any more fair.

[FlightDetent]

Perhaps it is time to stop calling that, whatever it is you have, LIFO+? Sounds like the US powers telling the world their involvement in the ME is "peacekeeping".

Seriously, there a complex redundancy matrix. Partly known, partly secret, and at least one third of it constantly evolving. For the breadcrumbs who are left, DoJ principle would be applied UNLESS a necesarry but overruling decision needs to be made about the matrix. Such as uphelding a part of it, ignoring a part of it, or creating a new part for it possibly also cancelling some part of it.

What I see is at least a half palette of boxes with labels such as "How to avoid employees getting in the way" "Commitment or Obstacle? Jump over it and never find out", and similar. That palette has a folded piece under one corner so that it stands nice level and straight, allowing more boxes on top in the future and keeping all nicely aligned.

That piece of paper has LIFO written on it.

LIFO+ designator is rather delusional, is it not?
In my world it might be the union leaders using such name in order to pass the message how nail and teeth they fought, managing even little beyond possible to preserve the sacred seniority.

Whereas in practical terms, with regards to firing people, the stone cold reality is that seniority was taxidermized.

[Barcli]

Not sure what world your in Flightdetent ! Perhaps your looking outside the pallette box.......

[Walnut]

If BA start by saying 2 fleets are exempt 787/350 then the policy of LIFO is flawed.
The DOJ I am sure was followed with the handful of modifications produced by the matrix, but the MSL which most hang their hat on, is not aligned with the actual DOJ list unfortunately

[Fursty Ferret]

practically every job in the entire economy and even most jobs in BA dont have LIFO, yet the people in those jobs have long and successful careers and make big financial decisions all the time.

If you leave your job in almost any other industry you can find an equivalent one that offers more or less identical pay / terms and conditions.

In aviation you join a seniority based company at the very bottom irrespective of your skills and experience.

I'm not saying it's the right thing.

[hec7or]

Ernest K Gann made the same observation in his seminal memoir "Fate is the Hunter" written in 1961

[Jet II]

Fursty Ferret

Perhaps this is the ideal time to bring aviation into line with the rest of the world then?. LIFO in other industries died out in the 70's when the power of the unions was broken, now it is not Government diktat that is enforcing fundamental change but economic reality.

Would the industry actually be any worse if it was not based on seniority?

[krismiler]

If you leave your job in almost any other industry you can find an equivalent one that offers more or less identical pay / terms and conditions.

Good luck getting BALPA to agree to that. Imagine what it would do to the promotion prospects of first officers if retrenched Captains from other airlines could be hired straight into the left seat to keep training and insurance costs down.

The low cost airlines get away with it because they have expansion, and turnover of pilots. Whilst command opportunities come faster, they may very well have a shortage of copilots who are ready for upgrade when needed and have no option but to employ DECs.

A legacy airline typically has very low pilot turnover and very little expansion. 10-15 years to get the fourth stripe is normal, join at the wrong time and it can go up to 20 in some airlines.

[Fursty Ferret]

Perhaps this is the ideal time to bring aviation into line with the rest of the world then?. LIFO in other industries died out in the 70's when the power of the unions was broken, now it is not Government diktat that is enforcing fundamental change but economic reality.

Would the industry actually be any worse if it was not based on seniority?

No, but I don't think it would be particularly better either. It's rare in any industry to have 4000+ individuals with identical skills (within reason).

How would you handle redundancies? Sure, you could use training records, but how in a way that's fair to both the youngest and oldest, and simultaneously the most junior and senior person in the company? Most people have squeaky clean records (i would assume). Picking names at random? Hardly seems better than LIFO and probably legally dubious. Total flying hours? Should ten thousand hours trundling around in a Seneca give you an advantage against someone who's got 5000 hours PIC of an Airbus? What about university qualifications?

Would you, as someone that's been in the company for a long time, accept a pay-cut to provide a flat pay structure? Right now that would benefit me but in ten years...

[Smooth Airperator]

Perhaps this is the ideal time to bring aviation into line with the rest of the world then?. LIFO in other industries died out in the 70's when the power of the unions was broken

That's all fine and dandy but in other industries you stand a decent chance of getting the same job paying somewhere near the same salary. If you lose your job with an airline that operates a seniority system, to join another with its own seniority system, you face almost certain financial ruin and your career is set back 10-15 years at a minimum. Is that fair?

[Skyjob]

LIFO Is a thing of the past protected y some powerful inion indivuduals who do not want to give up their own job prospects.

[krismiler]

An accountant or HR manager can be employed by a multitude of companies in many different industries. In the UK, how many equivalent jobs are available for a BA B777 Captain ?

[Jet II]

Fursty Ferret

Well I would point out that companies across the globe handle redundancies without using LIFO every single day without a problem, even BA has done that in the past.

I have not got a dog in this fight having retired from the industry 5 years ago, but reading the threads on different airlines and the way that they are all responding it just seems to that LIFO causes as many problems as it solves. With regards to pay cuts personally I think they are inevitable but I do have my doubts how useful they actually are. Take EZY, a couple of months ago their crews were lauding the fact that they had all come together and accepted pay cuts to ensure that redundancies were not needed - now I am reading that the company is not saving enough cash flow and could be out of business by the end of the year. To me if the market reduces in size by 75% then your only option to save the company is to reduce the size of your company by 75% to meet the new reality.

[Plastic787]

To me if the market reduces in size by 75% then your only option to save the company is to reduce the size of your company by 75% to meet the new reality.

and then your economies of scale go out the window and you’re stuffed anyway.

[Jet II]

There is no point in having economies of scale if nobody is getting on your jets.

[Plastic787]

You’re missing the point. You’re not going to be able to make a profit by shrinking the business by 75% either so that line of thinking is flawed. It’s what makes this whole situation such an excrement show.

[FlipFlapFlop]

Jet II

Your argument is predicated on the EZY false news item. The statement "hanging by a thread" was clearly an off the cuff comment made to try to get BALPA members to accept the pay cut deal. And they are not talking about this year......they may be in trouble at the end of next year if 2021 summer is poor.
The market maybe 25% today........but it won't be in a few short months. Staff are not the main cost to an airline as you well know so to cut your business by 75% would mean a reduction of 75% in the number of hulls. No way back then, so you may as well chuck the towel in now.

[slast]

Hec7or’s reference to Ernie Gann’s great work “Fate is the Hunter” made me think that maybe there should maybe be just a word here about why seniority has historically had such a unique position in pilot employment, especially compared to other professions. Unless things have changed radically in the last 20 years, as far as I am aware there is no other profession (e.g. law, medicine, architecture) where every single practitioner is required regularly to demonstrate his or her skills to an independent authority. Similarly, the pilot-in-command is the only type of employeEE who has legal responsibilities in international law which are on the same level as those of his or her employER.

Under the ICAO umbrella obligations are assigned separately to the State, the Operator, and the Pilot in Command. That’s why although ICAO is a United Nations organisation (where only States have total power), in ICAO meetings the Operators and Pilots are both represented (via IATA and IFALPA) and participate fully in decision-making. Individual Operators and Pilots have their own obligations assigned to them by their State authority via their licences. To ensure safety these must be maintained at a constant minimum level.

All this is a long way round to get the point that there is no other type of employee who has to PROVE, once or twice a year, that they can do their job properly to someone who is NOT their employer. In other professions, once someone has their initial qualification, their competence is only questioned AFTER SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG.

How does that link to seniority systems? Most people would probably agree that in an ideal world where there is competition for a job, it should go to the person best able to do it. But in practice this usually means that even if there are objective criteria such as basic qualifications, it must lead to subjective judgements being made by individual managers about individual candidates, especially regarding continuing competence after initial qualification. Some do well, others flounder: ideally the less competent may get overtaken by the more competent – but the less competent may do better by various ways including nepotism, politics and all the other biases we are increasingly conscious of.

In the pilot group however, everyone has had to continually achieve the same minimum competence level as verified by an outside assessment. (And yes I do know that’s not always the case in reality.) So on that basis if you want to ensure fairness in the system, you have to include something else. Generally, of two equally well qualified candidates, the one most likely to do the job best is probably the one with the most experience. And within a single organisation the best (but by no means perfect) measure of experience within that organisation is length of service. Hence the seniority lists. So most pilots associations historically have said that it is better for the COLLECTIVE good that between equally SUITABLE candidates, preference should be given to the most senior.

That does not help a lot when dealing with such traumatic problems as the pilot profession is facing now. But it does mean that when trying to resolve things and spread the pain, the basics should be forgotten.

[Jet II]

Staff are not the main cost to an airline as you well know so to cut your business by 75% would mean a reduction of 75% in the number of hulls. No way back then, so you may as well chuck the towel in now.


This is the second time I have seen this stated and I still dont understand this argument. If you are delivering a service you deliver at the level the customer demands. So if there is only a demand for 25% of current flights then airlines will reconfigure to match that demand. The idea that suddenly this becomes uneconomic and no airline will operate at that level simply does not make sense.

It may be that the industry changes to meet the new economic reality but that is what the rest of the economy is doing already.

[Plastic787]

Then I suggest you read up on some basic economics. Your unit cost will increase quite steeply particularly if an airline like BA shrank to that degree. Couple that increase in costs with trying to service the unaltered debt and things get ugly pretty fast. It’s nowhere near as simple as “shrinking to meet the demand” in afraid.

[thetimesreader84]

what you’re saying isn’t inherently wrong. If aviation was a declining industry (let’s say like Kodak film dealing with the rise of digital / phone cameras), as work dried up over time airlines would get rid of aircraft as leases came up, lay off staff etc in the same way that Kodak have closed factories, reduced output etc. While tough for all involved, it’s a part of how capitalism works. Companies, industries rise & fall along with the market.

The situation airlines have is more akin to the closure of the car plants in the 80s / 90s - the government deciding they were non viable and pulling the rug from under them (in this instance via quarantine, or state aid). Airlines are still geared for 2019 levels of output, and have no support to gracefully shrink to a more appropriate level for the market.

[Jet II]

Plastic787

so what is the alternative if the demand for your service is no longer there? - state bailouts?

[Jet II]

thetimesreader84

But the rest of the economy doesn't get this support to 'gracefully shrink' - you either arrange your business to meet the economic reality or you go bust - as much of the economy is doing already.

[Plastic787]

Jet II

Either that or bankruptcy, yes.

(I’m not saying that BA cannot shrink, that’s what they are doing of course but it’s a law of diminishing returns. There comes a point where it’s not viable to shrink anymore, shrinking by 75% is way beyond that. Especially as they also have the slots in Heathrow to keep hold of.)

[thetimesreader84]

Jet II

just because everyone’s in the same situation, doesn’t make it ok.

However the banks, the train operating companies, even pubs / restaurants have all had help to “meet the new economic reality” over the last 6 months. Airlines, Arts & Ents etc, not so much.

The government are picking winners. Sorry, “Viable” business (presumably as decided by “blinky” Cummings)

[White Van Driver]

Plastic787

really interesting direction this thread has taken. i hadn't considered the fact that fixed costs don't scale directly with the business size (eg finance on owned airframes where the airframes themselves have significantly devalued) which will make the business fail at a certain revenue level that would be generating good profits for a smaller business. however the slots at LHR arent part of that, if BA can't utilise them and they have to use it or lose it, then it's time to sell the slots.

(or Buy a fleet of Senecas and start up regular services to Fairoaks and White Waltham. )

[Googlebug]

I just don’t believe aviation is a shrinking industry the same way as Kodak or Car plants. Even with climate thoughts, the world is shrinking and global travel is key on everyone’s expenditure plans each year. Being a wet island nation I don’t believe the return of the U.K. holiday will be making a long term comeback.

the only thing stopping aviation being viable is government restrictions. Just like the wedding events industry. Granted maybe they will be a cut back in business travel for a period, but even that will return. The struggle for BA et al will be their business offering. If they can make it more appealing to the holiday market maybe they can make it work still.

[DP.]

however the slots at LHR arent part of that, if BA can't utilise them and they have to use it or lose it, then it's time to sell the slots.


They'd have to find someone willing to buy them at anything like a value that would actually make it worthwhile to sell them. I wouldn't have thought that to be an easy task in the current climate.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Nobody has mentioned the "elephant in the room".

It's all well and good making 12,000 staff redundant to save money, even though I vehemently disagree with it , but then there also is the gigantic pension deficit that has been accrued. That should be more of a concern. If staff over 55 are forced into CR it will be chaos unless IAG has a moneytree growing at Waterworld.

[Ancient Observer]

Ex Cargo is spot on.

BA always was a little airline with a huge pension deficit.
It is now even smaller, and has a bigger deficit.

I wonder who is managing the Pension Black hole at BA??
How on Earth will they afford to make the agreed special contributions? Not to mention the new special contributions which will be required.

[Down in front]

Johnny tax payer to the rescue? https://www.ppf.co.uk

[GS-Alpha]

Whilst the pension payments are not insignificant, they are a pretty small part of the company’s cash burn at the moment.

[Tartiflette Fan]

Ex Cargo Clown

I don't know the conditions of the BA pension scheme, but, on the basis of other large public companies, find it very unlikely that pensions could be drawn before retirement age ( usually 65 ), and if so, see no difference if CR happens. No doubt someone will inform me if I am wrong.

[GS-Alpha]

Pensions can be drawn up to ten years prior to the individual’s state retirement age. Someone drawing their pension early makes no difference to the fund’s liabilities though, so I am unsure why redundancies would alter those liabilities. I suspect we will actually see the fund’s liabilities reduce in size at the next triannual valuation because the life expectancy figures will have come down considerably.

[stormin norman]

The pension fund needs money but can survive until the Aviation business is back up and running.

[Walnut]

Although NAPS has a large deficit it is being managed, early retirements will have to be funded in the sense that a VR, who will only be going with a pension, will need the scheme to crystallise this money internally This means BA will have to fund any outstanding deficit pertaining to that person now.
This may have been a factor during the past negotiation
The CR people were junior and would not have been a cost as they would have been in money purchased schemes.
Of course any future retrenchments may drag in more senior CR/VR NAPS members, and could be a major cost

[TURIN]

Tartiflette Fan

A company/private pension can be drawn without penalty at age 55. NAPS and APS are now deferred pension schemes. yes, they are in deficit but they are no longer linked to final salary. They are essentially a finite cost . That's why they have been closed.
What is interesting is the size of the CETV currently being offered. Well in excess of the actual individual fund 'values'. This suggests to me that the fund owners are trying to rid themselves of liabilities. IE Current staff.
What is a real fear (to me at least) is that if BA cannot access their biggest market very soon, they will not survive and my pension will be reduced to 80% of its current value when it's picked up by the PPF.
Even those who are currently employed and not in immediate danger of redundancy are looking at drawing their pension just to protect it if BA actually go to the wall.
Waiting time for pension packs and CETV estimates is currently 3 months!!

[OnceaRAFer]

TURIN

I am no finacial adviser and pensions are a minefield so would suggest that everyone takes individual advice.

However, my own experience is as follows:1) CETV will be large - it is typically around 20 times pension value -
2) I don't believe you can draw down a defined benefit pension (ie final salary) - only a defined contribution (ie money goes into stock market)
3) Transferring out of a DB scheme is not straight forward - you need to get a quote (official CETV) - then you need to get advice which will be paid for. Advice will almost certainly tell you that it's not a good idea to transfer your DB pension out. You can appeal on the grounds that it's what you want to do and it's your pension (and YOUR money) but the Ombudsman thinks people are stupid and also likely to decline your appeal. No financial advisor is likely to tell you it is a good idea to transfer and the govt has massively increased fines for bad advice which means financial advisors can't afford the risk (and can no longer get risk insurance) and a lot have stopped advising on pension transfers.

Personally, I think it's scandalous that you can't transfer a defined benefit pension (or at least it's near impossible). After the TATA pension debacle where so many were advised to transfer out of their DB pension and got ripped off and ended up with little or no pension the Govt has basically made it impossible to do otherwise (ie transfer). BUT, it is your money , your pension so for Govt to make it impossible via regulation to transfer is not on and you should complain to your MP.

BTW - Something else I consider scandalous - if you die (prior to taking your pension) current legislation allows you to pass on your pension pot as part of your estate. This can be a lot of money. However, DB funds will typically only return PREMIUMS paid into the scheme and NOT its value. So, if your CETV is 200K then you may only have paid 30K of premiums and that's all you get back. If 200K was in a defined contribution scheme then you could pass on all of that.

As per my opening comment - the above is just my experience, I am not a financial advisor so you should take independent advice. I do have a DB pension (but I am not retired so it is deferred) so have done a lot of investigation into what I can do with it hence the post above.

[Tartiflette Fan]

A company/private pension can be drawn without penalty at age 55. !

As a simple legal statement, yes, however companies can alter ( increase ) this this. My company - which has a pension deficit - changed their rule from that to state-pension age and I thouht it likely that BA would have done the same.

[Easy Street]

I find it interesting in the light of concern over pension affordability that more seniors didn't take VR and early crystallization of pension benefits to mitigate risk. Any idea why not? I get that the company might not have wanted them to go (as might be inferred from its VR offer) but would like to think that more than a few would ask themselves why that should be so.

[wiggy]

I get that the company might not have wanted them to go (as might be inferred from its VR offer)

I very definitely think BA wanted people to go....but those that look after the balance sheet weren't prepared to pay a lot to encourage more than a relative handful of people to take that particular leap...

[HZ123]

Surely its APS that have a large funding not NAPS. NAPS is underfunded having attempted to amalgamate the two funds unsuccessfully to reduce the debt level. As a contributor stated it is of little concern as if it were to fail the government will foot the bill. Assuming there is any monies left?

[king surf]

Why would a senior long haul Pilot take VR a with the top scales, including flight pay. expenses moving upwards of £180000 a year?

[macdo]

Possibly so he/she might live a few extra years in retirement enjoying that massive maxed out pension?
Trouble is, it is never that simple, some can't because they are on the 3rd. marriage, some because they don't have anything else to do and some because they just plain like the lifestyle. Having retired at 60, it was a bit scary, but nothing now would get me back on the Atlantic at 3am!

[wiggy]

Contemplating the hassle I'm hearing about now now associated with operating to some of the destinations - I'm thinking things like reporting at LHR the day prior to departure for pre-departure Covid tests, lockdowns in some downroute hotels, risk of being detained by friendly local police at a government facility if you test positive on arrival I do wonder if some who were on the cusp of taking VR but declined the option are regretting their choice.

I can understand why those with more than a year or so to go are soldiering on and I wish the the best of luck but I think if you've months to go you'd have to be seriously addicted to aviation and/or seriously hard up to continue putting up with "the dream" as it is currently being lived by some on Long Haul.

[TURIN]

Tartiflette Fan

My understanding of this is that it is UK law that has allowed this and company pension policy can only influence it by offering incentives. IE your company cannot stop you from drawing your pension at 55 or above.

https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/options-for-cashing-in-your-pensions/should-i-take-a-lump-sum-from-my-pension-a7ch15b2sgly

[TURIN]

OnceaRAFer

Absolutely, me neither. I've learned a lot in the last three years and still learning.

CETVs i have seen are in excess of 30% higher than fund value.

You are correct, you cannot draw down a DB pension scheme but you can transfer it out and draw it down.

Transferring out can be quite simple. Get a letter from a financial advisor (preferably independent) that states you have taken advice and then its up to you to take your chance on the markets. Whether or not transfering out is a good idea depends on your personal outlook. Die soon after retiring and the DB scheme passes into the pension coffers, transfer out and die soon then the CETV cash becomes part of your estate and passes to your loved ones and ambulance chasers.
There is also the option to transfer out a portion (EG 50/50) of your CETV to get the best of both worlds.

I could be wrong on much of the above as I too am not a professional advisor, just someone trying to understand the rules and regs.

Talk to the professionals and take good advice .

[777aviator]

Broadly correct as explained by my IFA. Current CETV between 35 and 40 times the value, YMMV.
As of today, 1/10/20, the legislation WRT to charges has changed. Any transfer will be charged up front by the IFA/transferring agency prior to the transfer and will be chargeable whether or not the transfer is taken. (This change has been well publicised if you have been looking lately...).
Any transfer process initiated prior to today would be charged only in the event of transfer completion, and then from the pot itself, a process more tax advantageous.

On a typical pot this could now be 15-30k up front and non refundable in all cases, versus previously possibly only 0-1k if transfer not completed (cold feet etc)

With the industry in the current mess it’s an interesting call...

[Tartiflette Fan]

Theoretically simple, but not in practice - in my case anyway.

I received a CETV of £ 103 000 from one previous employer and decided to transfer. It hadn't been mentioned until I received the formal offer that the CETV had a validity date of 3 months. On reflection this is completely reasonable but I hadn't previously considered it , and hadn't made any contacts with any company qualified to transfer as I was awaiting the exact sum available.

I contacted 45 companies before I found one that was able and willing to take me on at a price that I was willing to pay. I had been quoted between £ 3K and £ 8K for a transfer. Another problem that I hadn't considered was that many qualified companies had so much work that they couldn't guarantee to complete a transfer with the 12 week dead-line. If my transfer exceeded that, I would have had to pay for a new CETV ( that scheme only allowed one free valuation per year ) The work-load problem will certainly have worsened since my transfer - 2017 - as the rules have tightened and at least one national company that specialised in this ( Tideway ) recently announced that it is withdrawing from this area.

Whilst working through the various documents, it became clear to me in hard numbers, just how excellent pensions really can be. I had only worked for that company for four years, paid in £ 5 500 personal contributions and was being offered £ 103 000 to buy me out. Superb ! For comparative purposes, I was giving up an index-linked pension of £ 3 200/year, so I only had to be able to get a little over 3% per year ROCE to be able to equal that, plus the money was now mine and would be available to any heirs.

Turin, when you write "just get a letter ", I think it is a world away from that simplicity. In order to write that letter/document; my transfer IFA had me fill out a 18-page questionnaire listing investments, investment strategy and goals, assets, outgoings, debts, family circumstances, reasons why I wished to transfer out of that scheme, how I proposed to use that money to provide for my future etc. He then had to examine this and then agree - with his reputation and certification at stake - that leaving the scheme was likely to be to my benefit. This document is , in fact, what I paid the £ 3K for, so I can't see any qualified person doing that without being paid for the transfer. If I have mis-interpreted your comment, then apologies.

From memory, nearly all the companies I contacted, quoted fixed fees, and if any spoke of percentages, 3% is the figure I recall.

777Aviator

Are those multiples of 35 to 40, actual quotations or just numbers being bandied around ? I ask because when I did my transfer, multiples of around 30 were normal for "normal" companies and giants like BP/Shell were offering around 40 ( per newspaper reports ). I would have expected values to have slid back since those heady days.

P.S. I had forgotten that another reason for rejecting many companies contacted was that they insisted that they had to become your IFA to advise on reasonable investment after transfer. They attempted to insinuate that this was part of the due diligence procedure but I am certain it was just increasing the customer base/fee-income. I have been managing my own investments for 20 years and insisted on self-management which reduced the available pool very significantly.

[yellowtriumph]

I cannot imagine any DB pension scheme would try and prevent anyone aged over 55 from taking a pension. The last thing any principle employer of a DB wants is uncertainty as to future liabilities, by taking an early pension these liabilities can be crystallised and funded. Almost certainly the Scheme rules will treat anyone taking an early pension as being 'Scheme neutral' for the finances of the Scheme, in other words you can go early and get a smaller pension for more years, or go later and get a larger pension for fewer years - but the amount paid out by the scheme* will be the same - hence the term 'Scheme neutral'. I would be truly very surprised if the BA Scheme(s) did not include this as its fairly common practice in 'big' schemes.

* taking predicted inflation and pension increases into account, the Scheme only 'loses' if you like if you live longer than the expected likely mortality rate for your particular cohort.

[yellowtriumph]

You'll forgive me if I haven't read your post in great depth, but from what I have deduced your experience of obtaining and acting upon a CETV is fairly typical of many schemes. Let me assure you schemes love, absolutely LOVE, to have members transfer out. As per my previous post the sponsors of DB schemes hate unknown quantities and risks and future pension liabilities is high up on their list especially so if their scheme is underfunded by any measure. All the acts we have seen in recent years (scheme closure to future accrual, members transferring out - in many cases bumping up their CETV by a fair wad to get them to go) have all been designed to crystallise future funding liabilities.

It is not unusual at all for sponsoring employers to increase a CETV amount to act as a carrot to persuade members to further consider transferring their money out.

But what is transferred out? Assuming we lived in 'ordinary times', if you asked for a CETV the scheme will provide you with a figure and it will be a precise mathematical figure calculated strictly in line with the rules of the scheme. But, and this is important, most schemes will have a proviso in their rules that this figure can be reduced by the equivalent amount as the unfunding of the scheme. So, if say the scheme is underfunded on an on-going basis by say 10% then the CETV figure will be reduced by the same amount. So if your 'raw' CETV figure was £200k it would be reduced to £180k in my scenario.You will see that it has to be like that to protect the financial interests of the members who remain in the scheme. You cannot have the situation where members get 'cold feet' about the viability of their scheme and so ask for a CETV figure, get quoted a nice big number, and let them transfer it all out - this could be financially devastating for the members of the scheme who stay put.

What can happen is that the employer may agree to top up the quoted CETV figure to it's original amount and, importantly, the employer will have to transfer that amount directly into the coffers of the pension scheme. It’s not unusual for Employers to cease doing this as it generally forms an agreement between the scheme and the employer which does not form part of the rules of the scheme and it can be rescinded at a moments notice.

Is BA (or IAG, I don't know the company structures) going to top up CETV's under the current financial situation? A question for others.

[OnceaRAFer]

As I understand it Transferring out is not simple and I would be interested to hear of anyone who has recently managed it.

Getting a transfer out quote is easy. You then have to find an IFA who will give you advice and recommend that you do it. As per above, this costs money upfront and involves lots of form filling.

The main problem is, DB pensions are so attractive that you cannot possibly buy the same pension on the open market with the transfer out price. Therefore, no IFA is going to recommend that you do (unless you have some really good reason (ie going to die soon). You cannot insist the IFA recommends you transfer out because they know that if they recommend you transfer out, and it goes wrong, then you can sue them and they will get massive penalties/fines. Previously the IFA's insurance would probably have paid but the premiums have shot up massively hence why most IFA have pulled out of the business of offering transfer advice as the indemnity insurance costs make it uneconomic.

As per my message, if the IFA says no (very likely) they you can appeal to the Ombudsman and this makes you an "Insistent Client". However, under current regulations the Ombudsman is likely to ignore your request (even though it's your money, your pension) on the grounds that you can't possibly know more than them or the IFA and therefore can't make a proper judgement. This is outrageous as you could argue that going into a gambling den is reckless but it's your money and if you want to do it then so be it.

Therefore, I'd be really interested to hear if anyone has recently (in the last 6 months to a year) who is normally fit and healthy managed to get any IFA to agree that transferring a DB pension out is a good idea and they will put it in writing ?

[Ancient Observer]

CETV s can also be impacted by the beancounters advice to the Co., which is, of course, a different legal entity from the Pension plan. The story is beyond my typing skills, but both the Co and the DB Pension plan wanted folk off their books!
I will never understand why they coughed up so much for me to go.

[yellowtriumph]

That’s easy, by getting rid of you they got rid of a future financial risk. Sorry to appear a bit blunt. I believe it was Albert Einstein who said the most powerful force in the universe was compound interest.

[8029848s]

No IFA can stop you transferring out....you just sign a disclaimer. The remit of IFA is very narrow...certainly doesn't consider the present crisis etc so most will advise 'remain"....it's a personal decision depending on many factors.

[Tartiflette Fan]

That doesn't accord with what I believe to be the case. If the IFA doesn't agree that there is a benefit to a transfer, then it doesn't happen.

[Private jet]

Let's see this disclaimer then? "The remit of the IFA is very narrow", well, you got that right. The going rate for tranferring out is 1% of pot, a scandalous amount, but the slimy little "pretty boys" have to make a living don't they?......

[OnceaRAFer]

This is not correct. If the advisor says no then you go to the Ombudsman who will also likely say no. As I mentioned, if the Advisor says yes and it proves to be incorrect advice then they are basically out of business (and as there are very few reasons for you to move from DB to personal pension then no is 99% likely). You may have thought it was your money......

[avtur007]

I've just been through transferring out of a DB scheme and it's alot of paperwork and cost.
Background: Transfer values are based on what it costs your DB scheme to buy investments that cover your costs during drawdown. These have to be made up of low risk securities such as government bonds, cash holdings etc. At the moment government bonds although secure, don't pay out much interest (often negative interest just now) therefore your pension fund needs to buy more of them to get the returns needed to give you your guarantee DB pension, hence the transfer values are high at the moment, as its still cheaper to get you out than risk having to buy millions in worthless bonds etc. That's the main driver of transfer values, it's calculated exactly and fluctuates month to month, the company has no control over this and is nothing to do with the share price etc. Every company follows the same rules to calculate transfer values.
The FCA say that the expectation is that for most people thinking of transferring out, it is categorically not a good idea, and that's what the IFA will begin with. It's very difficult to prove its in your interest to transfer out, actually it's weighted so heavily towards not doing so that it's almost impossible to get a recommendation. Makes sense as the government would rather see you have a little guaranteed pot, than blow or lose it all on the open markets and then it costs them more!
Everything in my IFA report pointed towards transferring out being the better but they still recommended not to transfer. I got a 58 page report and it cost £2.4k for the pleasure. But I am still transferring out, against the recommendation.
So to transfer out you need to have taken advice from an IFA if your value is over £30k sterling. You don't have to follow the advice if they say its not in your interest to transfer out nor do you need to go through the ombudsman, you are free to decide whatever the report says. The problem you have is trying to find an IFA that will do a report, most won't touch it as the base line is to not transfer out, therefore its a waste of money to do an expensive report that will say not to. IFAs will always err on the cautious side to avoid future litigation incase they advise you to transfer out and your funds plummet. So your going to most likely pay a lot of money for a report that says don't do it. But you need this report to show you have at least taken advice, regardless of what it recommends. Now the second problem you have is trying to find an investment platform that will take your money with a recommendation to remain in the DB scheme. Again most platforms won't touch you for fear of litigation.
However it can be done and you can transfer out regardless of what the advice says and you are known as an insistent investor.
So what will likely give you a recommendation to transfer out : well if you had a terminal illness, other guaranteed incomes that are far in excess of your DB pot, if the company was likely to collapse and your DB fund defaults to the PPF. Things like that. The rules are so tight against transferring out, that anyone under 50 will likely get a no recommendation.
If Anyone wants to pm me feel free. I can put you in touch with the right people that I used but it does cost money and you most likely will get a not to transfer recommendation but that shouldn't stop you if your comfortable with making your cash work and can take the losses alongside the gains.

[8029848s]

OnceaRAFer

In correct based on my experience....I transferred out of my scheme recently....advice was to remain...cost £2000......as I said previously you just have to sign a disclaimer.

[TURIN]

All LGW engineering staff being offered VR again. Hangar to shut, line operation only in the future.

[MichaelOLearyGenius]

Are all the BA pilots who were striking last year for a bigger share of the profits giving money back to the company now they are making huge losses?

[wiggy]

I suppose they might have considered it, but then looked at the example set by very senior management and went.... (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1333229/BA-boss-Willie-Walsh-bonus-staff-axed)

[White Van Driver]

MichaelOLearyGenius

ha ha what a great troll! all the pilots who went on strike last year did not ever get a "bigger share of the profits", our profit share was £0.00 before and has remained so ever since.

still, said pilots have handed wads of cash back to the airline, pay cuts to the tune of 2 months wages between April - December 2020.

and these are the lucky ones who avoided compulsory redundancy.

[FlipFlapFlop]

MichaelOLearyGenius

In short, Yes. Happy now ?

[stormin norman]

White Van Driver

Nobody has handed great wads of cash to anyone. People have sensibly taking away reduction for the reasons of preserving jobs.
You may have noticed not to many people are actually working or aircraft flying these days.

[bex88]

Really? Yes we are working less but on SH we are still working a fair bit

[White Van Driver]

The paycut across all the pilots has saved the company around £60m this year (very rough calc). I don't disagree with this as a methodology, in fact I voted for it. But it still counts as wads of cash by any metric! And this is the same group of pilots who were told very clearly that there wouldn't be any profit share for them when the profits were nudging £2000m a year.

The whole point of a profit share is that it goes down to zero when times get tough for the company, giving them an automatic reduction of outgoings.

MichaelOLearyGenius is clearly trolling for something, but I just couldn't let the false narrative slide by unchallenged.

[slast]

This charity was mentioned in an earlier thread. It is now fully registered and able to accept donations. Its beneficiaries are pilots in all aviation areas. British Airways pilots and retirees are able to contribute by the Payroll Giving scheme, which this may also be available for other airlines. If you're in the fortunate position of still having a secure income from a career as a pilot, please consider contributing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PilotsTogetherhttps://www.[
pilotstogether.org/

A new UK registered charity (Number 1191122 (tel:1191122)) has been set up by current pilots and supporters in summer 2020 in response to the impact of Covid-19 on our community.

PilotsTogether’s goal is to ensure that pilots made redundant remain a part of our community, retain the skills they already have and to help them gain new skills and hopefully gainful employment. We also aim to ensure that no former colleagues and their families face significant financial hardship.

To read more about out mission please visit https://pilotstogether.org/our-mission/

Payroll Giving is the easiest and most tax efficient way to donate to PilotsTogether. The donation is paid from your salary before tax and is set up to donate monthly.

The amount of tax relief you get depends on the rate of tax you pay. Using an example donation of £50 a month, the cost to a higher rate taxpayer would be £30 per month. For a basic rate taxpayer the cost would be £40 per month.

If you are a current employee, to set up payroll giving please visithttps://givingonline.org.uk/British+Air ... index.html

For retired colleagues, please visit
https://givingonline.org.uk/British-Air ... harity.php

It is a very simple process and only takes a few minutes. When you are asked what charity you wish to donate to, please select ‘Pilots Together’. If it does not prepopulate please enter ‘Pilots Together (1191122 (tel:1191122))‘.

You can also donate directly online here : https://pilotstogether.org/donate/

Registered Charity No. 1191122 (tel:1191122)
https://www.pilotstogether.org/

[scr1]

How about those on the ground?

[Busdriver01]

scr1, I fully appreciate that those on the ground are also in a terrible position at the moment, and financial hardship may well be upon them, so please don’t take this as anything other than an observation:

As I understand it, the charity was set up by serving (and crucially, ‘safe’) BA pilots who felt they wanted to help their (hopefully temporarily) redundant flight deck colleagues, all of whom are junior and many of whom are still laden with large training debt, and who may have been safe had LIFO not been used. They are now looking for funding, the idea being that other BA pilots are the primary source of donations. Other donations welcome, of course.

Perhaps a branch within the charity could be set up for other work groups, or even advice given from the founders of PT to those wishing to set up a similar charity for their workgroup?

[SaulGoodman]

Having been made redundant in the previous crisis and having done al sorts of jobs outside the cockpit I just want to state that getting an ATPL is a high risk investment. You knew the financial debt you were getting in when you signed your loan with the bank. For this reason I will not contribute. Sorry for that but there are loads if people who are affected by this COVID-19 crisis, not only pilots. If you have the right stamina you will succeed in the end. Do not give up. In the mean time take any job you can get. Give it time.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

scr1

Maybe their ground colleagues will also get together and do something as positive as the pilots have done.

[ID 50]

slast

Sorry, but what do you mean by "pilots in all aviation areas"?

Do you mean pilots who are NOT just BA compulsory redundant (CR) but anyone who has been made CR by any UK airline? If the latter, then I take off my hat to those BA pilots who are willing to donate to all the UK's unemployed pilots!

[MikeAlpha320]

SaulGoodman

Always nice reading things like this. This isnt like any previous crisis and things wont take the same trajectory as before, recovery will be long and difficult. It is a shame this crisis hasnt allowed you to think of others rather than just yourself. Its not just about a training loan (regardless of the fact BA actually owe several cadets their bond back but are refusing to pay more than a year).

This is half the problem with our industry- I went through it so now you have to, seniority at its worst. Sparing 60£pcm after-tax to help people avoid bankrupcty and certain financial ruin is a small price to pay and despite my own worries about job security I will have no issue in trying to help out my colleagues. The job market out there is non-existent and it is truly disheartening to read things like this. I just hope the rest of our membership doesnt think like this.

[cycles gladiator]

Thank you for your post. I realise the world owes us nothing but not following what we want to do in life in case we get hit by a rock or the world collapses is defeatist in itself.
SaulGoodman, yes “there are loads of people who are affected by this Covid-19 crisis, not only pilots” and I have a lot of empathy for them, but this is a pilots forum. Brethren at heart? Maybe not.

[SaulGoodman]

This was first posted in a diffeerent thread. But if it is “by BA pilots, for BA pilots” by all means, go ahead. But it looked like it was initially presented as a charity for all redundant pilots...

[HEJT2015]

Rumours that BA are short of pilots for a couple of fleets already.. guys/girls are receiving texts asking to pick up extra work

[slast]

ID50, Sorry, my fault. I am not actually involved in this and didn't get quite the right message across. As I understand it it is currently limited to BA as those running it are all BA connected, but intended to cover other airlines as soon as possible. See FAQs 4 and 8 on their website. Former BA pilots reading, please consider helping.

[bex88]

HEJT2015

Now why could that be? A320 would be the fleet.

Short or pilots? Only got a email from BALPA this week saying BA had told them there is still a headcount surplus based on the fleet plan they don’t have and won’t share.

[HEJT2015]

The fleet plan we were promised back in June? :ok:

[bex88]

That’s the one :)

[HZ123]

Just how many staff have left BA?

[White Van Driver]

staff I'm not sure, but pilots i believe it's around 450 (400 full time equivalent). that's both compulsory and voluntary redundancies together.

[thetimesreader84]

I was told the total reduction in Headcount Equivalent (so VR,CR,CRS,RAF, etc) came to just shy of 900.


Numbers on the rumour network are:
270-ish Compulsory Redundant
200-ish Voluntary Redundant
300 CRS
80 to RAF/RN/Army (bulk RAF I believe)
40 to BRS (Multi-year unpaid leave)

890 total. Set against BA’s target of 1100. Is that a good result? I’m still employed, so I’d say it is. My mate who got the chop would probably say it isn’t.

[blind pew]

And being replaced by aerlingus boss forthwith

[Maxfli]

Musical chairs........
https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/10/12/alex-cruz-to-step-down-as-british-airways-ceo/

[WHBM]

5 years too late. The damage done to the brand is immeasurable. Starting with their (his) attitude to refunds on cancelled flights.

[Tay Cough]

Hopefully not musical deckchairs...

[stormin norman]

£80 for a covid test at LHR isnt going to bring many passengers back.

[HZ123]

Furthermore will the said test be recognised at the port of disembarkation? Or might you have to pay again?

[wiggy]

It appears somebody has done a bit of homework on this given that it seems the tests are only targeted at travellers going to two specific destinations..

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/20/rapid-covid-test-heathrow-aiiport-coronavirus-cost-italy-hong-kong

[Flying Clog]

Completely pointless, particularly in the case of HKG ... once you get there, you get tested again anyway (for free), and get thrown in gaol for 14 days for your troubles despite testing clear. Nice.

[VariablePitchP]

£80 for a covid test at LHR isnt going to bring many passengers back.

Its a start though - at the moment going to, for example, Hong Kong is a really hassle given how hard it is to get tests at the moment and how long results take to get back. £80 to avoid all of that will be a big plus for many.

[PC767]

Is round two rapidly approaching? Cabin crew have been told that the flying program isn’t as hoped for, less flights in the system and an ever changing scope of regulations down-route (and at home) to contend with.
the cabin crew have been asked to volunteer for 5 months unpaid leave. Don’t know how many, but suddenly over-crewed in the cabin probably means similar elsewhere.

Will all the B777s be brought back or will older ones have an accelerated retirement?

[Riskybis]

More redundancies is almost certain (unfortunately)

[PC767]

So sorry to hear this. I am beginning to lose hope of the airline business returning to anything recognisable, 2024 or otherwise.

[TURIN]

Same in engineering. Email received on Friday from the Director of Engineering warning of further compulsory redundancies. TU currently in negotiations to mitigate headcount reduction.

Best of luck everyone.

[HEJT2015]

Apparently new cabin crew courses have started their training due to a recent shortage?

[Jwscud]

5 Months unpaid leave takes us through a very quiet winter to the start of the summer season. The thing protecting pilots at the moment is the fleet/seat mix and the long lead times and capacity bottlenecks for training vs the short term nature of the slot alleviations. Imagine a world where they find themselves unable to fly/keep the Heathrow slots.

Internal rumours about the summer 21 plan going through the system are quietly positive.

My personal view is some kind of flexible % cap for % pay is a likely future step for flight crew if reductions are necessary.

[kungfu panda]

It is impossible for BA to keep all of the current slots. The company is haemorrhaging cash as it is without operating the necessary empty flights. BAA will not keep those slots available forever. They'll probably be kept in BA's name for another 6 months.

[wiggy]

Your guess is as good as mine, but I'd say the same applies to most airlines who were routinely operating into/out of LHR.

It's not exactly a case of "everybody is operating out of LHR but BA" is it, and it's certainly not exactly a sellers markets for slots ATM.

[kungfu panda]

BA currently have 51% of the slots at LHR. It's not a guess that there'll be a smash and grab on those as soon as they're not protected. It's not a guess that BA don't currently have the cash to protect those slots either.

I do use the word currently because I do expect the British government to protect BA's Longhaul.

[MikeAlpha320]

See Wizz @ LGW. If the slots go, BA go. LHR will be protected at all costs!

[kungfu panda]

So long as BA have the capability to get all their Aircraft operating again prior to the end of slot protection (which is impossible). If they do then as long as they have the means to operate cash flow negative flights for an indefinite period in order to protect slots (Environmentally absolutely unacceptable in this day and age), which they don't. BA will lose all the slots from LHR down to the point that they have the financial where with all to maintain whats remaining.

[MikeAlpha320]

BA needs to remain a particular size to service the huge debts run up in the IAG group. Economies of scale and that fact will mean BA will have to remain a certain size- what this size is, we don't know. There will be further reduction over the winter for sure, but I personally agree with the above that further CR will not be necessary unless S21 flying plan significantly changes. The late publication of slot alleviation's makes it particularly difficult to plan and its already a known issue that if the alleviation is not extended into S21 the Airbus fleet will be short of P2's. Further pay cuts and 'efficiencies' on the way I think, but CR (I hope) is done for the immediate future.

[GS-Alpha]

The ‘use it lose it’ slot waiver is currently in place until 27th March ‘21. They do not need to worry about losing unused slots.

[bex88]

JM quote, we are over on headcount for the winter which we knew but crewed for summer 21. The problem comes if S21 is bad. Regardless of being 4000 on the list or 400. Engineering or cabin crew etc we will all be in trouble.

The email today from the management committee backs that up. Not enough flying for everyone over the winter but they are looking to make the most of the JSS alongside other temporary measures such as VUPL and part time. The big difference is “temporary” not permanent like last time. They could just make a large number of cuts and blame it on the end of the JRS but they are not.

Difficult times but I think the talk of more CR right now is premature.

Hopefully that is right

[stormin norman]

MikeAlpha320

Not so sure about pay cuts but more unpaid leave/ standown will probally be likely and makes sense. Cash in the bank is key to survival for any business at the moment.

[TURIN]

bex88

Depends which department you work in. Targeted emails were sent out yesterday to certain engineering staff with the threat of CR quite openly expressed.

[FlipFlapFlop]

And a number of Gatwick 320 skippers who have had their transfer to Heathrow canned.

[GS-Alpha]

I suspect delayed rather than canned.

[Paddingtonbear]

I can't see more redundancies at the moment but the longer we go on without a successful vaccine the more damage is being done to BA.

BA can't afford to send heavies across the Atlantic with 15 people onboard for that much longer. The reality is that this situation, 8 months in now is only getting worst. £5bn/£6bn liquidity in a group employing what, 100k people in this decimated industry won't last that much longer.

BA want their cake and they want to eat it. They won't want any more pilots off their books if they can afford it but they will not want to pay the pilots for sitting idle at home for too much longer. Something has to give and they will soon need to strategically rethink this.

[GS-Alpha]

It is the governments of the world who need a strategical rethink. Those countries which can afford to, have a plan A - suppress the virus as much as possible (almost without any regard for the cost or collateral damage), to delay deaths and hope a useful vaccine presents itself. They have no plan B.

It will be interesting to see how the countries who could not afford the above plan A emerge from all of this. I suspect they will have no need of a vaccine, will have a similar overall death toll, and will bounce back far more quickly.

[Paddingtonbear]

I agree wholeheartedly but the damage has been done. Until people stop dying in 'great numbers', government are not going to make life easy for airlines. I read this morning about a "sharp rise in cases in China from 17 to 42". Until this madness stops things are going to deteriorate. Only an effective vaccine will achieve this. If not, the landscape is forever changed.

[Plastic787]

Paddingtonbear

At this point I think we’re requiring a miracle for Summer 21 to be in any way reminiscent of years gone by. The likelihood is that even if there is a successful vaccine in the coming weeks that is going to take months to distribute to the general population and, as a result, the quarantine restrictions that are crippling the industry are likely to be in place until well into next summer if not the entire year. In that case I think we’re looking at two possible scenarios and precious little in between; state intervention or bankruptcy. It’s that stark. Will Boris (or Gove/Rishi) want to begin “Global Britain” with the embarrassment of having no flag carrying airline and having to rely on Emirates, Qatar, Lufthansa and KLM to connect us to the wider world?

[Northern Monkey]

I think more flight crew CR in the immediate future is, on balance, unlikely. It has been clear for a very long time that winter this year was going to be murder for the aviation industry. As incompetent as I believe our managers sometimes are, even I can't believe they really thought they were going to reach breakeven cashflow in Q4. They must have known it was going to be a disastrous winter, and if their intention was to crew accordingly they would have needed to start the process earlier than now. Any new redundancies will require a 45 day consultation period, followed by a 3 month notice period (or pay in lieu) plus redundancy pay. Even if you started today, that almost gets you to spring 21. A costly exercise reaching its conclusion just as things may be starting to improve. Far more likely in the short term is further unpaid leave, which is a lever we know BA is willing to pull (unlike part time).

The real problem is summer 21. Today, Heathrow reduced their passenger forecast for next year from 62 million to 37 million (2019: 81 million). If that is even close to being accurate then further CR will be inevitable next year. There are some reasons for optimism however. First, scientific opinion seems to be that we will get a vaccine or vaccines by the end of Q1/21. We don't know how effective they will be but it's a fair bet they will make an appreciable difference to the trajectory of the epidemic. Additionally there are several promising trials of therapeutics nearing conclusion. Testing technology is rapidly advancing and pressure will only increase on the government to find a workable replacement to reduce or eliminate quarantine in time for summer next year. More broadly, I think we will see public opinion starting to shift soon, not just here but elsewhere, when the cost of all this (both societal and monetary) starts to become more obvious. The public have been mostly shielded from the worst effects of restrictions by bailouts which cannot continue for much longer.

In terms of it being existential if I'm wrong and things drag on and on, on a political level I have never personally believed that the government, and particularly this government, would be prepared to see British Airways completely disappear. In terms of optics, as a first step out on to the world stage as a newly "independent" and global free trading nation it would be a spectacular own goal. A national embarrassment. Not that they don't have form of course - pick your fiasco/u-turn of choice from the last 6 months - but when push came to shove would they really watch the national carrier sink? I find that hard to believe personally. That's not to say government intervention would be especially pleasant for staff or shareholders, but I suspect it would happen nevertheless. Let's all hope we don't get to find out if I'm right.

[FlipFlapFlop]

Absolutely Northern Monkey. Kate Bingham (Head of UK Vaccine TaskForce) and a real expert said today that two of the Oxford vaccines will be rolled out starting this year. Age and occupation targeting initially subject to government conformation. As it is the elderly and unwell most at risk they will be top of the list. She is very confident that they will be successful.....maybe not 100% but enough to make sure death rates from covid plummet. She also scoffed at the notion offered by some that there is no such thing as herd immunity.....Sweden was her one word answer before answering in detail.
So, S21 should (fingers crossed) be so so much better and hopefully we will start to see an end of the serial doomsters that live here and in the media.

[Jet II]

Plastic787

I'm not sure its that simple. Given the ownership structure of BA with it being simply part of a Spanish based Company then any nationalization may only be possible with the agreement of IAG - they may want a significant payment for the brand name even if you can have the assets for free. In that scenario and with the current demands on the Treasury will Rishi see any value in spending money to buy an airline that will be a drain in the exchequer for possibly years to come?. If the Government is unwilling to pay then there is probably more value for IAG in breaking up the airline and selling off the assets, slots etc.

[polax52]

I don't agree with that. The UK government will likely only get involved post IAG bankruptcy. At which point it will pick up the remnants of BA at fire sale prices. BA will then be re-privatised in the future. I expect that the taxpayer will make money out of the deal in the long term. In my view though, the government will not touch the shorthaul, it's not in their interest to compete on routes that are already served by British carriers. Longhaul that's different, they'll see the need for an intercontinental flag carrier serving destinations which other British carriers do not.
Unfortunately the slots do not belong to IAG to sell off. They operate them or they lose them.

[3Greens]

Over 50% of BA traffic is connecting traffic from short haul to Longhaul. BA operate a hub and spoke airline at LHR. LH and SH can really only co exist or not at all.

[kungfu panda]

If BA is nationalised, which is very likely. As you say, the company relies on SH to feed the LH but that won't happen.Therefore you're looking at a much smaller, LH only company.

The company is saving the jobs in hope of restarting in April and therefore keeping the slots. But it's just a gamble.

[bringbackthe80s]

Either way, not looking good at all.

[Jet II]

I don't agree with that. The UK government will likely only get involved post IAG bankruptcy. At which point it will pick up the remnants of BA at fire sale prices.

But if IAG are at risk of bankruptcy then then it is quite likely that they will have a fire sale of assets in the group to try and prevent their collapse. So BA and Iberia could be broken up and sold off long before any collapse of the parent company IAG. Of course in that scenario IAG would love to sell BA as a going concern to the Government - but will the Government want to buy?

[Bombardierguy]

I'm sorry, but bailing out Spanish and Irish jobs in IAG is no business of the U.K. tax payer. This would represent a blatant misuse of public funds.

[747-436]

I agree that S21 will be difficult. At least with the S20 season just gone people will have been booking for this right up to March and maybe beyond as initially a lot of people thought this would be over in a few months. So despite the massive amount of refunds airlines still had some money in the bank. How many people will be booking for S21? I would suggest a few are but it won't be many so airlines simply aren't getting any money coming in, as many rely on money in the bank for future travel to keep going.

If IAG falls how many airlines will go before it as they are one of the stronger ones?

[Walnut]

Does anyone know the current share register of IAG There has just been a significant rights issue with lots of shares changing hands. It is very noticeable that IAG recently has been trading on the FTSE as one of the most traded, in some cases by a significant margin. Was this because large numbers of former shareholders chose not to take up their allotment Who actually holds a controlling interest. Is it Qatar?

[Twiglet1]

The unmentionable aircraft in UAE has just had a second slashing of the workforce. Its going to be a rough ride

[Plastic787]

To put that in perspective Etihad were struggling with an over saturated market even prior to Covid. But yeah things are bad.

[Maxfli]

Bombardierguy

I am intrigued as to how the UK Governments decision to extend IAG a guarantee for a £300m loan constitutes;
a) UK Taxpayers money
b) Bailing out Spanish & Irish jobs

The Spanish Government has committed 3 times as much.
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2020/05/01/british-airways-parent-company-accepts-e1-billion-bailout-from-spanish-government/

Staff in other airlines in the group have also suffered redundancies, accepted more onerous terms along with paycuts of 50% to 70%

More Bad News on the way......
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ba-owner-says-driving-down-071354400.html?.tsrc=applewf

[PC767]

With the news that BA flight crew are now being furloughed, where does this leave pilots in the holding pool? Will the pool still be financed by furloughed pilots on 80% pay?

[ollie135]

Surely they'll be furloughed too, they are still employees of the company after all?

[wiggy]

Having tried to follow this simply for academic interest I think I need somebody to provide the "CliffsNotes" on the latest plan...it almost seems to my little mind as if pilots will brought out of "furlough" to perform a rostered duty", then drop back into it again...I must be misunderstanding it.. :confused:

[bex88]

The extended furlough is different in you can be furloughed part of the time. But yes Wiggy you are correct. Days off and leave are still that. Rostered work days with no work available are furlough.

[wiggy]

Thanks bex, after posting I belatedly stumbled across some "FAQs" relevant to this and the concept of things like "flexi-furlough" are slightly clearer now.

Good Luck with all this.

[White Van Driver]

PC767

Yes. The CRS pool pilots are still paid for by all the working BA pilots, furloughed or not.

[CaptainSox]

Rumour has it that a few people have left the CRS already.

I wonder how many senior Captains and FOs were put in the CRS withing a few years of retirement. This may help the junior members to jump up the ladder as it were when things improve.

All the best to everyone in this very difficult time.

[3Greens]

And gone where? Certainly no one has left the CRS and being coursed.

[Paddingtonbear]

The original plan was based on recovery starting in q1/q2 2021. That looks highly unlikely. What's in store for the CRS/pilots in general? There's been nothing reported/leaked in the Sun recently...

[Count von Altibar]

I'm pretty sure some have left the CRS and been on courses some now flying the line, not many mind you.

[wiggy]

I've lost track of the terminology and which pool is which but last time I read about this (elsewhere) whilst there have been courses (e.g.I know for certain at least one senior ex-744 guy has converted to the 777 in the last few months) nobody in the CRS pool is likely to get a course until the summer....

[3Greens]

Count von Altibar

im afraid that this is incorrect. The CRS ( the pool of pilots being funded by the line community) has not been touched yet. All courses since the CRS was populated have been for surplus ex 747 pilots to the 777,787 and some to 320. The 380 pilots have been doing short courses to the 350.
No one has left the CRS yet and is not expected to do so until Q3/4.
all pilots on courses since September were outside the CRS and deemed “operational” but without a current flying seat.

[Paddingtonbear]

So, 321 (300 HCE) CRS pilots to be placed/re-typed from q3 2021. Is it feasible that this will be achieved in 2 years (by Q3 2023)? If not, unless they extend it, I guess that'll be the end of the PRP existence?

[3Greens]

very feasible. In fact, there’s over 150 retirements (Age 65) planned in that period alone. Many Known unknowns And unknown unknowns (to quote DR), but it is most certainly do able.

[Percula]

Paddingtonbear

It's been mentioned several times that the PRP period will be extended if need be.

[Potatos_69]

I've gotten lost with the Acronyms.... What is PRP?

[Percula]

It's the group of the 249 most junior pilots at the company that got made redundant as part of the deal that BALPA made with BA.

[OBK!]

I don’t think that’s strictly correct but easy to assume.

[Percula]

All had less than 2 years service from what I know. I would say that’s pretty junior.

[OBK!]

That is junior. What you know isn’t correct though as per the matrix more senior folk where let go. Some with more than 8 years service.

[Percula]

I believe that was one or two people with a disciplinary. Most where just caught out by LIFO.

[OBK!]

Yes I think you’re correct. Most were caught out by LIFO.

[The Foss]

Percula

LIFO..ish.. due to the 787/350 and former BACF immunity, the top end of the 249 made redundant were 350+ places off the bottom of the MSL.
Still junior, but approaching PP3 vs pilots who were only weeks (or days) in the company when Covid hit, and yet to touch a BA aircraft but kept their jobs.

[CaptainSox]

BACF were certainly not immune. BACF contracts are with BA and therefore their service counted towards LIFO.

[The Foss]

Imagine the uproar if BACF DOJ was suddenly used for bidding purposes.
At the end of the day there were approximately 70-80 pilots that got shafted out of seniority order.
In my eyes pilots with c. 2 years flying for BA mainline should not have lost their job ahead of those who may have only been in weeks or months, regardless of fleet or who they worked for previously. That’s exactly what LIFO was for.

[CaptainSox]

There is no point imagining something that isn’t happening. Re the bidding process.
Although you may not like to think of the BACF Pilots as part of BA, their contracts say otherwise.
Legally their service had to count.
I would question the number being as high as 70-80.
There may well be that many BACF Pilots at mainline, but most of them would have already served more than 2 years. And therefore regardless of their city flyer service wouldn’t have been up for redundancy.

[The Foss]

legally their service counts for statutory purposes when calculating a redundancy payment.
But it has no legal standing when determining a redundancy matrix. The company and the union can agree to put whatever they like in there provided it is non discriminatory, as we saw with Virgin when LIFO went out the window.
As LIFO doesn’t legally need to be part of the redundancy matrix, it can’t be legally required to consider DOJ at a subsidiary.
We have LIFO in the MOA to protect us but rely on Balpa to uphold that, which for the majority they did but a small number got very unlucky.

I believe ther were 20-30 former BACF pilots ‘below the line’ plus approx 50 787/350 (tel:50 787/350), hence the 70-80 made CR out of order.

[CaptainSox]

We have LIFO in the MOA which states “ total service with an employer shall be taken into consideration” nowhere does it say the MSL is to be used.

And if you’re going to use 787/350 figures then it’s not just Cityflyer people who were saved, they wouldn’t even make up the majority in that group.

Again the MOA mentions retaining employment “in those showing high efficiency”.

Many many people were unlucky in all this, I just hope some sort of normality is in our future.

[clamchowder]

My understanding from the numerous emails sent out by the union and company was that the 350/787 folk saved did not push the line up. This was explicitly explained so many times it was boring. They were saved at no cost. They were saved at companies request, not the union's. The only issue is it makes is those of us that were screwed a little bitter that junior people kept their jobs. Either x lose their job or x+787/350 lose their jobs. The line didn't rise by 40, 50 or any number to save the 350/78 pilots. It might make you sleep better at night to have them sacked too, but it is a fundamentally worse solution.
350/78 talk just muddies the water IMO. All it did was reduce the number of redundancies (a good thing).
BACF did increase the position of the line, but is legally backed so no arguments there, just the way it is and sadly overlooked by all, initially.

Mainly being devils advocate, a lot of stuff has happened I don't agree with. Covid is (say it together) unprecedented.

[The Foss]

CaptainSox

I said both in my first post on the matter, to quote - “due to the 787/350 and former BACF immunity”

It was simply a reply to someone who had said LIFO was used to point out yes, to an extent, but not completely.

[Sick]

Pips are squeaking.. British Airways to defer £450m of pension contributions (https://amp.ft.com/content/7076813e-23f8-4419-9ca3-7fdd22aff368)

[king surf]

I think if I was in NAPS I would be seriously thinking about taking my money out.

[hunterboy]

I think many people are in the process of doing so....or at least leaving just enough not to get penalized when/if NAPS goes into the PPF.

[Count von Altibar]

Can NAPS go into the PPF if BA is still trading?

[Slamitin]

Yes........if it’s part of an RAA....... that’s what happened at Monarch in 2014.