BA f/os Wanting GSS commands

[spencer drake]

To all BA f/os thinking about bidding for GSS commands. THINK AGAIN!!! Do you realise what you are getting into.
Firstly be aware that all in GSS from the management down, do not want direct entry captains because of the problems involved. (Similar to those that would be involved if BA had to take on direct entry captains).
Balpa has done much muscle flexing but little brain flexing in this matter. Both BA and Balpa are keen to impose this on GSS. It may well turn out to be illegal but thats not the main point.
If you accept a command on less money than you would get at BA think what message this sends out. BA management would love the chance to argue that f/os will accept commands for less pay. This will totally undermine future pay negotiations and suprisingly Balpa have been duped into supporting it. Also it will totally undermine the fight to have BA cargo completely in house, if BA staff are working on the cheap for GSS.
Secondly you will be sitting next to a guy whose job you have just taken, you will be working in a potentially hostile environment. The potential for CRM nightmares is high. Even the ex BA staff at GSS are completely against the idea. So don't make yourself an outcast from BA a parriah at GSS and a pawn for low pay with GSS management, all with one stupid bid. Think

[PSYCOBFH]

Spencer,

You may not like it, but veiled threats and attempts at intimidation will not work. grow up.

I wasn't going to bid for one of OUR 744F commands, but having read your foolish post, I think that I just might, The notice is due out any day and the money is not too bad.

I quite like the idea of a 'holiday' flying around the world on a freighter. It's better than unpaid leave 'cos whilst I'm doing it i still get paid. And then i can nip back into BA and be replaced by another BA colleague.

Spencer,
you started this rubbish mate, so a few facts (just for you 'cos i'm sure that the rest of your colleagues are all professionals and would have nothing to do with what appears to be a veiled threat)
1. this is BA work
2. this is BA work
3. this is BA work
get the message?

this is work which has been taken from BA pilots, and now we are going to get a crack at it. One day i hope that it will return into the proper BA pilot community where it really belongs.


Be careful about making threats spencer - you wouldn't want to be accused of making a threat on board an a/c when we fly together would you?

[marlin]

Sixteen man on the dead man's chest
Yo Ho Ho! And A bottle of Rum

[411A]

Hmmm, looks like the BA head shed has discovered B scale.
CX did likewise much to the flight crews dismay.
Shareholders/management must be smiling....all the way to the bank.
Also suspect BALPA hasn't got a clue...:ooh:

[moggie]

Maybe a more serious issue is the one of parachuting CityExpress AVRO RJ Capatins into mainline BA shorthaul commands in contravention of the previous agreement. The whole process is being conducted in a fashion that makes the workings of the North Korean communist party look open and above board.

[Youwererobbed]

No citiexpress guys are getting mainline commands, only GF rights to commands at LGW. They are welcome to them.

[Basil]

Just arrived from pub therefore slightly cerebrally challenged.
Are GSS F/Os BALPA members?
Try to get BA crew onside - i.e. don't alienate them.
Make it a 'BA vs crew' issue rather than a 'GSS F/O vs BA F/O' issue.
Looking at it from the outside you have points on both sides AND (unlike Cathay's probs over the last 10 yrs) you are in Europe with UK/EU labour laws and union representation.
Look at the law - e.g. why can't BA sub their freight if they wish?
GSS FOs - where does it say that your company can't employ DE captains? Did you have a promised command clause in your contract? (most 'promised commands' don't)
BA FOs - do you wish to help create a B-scale cargo subsidiary?

Please don't consider any of the foregoing to be adverse criticism; merely food for thought based on a few years in the biz.

I'm going to see what's on the tele :8

[moggie]

youwererobbed

apologies- I meant LGW. However, the scheme is a touch naughty if

a) you promise it will only exist for 1 year and it is now in it's second

b) you don't tell the guys who are bidding for commands at LGW

Example: I know of a 777 FO who wanted a command and liked LGW (his house is there) and really did not want to wait 7-9 years for the left seat on his 777. So, after looking at the slots available and the seniority he bids for 737 command at LGW and Airbus command at LHR.

All looks well - as the bids close he is number 8 on the list for 24 737 commands. So, imagine his surprise when 2 days later he has dropped off the bottom of the list because of the citiexpress chaps being parachuted in.

Now, if the process had been open (i.e. BA had said that this was what they planned to do) then he could have saved his time bidding for LGW and bid for BHX/MAN where he didn't really want to go but may have had a better chance of success because of the effects of the citiexpress deal being restricted to LGW.

[cumulo-granite]

moggie,

I believe they are ex CityFlyer Express pilots you refer to, not BA CitiExpress pilots. Gawd knows why the newer company was given an almost identical name to the now defunct company which used to operate exactly the same aircraft at LGW...

One thing's for sure, the old company was a damn sight more successful than its newer almost-namesake...!

:confused:

[Suggs]

Spencer are you on drugs? You half inch our jobs and then preach solidarity. Well the boots on the other foot mate. There's a load of FO's who have shafted recently out of command by direct entry kids from Crawley Councils Airbourne division. I quite fancy not having to bother with punters for a few years.

[5150]

Sorry to ask, but what/who is GSS?

[ratarsedagain]

An independant company based at STN operating 2 (soon to be 3?) dedicated 747-400 freighters on behalf of BA World Cargo, in full BA livery, with 'Speedbird' callsigns.

[StressFree]

Ratsarsed,
Not so sure about 'full BA livery'...........
I lined up at CGN behind a GSS liveried -400 which was going to FAJS but with a 'Speedbird' callsign.....

:cool:

[JiveBomber]

They aren't in BA Livery

[Jack Point]

What mix of nationalities operate for gss or is it another one way validation operation backed up by antipodeans?

if so good luck to the ba guys.

[74world]

PSYCOBFH,

What did you say???? BA work, BA work, BA work......

If you guys in BA can do the work for the same cost, why aren't you doing it?????
I am sure BA management would have prefered to get a couple of 400F and give the work to you clowns, don't you think????

Maybe the cost is to high and BA could not make any money....

Well if you want to bid for a position into GSS go ahead, but GSS IS NOT BA.........

Cheers


:ok:

PS: I don't work for GSS:E

[ratarsedagain]

JiveBomber / Stressfree,

Yep, you're right, they're no longer in BA livery. However, they did have a BA livery on them when first delived.
See Here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=221227&WxsIERv=Qm9laW5nIDc0Ny00N1VGL1NDRA%3D%3D&WdsYXMg=QnJpdGlzaCBBaXJ3YXlzIFdvcmxkIENhcmdvIC8gQXRsYXMgQWly&QtODMg=TG9uZG9uIC0gU3RhbnN0ZWQgKFNUTiAvIEVHU1Mp&ERDLTkt=VUsgLSBFbmdsYW5k&ktODMp=SnVuZSAyMSwgMjAwMQ%3D%3D&BP=0&WNEb25u=QWRhbSBSb3dkZW4%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=TjQ5NU1D&MgTUQtODMgKE=UmV0dXJuaW5nIHRvIGl0cyBob21lIGJhc2UgYXQgU3RhbnN 0ZWQuIEEvYyBub3cgcGFpbnRlZCB1cCBhcyBHLUdTU0EgYW5kIGZseWluZyB mb3IgbmV3IFN0YW5zdGVkLWJhc2VkIEF0bGFzIEFpciBmcmVpZ2h0IGFpcmx pbmUgR2xvYmFsIFN1cHBseSBTeXN0ZW1z&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=NjEz&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMi0wMy0wMg%3D%3D&static=yes)

[ratarsedagain]

my, my, we are a bit sensitive! I was just pointing out they did have the livery at one time-no big deal.
If the BA guys have the right to bid for it (which they do, as you can see from the agreement in an earlier post) then they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. Like you say, things change!

[Dan Winterland]

I you look closely, I that 400F has an N reg. that is because it was an Atlas aircraft - hence the Atlas logo under the cockpit. Atlas used to operate the BAWC contract and painted an aircraft in the colours just as they do with their 2 400Fs operated for and on behalf of Emirates. The current GSS scheme is actually Atlas' scheme with a few mods - Atlas own the aircraft. The GSS aircaft do have a small BA logo on the forward fuselage.

Atlas ceased to operate the BAWC contract due to pressure from the CAA thanks to a campaign against flagging out from the IPA. The jobs only became British on formation of GSS due to this pressure and there was a lot of anger from the American pilots who believed their jobs were being taken away from them.

I'm not going to comment on who's jobs I think they are, but I do feel sorry for the GSS FOs who have had the carrot of a command dangled to see it whipped away. Also 411A has a good point that if the operation does get integrated, BA management will have successfuly managed to introduce a B scale. Beware!

[Shaman]

<<Sorry to ask, but what/who is GSS?>>

A company, 49% owned by Atlas, to which BA outsourced its cargo work.

Congratulations to the BA pilots' reps for starting to put an end to the outsourcing of BA pilots' work. Now get to work on the Franchisees.

[Jet A1]

God forbid -- Nigels flying freight -- What will they do -- No hosties to upset and how will they cope with no CHEESEBOARD -- Quick run to BALPA !

Wont be long before the Nigel managers get bored again and start chasing the franchises again -- which seem to be making stacks of cash ! Must put a stop to that !

[FlyboyUK]

Moggie

Just to clarify it was some of the CityFlyer guys that got commands in mainline when it was absorbed.

Although CitiExpress is owned by BA, it is run as a totally seperate company and CitiExpress pilots have no access to mainline at the current time.

As cumulo-granite pointed out the very similar names all to often cause confusion!

Infact what is happening is that some mainline pilots are being parachuted into CitiExpress commands on the RJ100 and pushing some CitiExpress Captains already on the RJ into the RHS, which is totally unfair. But that's another kettle of fish which has been discussed on this forum before!

[Skylion]

Some misconceptions about BAs franchises here. Difficult to think of any that have taken jobs away from BAs pilots as the franchisees invested in operations where BA did not or could not operate,- and mostly never could at BAs cost levels. The overseas franchises, eg Comair in S Africa , RegionAir in Kenya and Sunair in Denmark fly routes which BA would never be able to secure the traffic rights for anyway. The franchises have through their own investment and financial risk brought BA feed traffic and strengthened the power and reach of its Executive Club, frequent flyer programme at no cost to BA itself. Thereby they have supported BA mainline profitability,- and jobs,- not undermined them.

[5150]

Cheers Shaman.....!

[Dan Winterland]

BALPA and franchises. Hmmmm!

BALPA are very keen to sign up new airlines to increase their revenue, but what happens when there is a conflict of interests between airlines where they represent both? They come out for BA. One airline joined the franchise but flew no extra routes as a result. They just continued to operate the ones they had developed over the years. Recently BALPA supported an attempt by BA to move into those routes. Ironicly, the pilots in this franchise had voted to be represented by BALPA the year before.

BALPA should stand for the 'British Airways Line Pilots Association'. It it BA's union and has not proved to be anything but. The short time I wasted 1% of my salary with them, they were argueing to make me redundant. :mad: ers!

[TopBunk]

Skylion

I think you may find you are wrong here. BAWC (BA World Cargo) went outside the company to find a company to operate regular cargo work BYPASSING BALPA, such that BALPA were not aware of the situation until late on in the day. At that point, partly due to a poor /non-existant SCOPE agreement it was to late to cancel the plans. BAWC then in short time ended up with not just part-loads, but 1 and then 2 aircraft.

We (BALPA) have since been trying to argue our case to the point we are now. The freighters fly purely BA Cargo around the world - that is why it is (1) BA work (2) BA work (3) BA work.

BALPA has been successful in negotiating terms at LGW, BHX and MAN in the past to keep work flown by BA pilots on the BA pilot seniority list, and could well have been in this case some years ago but were not given the opportunity.

That wrong has been rectified - to those at GSS - sorry but that is the truth - it is our work, be grateful and help us to bring the work in-house (with yourselves) at industry rates. The GSS rates of 56K UKP (year 1) + 2 UKP/hr at not industry rates!

[Captain Airclues]

A large number of GSS pilots, both in the LHS and RHS are ex BA and can understand the feeling within BA. However, it is important, particularly for those thinking of bidding, to understand the other point of view.

BAWC have been outsourcing their cargo for many years, with various operators. It was only when they had two of the Atlas aircraft dedicated to BA that BALPA and the IPA objected. GSS was formed to comply with BALPAs objection to having BA cargo flown by US crews. The BA/BALPA Scope agreement about GSS was made without the agreement or knowledge of GSS. However, those of you who have been to the George W Bush school of diplomacy will understand why GSS had to submit to BALPAs demands.

Many of the GSS F/Os gave up established careers, and some of them commands, to join GSS. They have been working hard, often more than their contracted 20 days/month, and many without leave, to ensure the success of their new employer. Several who had started their pre-command training will now possibly never achieve their command due to their age. I am pointing this out because it is important that those of you who bid are simpathetic, and treat your new colleagues with tact and diplomacy.

As has been said earlier the biggest winners are the beancounters. How can BALPA argue that one group of BA pilots are able to operate Jo'burg-Accra-Vitoria then pax on the aircraft to Stansted via Cologne whereas the others are not. How can they justify a 'BA' 744 captain earning less than a BA 744 F/O?

I realise that the two groups will never agree. Ones point of view depends on which side of the fence you are on and where your own personal advantage lies. GSS is a happy airline with hard working crews. Landing a freighter at 302 tonnes into Mumbai in the monsoon is no place for poor CRM. I'm sure that there will be no intimidation and that you will be treated with respect. In particular, the GSS training department is fair and impartial. However, please make sure that you read the full GSS terms and conditions before bidding.

Airclues

[EICAS-GP]

Ah, yes…… let me see… lets get this right……. you have just been awarded a massive pay rise, you have enviable security of employment, the best terms and condition in the industry, a vast network, offering the total range of flying life-styles, sixty odd 747 – 400s and you want more. You want to take commands and jobs away from pilots in a small, fledgling, private, independent, UK airline with two or three 747-400 freighters - jobs and commands from fellow BALPA members who are struggling to forge a career in the harsh reality of the aviation world that exists outside BA.
And this is based, of course, on an honourable, altruistic and unselfish dogma. Now what was it? I recall: - ‘BA work’, ‘BA work’, ‘BA work’.
Now let me think …… I remember now….. BA once had a 747 freighter, G-KILO that arrived in1980 and flew for 18 months.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me!!!!

[Bucking Bronco]

Eicas-GP

I have taken a pay cut thank you and will continue to earn less under the new deal for the next 4 years.

The BA pilots want to nip this sort of thing in the bud, ie having BA flights sub-contracted to cheaper crew. If this is allowed to spread it means a reduction of Ts and Cs for all.

I agree it is very harsh for the GSS Fo's, but are we to stand idly by? I personally would rather we brought them into the BA workforce.

Cheers

BB

[HZ123]

Surely if BA crew the flts then it will not be long before they cease anyway. Let us not shy away from the facts as stated already the GSS operation is far cheaper. If you want to go down one route then you also have to ask why half of the LHR pax flts are leaving with little or no cargo.

There seems to be too much self interest on what is good for the pilot community and I get the impression from the thread that whether any monies are made on this op are irrelevant. It is the profit that enables you to enjoy a very priviledged occupation with excellant conditions far exceeding those that work ffor GSS and most of the rest of us in BA.

[Mini mums]

HZ123 - the cost will not go up , as the Terms and Conditions will be the same for a BA pilot as they are for a GSS pilot.

There seems to be too much self interest on what is good for the pilot community and I get the impression from the thread that whether any monies are made on this op are irrelevant. It is the profit that enables you to enjoy a very priviledged occupation with excellant conditions far exceeding those that work ffor GSS and most of the rest of us in BA.

Isn't this a Professional Pilots Rumour Network? - probably why pilots appear to be self interested on the site.

Very priviledge occupation . . . you haven't got a clue. You're comments are not constructive, do not form rumour, and are not news - so why contribute? Probably the green eyed monster syndrome at BA which see's every community trying to erode the t's & c's of every other community, and only resulting what is currently a very depressing place to work. I have respect for my colleagues in different departments, now please accept that we are part of a team, and show us some mutual respect. My ATPL didn't come in the post with 200 nectar points, it took a great deal of time, effort and expense to earn.

I'm sure all the nurses in the NHS bitch about doctors priviledges, legal clerks and court recorders about solicitors, soldiers about their officers, I could go on. This GSS scope deal is about protecting industry terms and conditions, as someone quite rightly said, we should be aiming to get the GSS crews up to our level, with our t's & c's and on our seniority list.

There is no reason why pax drivers in the UK should be any better renumerated than freight drivers. Fedex clearly illustrates that.

To those of you at GSS - we do see it from your point of view - please try and see it from our's too.

[Bucking Bronco]

HZ123 et al

<Let us not shy away from the facts as stated already the GSS operation is far cheaper.>

The reason that BA's costs are so high is that we have a HUGE FIXED COST BASE, this is due to the fact that we have so many employees per hull. Now with a simple grasp of economics and accounting I think that you can appreciate that the fewer flights we have (due to GSS franchises etc) the higher the fixed cost apportionment will be per flight; with more flights then it becomes lower and you've increased your margins and hence profit.

As for

<It is the profit that enables you to enjoy a very priviledged occupation with excellant conditions far exceeding those that work ffor GSS and most of the rest of us in BA.>

We have as a dept just been bench marked with other operators in Europe such as Lufthansa, Air France and KLM. The findings of the initial research was that we worked more days for less money, for example Iberian pilots work 60% of the amount we do. If you want to talk about "excellent conditions" then shall we talk about baggage loaders who start on more money than an FO. Or GTS bus drivers who only do 3 or 4 return trips to the airport in one day and earn in excess of £40k per annum. Or perhaps Long Haul cabin crew who take home the equivalent of £36k per year as a junior?

We BA Pilots as a community have never tried to hold the company to ransom, have always conducted ourselves professionally and followed industrial legislation. Our sickness rate, which should be higher than the rest of the company, is 33% below the company average. All we are after is a fair set of Ts and Cs compared to our International colleagues and also a degree of protection from BA farming our work out to cheaper operatives. I'm not sure what you do HZ123 but how would you feel if they took work away from you and gave it to some chap in Calcutta with a laptop and phone line?

The Cargo is BA Cargo, the callsign is a BA call sign - the work is BA work.


:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[Heathrow_Express]

erm yeah ok then

[Bucking Bronco]

No I would rather end the practice of franchises, so BA aircraft and BA crews would fly the routes.

These franchises get all the benefits of BA and contribute only a small "rent" in return. With BA's high fixed cost base we'd be better off operating more flights and getting the fixed cost per flight down so that we can improve our margins.

[PSYCOBFH]

Sick,

Yes mate :O oh, and you may find that it's not just F/o's who may bid for these vacancies, I believe that some junior captains may too.

seriously though, ALL of us at BA would far rather get ALL of the BA work back into BA, AND get you all onto the BA seniority list.

This was offered to BAcitiexpress pilots, but there BALPA company council told us to get stuffed - their loss.

As BB says, our pay 'change' ( it was certainly not a rise for all) only benchmarked us against other european majors - nothing else. Don't believe the propoganda.

[Lord_Flashhart]

As a former member of Her Majesty's Royal Air Force I consider my time still languishing in the right hand seat on a 747-400 a disgrace.
After serving Queen and Country and being decorated many times it is certainly my right to a BA command and if GSS is the only way I can avoid another 7 years in the right hand seat then so be it.
God help us I even have to fly with ex- cadet entry captains on the 747-400 now. I've forgotten more about aviation than they'll ever know.I shall look forward to my command at GSS.

LF

[PSYCOBFH]

good luck with the course LF. enjoy the 744F - it's great

[Skylion]

Still some misconceptions here amongst the BA community about franchises,- hence protagonists of their flying being taken over by mainline. The foreign based franchises could NOT be operated by BA. They do not have the traffic rights to so so and would almost certainly never get them. These companies therefore simply add reach and revenue to BA which it could otherwise never get. The UK regional operators could never sustain BA flight and cabin crew costs, the total being of course not just salary but the very expensive allowances structure as well. Even BA itself can not afford its shorthaul costs, - just look at the losses they make. Pure freight operations are very difficult to make money on. Its a very competitive market, yields are often dreadful and loads are highly directional,- hence often dead leg flying to get a decent uplift. The reality is that sub contracting is the only way for BA to make money on pure freight operations.

[Hand Solo]

1) Foreign franchises are not included in the Scope agreement.

2) BA pilots don't have a very expensive allowance structure, they have a fixed rate per block hour and a fixed hourly rate for time away from base. Just like many other airlines.

3) Our UK regional operators seem to be able to pi55 their money up the wall without our help.

4) Shorthaul 'profitability' is whatever the accountants say it is, particularly when they divvy up revenue for transfer traffic based on percentages of trip mileages rather than the going ticket rates.

5) Cathay seem to do pretty well out of their in-house freighters, as do Lufthansa. BA is already one of the worlds top ten cargo shippers on belly cargo alone, they know exactly how to make money out of the industry. Its worth a damn site more than most passenger fares currently.

By the way, HZ123 is a ramp trainer at LHR, so if you want to know why it takes two men to operate a one man tug, or why only one union can chock an aircraft then he's your man.

[PSYCOBFH]

So, HZ123,

why does it take 2 people to operate a 1 man tug, why can only certain people insert chox, why does 1 team offload bags and another onload them, why will 1 team refuse to do the other teams job if they get held up on their tea break.
HZ123, why can your mates not just get on with making our pax lives easier - 'cos it's them who pay us!!?
I'm not trying to wind you up or start some sort of slanging match, but when you are sat on the ramp with 4engines running, waiting for a tug, or when you see pax bags not being offloaded when there is a team there, then it does make the blood boil, 'cos if this sort of carry on doen't get sorted then we are ALL off to the Staines job centre.
Of course it's not always like this, most of the time your mates do a great job, but, it's the really crap days (of which there are no more) which everyone, mainly our customers, remember.

[NW1]

After serving Queen and Country and being decorated many times it is certainly my right to a BA command
No it most certainly is not. You must earn your command in BA just like everyone else in BA. I am sure you did your duty with valour and honour and for that (as a British citizen) I thank you. But you left the service and took on a new contract with BA. And if you don't understand that then you shouldn't have surrendered your shilling.God help us I even have to fly with ex- cadet entry captains on the 747-400 now.They have earned that seat - as you must (if you actually want it) - what they haven't done is deserved your attitude problem. You may find it helpful to address that and concentrate on earning a position in the LHS in the same way that they have.

[PSYCOBFH]

NW1,

c'mon now - don't bite. LF is clearly just trying to wind people up. I'm sure that he is bidding for the 744F for genuine reasons.

[Captain Airclues]

NW1

I think it was a wind-up. :)

Airclues

[NW1]

Quite right chaps. Sorry - couldn't help it, hook line & sinker, eh? Off to get a beer and a life....:O

[Lord_Flashhart]

On the contrary I am not here as a "wind up". I stopped posting on this site a couple of years ago because people in the BA section could not see the right way to deal with ex forces pilots. As the cream of UK aviation we should not be forced into humiliation by wearing 2 stripes or sitting at the bottom of the seniority list.
All ex forces entry pilots should have at least year for year for there time served or at least 0.75 of a year per year time served. that way we could have our rightful positions sooner.

Lord Flashhart

[Hand Solo]

As the cream of UK aviation we should not be forced into humiliation by wearing 2 stripes or sitting at the bottom of the seniority list.

Quite right. Now tell me about when your were on Lightnings again, I love those stories. And don't forget to be rude to the purser.

[MaximumPete]

Flash,

By the tone of your comments on this thread I would suggest that you are not yet ready mentally for a command.

What's it they say floats on the top of the cream?

If you don't want the humiliation of wearing two stripes I know of plenty of people, just as able as you, who will swop places with you.

Perhaps the saying "get your knees brown" applies to you?

GROW UP SONNY!!!!

MP;)

[MarkD]

Flash

As a BA frequent flyer I have no objection to four ring ex-service pilots - I do have an objection to you though. BA is not the national carrier any more, and thus owes ex-service personnel the same as pilots transferring from any other carrier besides HM Flying Club.

If such privilege led to higher fares or disruption due strikes from the p!ssed off non-ex-service pilots, I and others would be forced to take our business elsewhere, and Rod E doesn't need help doing that!

[normal_nigel]

Flash

If I hadn't almost certainly met you or your chums with the same views I'd say this was a wind up.
Two options
f**k off or
f**k off

NN

[PSYCOBFH]

Flash,

I really thought that your posting was a wind up - clearly I was wrong and that changes my view of you.
You are a disgrace to your fellow ex service pilots who just get on with the job. You should be ashamed of yourself. What's more important to you, being a professional or the number of stripes you have?
As for seniority based on service time, well, how about a national seniority based on date of gaining a PROFESSIONAL licence, or would that not suit your ambitions either?
As has been suggested, it seems that you are not mature enough to hold a BA command. If you think that doesn't matter, then have a read of the OTM - it specifically states that you must be considered technically suitable and mature enough to hold a command. You clearly are not. I pity the guys with which you fly - not so much the Captains because THEY ARE the captain NOT YOU, but the other F/O's must hate you. And with people like you about no wonder the cabin crew think we are all a bunch of tossers.

Flash, i do not think that you are suitable to hold a command. I am not too certain that you should be in the right seat either (so at least we agree on something)

Grow up sonny and ditch the attitude or get out of flying.

[fade to grey]

Flash,
I'm not buying it, your profile lists non of your military types
I would have expected:Se5a and lightning at least and probably some reference to ETPS,

I think you are doing the military guys a disservice or you are quite clearly insane.

[MaximumPete]

L337,

Sounds like you've been "bloodied".

Good luck with your career in the LHS.

MP;)

[Lord_Flashhart]

Yet again I find I'm up against peurile anti-forces idiots. I shall withdraw from this discussion until you people can drag yourselves up to my level.

LF

[JW411]

I have been thinking about L337's comments. I can immediately think of three ex-RAF Wg Cdrs that I have flown with. All of them started in the right seat, were excellent pilots, good company and extremely kind to the ladies.

They all subsequently became good captains and bore no resemblance whatsoever to the pillock who has just thrown his toys out of his pram and fled this discussion in a fit of childish pique.

I assume that since he reckons he deserves a command with GSS that he must currently be a Nigel? If so, it doesn't say much for your selection procedure does it?

He can't spell puerile either!

[Techman]

Lord_Flashhart - The master angler.

[crusin level]

Ex forces-They may be good at flying very fast upside down through welsh valleys-but fly a block of flats? No thanks !!!!!

Never let them near the LHS I say!

[pilotatlast]

I read earlier in this post:
"seriously though, ALL of us at BA would far rather get ALL of the BA work back into BA, AND get you all onto the BA seniority list.

This was offered to BAcitiexpress pilots, but there BALPA company council told us to get stuffed - their loss".

I think this is stretching the truth a bit, I can't see that the BA CitiExpress pilots would have been allowed on to th BA SENIORITY list, after all they(CitiExpress) are second rate citizens!

[Kep Ten Jim]

Having fun there, Lord_Flashhart?

[normal_nigel]

BACX RJ pilots were offered a place at the bottom of the BA seniority list as per City Flyer. They turned this down. My understanding was it was to be offered only to the RJ guys and not the turboprop guys.
They held out for the lot and ended with nothing..their choice.
Bit like GSS. Some in BA want all the commands. BALPA have said this is unrealistic and to accept the deal, ie take what we've got and don't end up with nothing a la BACX

NN

[Hand Solo]

JW411 - I think most observers of this thread can spot that Flash isn't really a BA pilot, he's a wind up merchant - and a good one to boot. The fact that there are very few characters resembling him in BA and most of them joined 10+ years ago suggests to me the selection procedure is rather good for the remaining 99% of BA pilots.

bral - BACX is losing money hand over fist, and thats got nothing to do with BA mainline pilots. Unless you count TDLF.

pilotatlast - thats exactly what they were offered, but turned it down. I'm told they were hanging on for merged seniority based on BACX date of joining.

[overstress]

Agreed Hand. Flash has cleverly got a few sensible posters on here to reveal a little of themselves that, on reflection, they probably wish they hadn't.

[beaver eager]

No I don't believe it was merged seniority HS. Nobody will ever get that after CFE were 'integrated' into the master seniority list in the same manner as Dan Air (i.e. Tacked on the bottom, albeit with a much better financial deal than the Dan's got at the time - thanks BALPA).

When I say nobody, of course I mean no Regional Carriers. I can't see KLM/AA/Iberia/Quantas being 'tacked on the bottom' when the global consolidations begin somehow!

To the best of my belief the BACX CC held out for all the turboprop pilots to be allowed access to the master seniority list too and for some inexplicable reason this was not a runner for BA or the BACC (I don't know which). Maybe the company knew at that time about the impending exit of the J41s into Eastern? Anyway the deal offered was that only their existing 146 pilots could join the master seniority list. There were no BACX pilots flying the RJ100s which remained flown excusively by ex CFEs (and 8 DEP's who were scrubbed off of LH courses in the month after 911) until AFTER the scope negotiations were completed between BA and the BACC (about the time of the pay restructuring general members meetings).

It was very honourable of the BACX jet pilots to hold out for their colleagues and a shame for them that it didn't come to fruition.

Disclaimer... If I'm wrong and they did turn it down for the lack of a B-Cal style seniority list integration then they were just peeing in the wind anyway and, quite honestly, pretty stupid. Being 'tacked on the bottom' was a fantastic windfall for me!

[Hand Solo]

So presumably its the BA pilots on the RJ100 which are responsible for the awful servicability of the aircraft. You know, the stuff that leads to five figure sums being shelled on on wet-leases from Titan to keep the show on the road? Presumably its also the BA pilots who stop the BACX rostering any sort of sensible crewing program on the other fleets too?

BACX isn't part of BA when it suits the BACC. To be honest, I don't really think of BACX as part of BA at all, its just a wholly owned subsidiary, a bit like BMed or GB, its just that BA own it. If BA tried to transfer an entire fleet of aircraft to any subsidiary/franchise, then I consider it only fair that BA pilots should have the opportunity to go with the aircraft like they did with the RJ. I suspect you'd have a few bidders onto the J41 or ATP if it was offered, but as they weren't our aircraft to start with, and we don't operate any equivalent types, there's no real claim for people to go there. If GSS only operated SH330s then the same would apply, but they don't. They're flying 744Fs when we have a large and established 744 fleet, and if they want to expand based exclusively on BA contracts then they'll have to do it in accordance with the BA Scope agreement. The customer is king.

[AdrianShaftsworthy]

Meeowww!!

PS Nice one Flash!!!!

[PSYCOBFH]

FO JANEWAY,

what's your point love - we actually WANT you on our seniority list. why don't you actually read what hand has written and then respond like a grown-up.

BACX pilots had the chance to do just that but they blew it - so stop bleating.

You would be very surprised at the number of people in BA who were NOT sponsored and did not "have their training shoved up them by BA". Admittedly a lot did - and good luck to them. You sound just a tiny bit jealous.

Jane babe, are you and LF an item? you should be.. chill out

:O :O :O :O :O :O :mad:

[pilotatlast]

Well if that's the case I think BACX Balpa need their heads read! They will no way get merged seniority based on D.O.J. Why not just settle to go in at the bottom and increase the terms and conditions for everyone. I think the problem is that too many of the BACX Balpa reps. have thier own agenda and aren't really listening to the pilot workforce.i.e workforce want to get on to seniortiy list whereas Balpa reps. are (mainly)at the latter end of their careers and aren't as intereseted in getting on the BA seniortiy list as junior pilots would be.

[MaximumPete]

Flash

I remember one ex-WINGCO in bmi many moons ago. He was an amusing interesting person to talk to and have a drink with BUT....
he should have stuck to something he can do well....manage people, not aeroplanes.

Perhaps you should think of a career move whilst you still have a career.

MP;)

PS Are the Flight Lieutenants the ones with two stripes?

[Bucking Bronco]

FO Janeway

WRT to seniority lists...

Merger of two "equal" airlines e.g. BA and Lufthansa ... merging of seniority.

Takeover of minnow airline e.g. BA and Cityflyer ... slotted in at the bottom of the list with Grandfather rights.

The guys at Cityflyer got IMO a good deal, the junior guys are one minute flying an ATR or RJ with no decent nightstops and average Ts anc Cs - the next they're on the 744 flying to Hong Kong on good Ts anc Cs. The Capts meanwhile keep their commands and have better Ts and Cs.

Anybody that thinks that BACX should have merged seniority with BA based on DOJ is crazy - a lot of them were probably rejected from BA in the first place! They should have grasped the opportunity, bet they wish they had now.

Also you say...

<Bearing in mind you had all your training shuved up your backside by BA you should be grateful and keep your mouth shut.
Ever actually WORKED for a living, and flying for that matter? (never mind that really hard summer holiday job at McDonald's!)

A lot of the cadets did have previous lives, as the age limit for application was as high as 30 in the recent past - I for one worked in the City and I know of other cadets that are ex-nurses etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "training shuved up your backside" as this was never part of the syllabus on my course. Perhaps you would like to tell us all exactly what you endured in order to fund and pass your exams.


:ok: :oh:

[Dan Winterland]

I think Lord Flasheart was actually a Captain in the RFC. Of course, if he was still around (having lasted more than his allocated 20 minutes) on the first of April 1918, he would of become a Flight Lieutenant. :ok:

[Hotel Mode]

bral - Most of the silver stripers flying the rj have been doi9ng it for years, and we never had this sort of problem, its 100% down to poor engineering by BACX. Had a little incidentette this morning with something thats been happening for days and "tested on ground NFF" and signed off until it goes bang.
One of the aeroplanes is banned from leaving the country so confident are they that its going to go tech. Like i say quality operation.

[w00t]

bral

Well, not wishing to give anything away but PERHAPS that is the case. Some aircraft require more than button pushing to have them operated correctly

That response to a prior post is libellous. As a BA pilot on the RJ I take huge objection to your comments.

I have emailed PPrune advising them of my intention to consult my lawyer. I will ask that your details be released by Pprune admin so that I can commence proceedings.


w00t

[White Knight]

w00t, I don't think you have enough there to be honest.

I will say BRAL that I had the pleasure of training some of the BA regional guys off the Airbus and 737 (BHX and MAN) onto the RJ100 and they were ALL top quality pilots - and dare I say it, Operators. Your comments are out of line !!!
However I'm also bl00dy glad to be well and truly out of the current fiasco re BA, BACX etc etc. :ok: :ok:
Hey BE, how's it going ?

[Human Factor]

Don't suppose old Flash'll be reading this. Obviously still waiting for us to climb to his level:E !! Still, we all know the deal we sign up for:

If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined

Now do the -400 fleet a favour and bigger off to GSS.

[normal_nigel]

Janeway

Shame you didn't choose low BA seniority. You might have been allowed to fly out of the UK one day. We let everyone do that.

NN LHR

[NW1]

Not giving you something that no other DEP is given (and therefore it would be at the expense of others) is not anti-forces. Almost all of your ex-services colleagues make fine pilots, and when they have the required experience and their turn comes up they move to command like almost everyone else.

Because you cannot accept this does not mean you are being discriminated against, it just means that the system is being applied fairly and this was clear when you accepted the contract (why did you do this?). How can you expect to be given seniority on the basis of your previous employment when this doesn't happen for DEPs with their (often very relevant) previous experience with other airlines?

A system of carrying forward seniority from previous employment would be massively complex and impossible to apply fairly - so it doesn't happen. Accept it or resign, your current attitude is incompatible with flight safety.

[Bucking Bronco]

Dear All

I think Flash has a bloody good point re seniority carrying over. In fact I'm going to sign up to the RAF today!

Since I've been flying for 7 years now I shall expect to go in as a least a Squadron Leader. Also seeing as my Sim grades and route checks have been top notch I shall expect nothing less than Tornados with Eurofighter as my preffered option.

Now has anybody got any white gloves I can borrow?

Cheers

BB

PS Whether Flash is fishing or not doesn't matter since a very small minority of ex services are just like him, and they do come out with the same drivel.

[foundation digger]

Mr Flash is winding you all up.

The fact is that flying aircraft is not that difficult.


I think seniority lists are Bull dropping , but if you decide to join
an airline which operates a promotion system based on them then such is life.

There sould be a contest to see who can produce the biggest
wind up comment.

Keep them coming Mr Flash

[Land ASAP]

A little bit of history about Lord Flashfart....

He IS a BA pilot. He is a currently a captain on Airbus having moved up from EOG. He originally joined BA after the Dan Air takeover. He is a master angler.

He tried this particular 'lure' about ex-forces pilots getting enhanced seniority about 4 years ago and was similarly successful in getting some extreme reactions, describing cadet entry pilots as 'spotty oiks'.

He is an ar*ehole in real life too but not as extreme as his postings.

[ornithopter]

OK guys, time to bring in a few facts.

I have worked for both BACX and BA in the recent past and have seen a bit of both sides of the argument. I do not claim to have a full understanding, but it is clear to me that there is a big misunderstanding between the two groups of pilots. Reading things like 'most BACX pilots are probably BA rejects' and stupid childish jibes about 'button pressing' and the like do not help anyone. The FACTS of the matter are, that we are two groups of ordinary blokes and lasses who want to get on with our careers.
Most of the people I have flown with/socialised with in BACX have never applied to BA, and what is more, there are people in BA, who are BA 'rejects' ie they got in on their third attempt. What difference is there between someone who fails to get into BA on the first attempt and accepts a job with a different airline, and someone who fails to get into BA and then subsequently gets offered a job by BA?

Now I keep hearing BA people say that BACX 'turned down' the offer of merging seniority lists and it is 'there loss'. Well that is not quite true. If you were to read the BACXCC newsletters, it appears that the BACC wanted to 'reward' some pilots and 'shaft' others. Whether this is true or not is almost immaterial, the people we pay to support us (BALPA, via BACXCC) said don't do it!! Whats more, it ashamed me that my union had two factions who were fighting instead of getting on with making things better for us all.

So here is a solution:

1. Put BACX crews onto the bottom of the seniority list.
2. Create a 'regional' payscale - make it the same as the BACX scales.
3. Allow bidding within the current fleets (ie BACX within current BACX fleets, BA within curret BA fleets) for 4 years.
4. After 4 years, open up the bidding to everyone.
5. Get rid of BACC and BACXCC fighting each other by having just one BACC with some ex BACX people on it (ie make it bigger)
6. Have date of merging lists as seniority
7. Have date of joining either company as statutory joining date for redundancy purposes
8. Merge training/rostering departments to save money


How this solves problems:
1. Stops two differing groups fighting each other and makes cost savings by reducing duplication
2. Makes it cost effective for BA - otherwise they wouldn't do it, also it means the BACX guys loose nothing, but do gain.
3. Means that BACX guys who are nearly ready for command/type change do not loose out, without taking anything away from BA guys. After 4 years things will have settled out.
4. Things are now settled, no one is pipped to the post.
5. Speaks for itself.
6. Is fair to both sets of pilots, especially considering 4 year gap. Neither workforce looses out.
7. Legal reasons - still no one looses out.
8. Speaks for itself.

It should be remembered that quite a few BACX guys work there because that is the sort of flying they want to do. Home every evening to see the kids or not many nightstops. Also it should be noted that many are aspiring people who want to get on with their careers. My suggestions above cater for both, you can bid to go 'up' or bid to stay where you are. No one looses out and everyone gains.

Am expecting some explosive posts to follow, but if we point out the problems, get them sorted and then move forward with putting this infront of BA, BACC and BACXCC then we can all win. We just need to get rid of the childish 'we are better than you' because it is rubbish and WRONG, we do slightly different jobs, that is all.

And for those who say TP pilots often fail jet courses or are not good enough etc, then the 4 year gap above should weed them out - if they are not good enough, then surely the training department will discover by then???

Comments please, don't shoot me down just yet.

[MaximumPete]

A little bit of deja vu here.

Cambrian Airways pilots had all sorts of problems getting onto the BA seniority list. I think there was a legal fighting fund set up the Cambrian pilots.

I'd left before it all started so I may be wrong.

If it is true I would have hoped lessons had been learnt on both sides of the negotiating table

MP;)

[fiftyfour]

Ornithopter - good ideas, but it they won't happen. BA mainline guys won't let it happen. They are unable to appreciate that we are all professionals, who are equal in status and deserve fair treatment.
I work for GB. BA pilots would like BA to fly all GB routes with their own aircraft -see their scope clause. That is unrealistic, because GB only fly routes that BA doesn't want to fly, or can't make profitable. The next option is for the BA pilots to fly GB aircraft - see their scope clause. To help our colleagues in BA, it is something that could be discussed, if it is something that they really want. It is something that could quite easily happen in the future, if the GB pilots supported it. There will, however, be no support unless the pilots lists are merged equitably - and being on the bottom of a huge list is not equitable. Why should a 2 day GB guy be below someone with 1 day in BA? Remember BA guys want to fly the GB aircraft. GB guys are not seeking to fly BA aircraft - they are happy where they are.
GB is a small profitable airline (and even forecast to make a small profit for the coming year as well) with a future, in or out of the BA fold. BA is big and unprofitable with huge debts of £5billion and a pension shortfall of £1billion. Not exactly a strong negotiating position.
Perhaps, in a few years when the reality of the current recession has taken its toll, a few more suicidal strike threats have frightened loyal passengers into the arms of competitors etc, and more guys in BA have seen the face of modern commercial reality, then attitudes will change. They will realise that they are actually the same as everyone else (although the very senior ones obviously luckier by joining a state protected nationalised airline). Then, Ornithopter, your suggestions may get somewhere.

[Jack Point]

I have a simpler solution.
Why dont we make a reality t.v. show along the lines of wife swap or masters and servants.Then the BA mainline can buzz around the uk and vice versa.

I think it would be amusing to watch an old fossil manage 4 sectors on a crusty sandwich and crustier atr 42 and cringe worthy to watch the provincial oik trying to figure out room service in a five star hotel on the other side of the world, whilst making suggestive remarks to anything he thinks he has a chance with, completely oblivious to the reasons a ticket with ba costs so much.

Charter Rules

Jack

[PSYCOBFH]

54, you are wrong.

Most, if not all, BA pilots would be more than happy with ornithopters' ideas - they are inspired

[Land ASAP]

I vote too for ornithopters suggestion (as a BA pilot) which also flies in the face of Fifty Fours opinions. I'm also a great believer in the merger of seniority lists on D.O.J. regardless, now does that confuse you Fifty Four?

For all franchise pilots ---------------

You are welcome to come fly British Airways aircraft, anytime. You are welcome to join any seniority list I am on using your date of joining GB/BMed/BACX/GSS. In return could you please lobby you reps as hard as I am lobbying mine to get this stupidity sorted

[ornithopter]

Land ASAP, if only we could convince more people!

I don't think that merging of the seniority list will happen as there will be too many problems (ie what has gone before etc) but I would love to see more of us support a joining of the lists.

Fifty Four - why should a GB pilot join lower on the seniority? Well good question and I agree that if lists are merged there should be no disadvantage to either party - hence my 4 year suggestion. That way both win - ie GB (or XXX company) pilots get the opportunity to go 'up' if they want, but do not loose out to people pushing them into the other seat, or taking the opportunity that someone has their eye on (and has done for many years). It seems the fairest way, given the attitudes in place. OK, GB are profitable and at the moment we are not, but that is not the fault of the pilots. We all know there are management things that need to be sorted and whether you are BA or GB, the day to day work is effectively the same. Turn up, fly safely, socialise (if you can!) then go home.

Jack Point, I can see your point but to be fair, a lot of the BA pilots have actually done that sort of thing in the past, me being one of them (6 sector day anyone??). To categorise us all the same, is as short sighted as saying that anyone non BA is only trying to get into BA. Both are rubbish. Until this silly getting at each other stops, we can only make things worse.

When will BALPA realise that putting pilots of one company into another only stirs the hornets nest? If work really does 'belong' to BA, then campaign to make it BA, all BA and nothing but BA. Don't go half way, or you just end up alienating a different bunch of pilots, who are equally as good, equally as dedicated and equally as upset when they loose thier jobs. GSS could argue that they won the contract, so it is GSS work, GSS work, GSS work. That way the contract writer is in the wrong, not the GSS workforce. What matters is that BA fly BA stuff (entirely) and GSS fly GSS stuff (entirely) without mixing and matching.

Why don't we all work together to make things better for everyone? Like a UNION should.

[Edited because first post went wrong]

[EICAS-GP]

My thanks to ORNITHOPTER for bringing the thread back to its original subject and for some sound common sense at last.
To remind you - the action, driven by the BA section of BALPA, to steal commands from GSS F/Os, may seem noble and justified in the eyes of BA pilots, who appear to want to fly aeroplanes and routes irrespective of whether their company can do so profitably. However, they all appear totally oblivious to the disastrous effect it will have on the career and employment prospects of the GSS F/Os that will be deposed.
Guys, this is not just some esoteric argument about who should fly whose aeroplanes. You are dealing with people’s livelihood here. People, just like you, that have families to support, mortgages to service and bills to pay. Spare a thought as to how you would feel if it were your command prospects that had just virtually disappeared into thin air or your job that is in jeopardy. It does not take many brain cells to realise that in order to take BA direct commands, GSS will be forced to reduce their existing establishment and redundancies are likely to follow.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot – these are fellow BALPA members!
Think on please!

[Hand Solo]

Eicas GP

to steal commands from GSS F/Os

If you join a two aircraft company set up to serve a limited BA cargo contract its rather rash to assume you'll get a command based solely on the possibility of a future expansion.

. It does not take many brain cells to realise that in order to take BA direct commands, GSS will be forced to reduce their existing establishment and redundancies are likely to follow

Errr, no. Not unless GSS are currently flying around with three aircrafts worth of crews instead of two. If they're not then the third aircraft will require recruitment to crew. 50% of the new commands are available to BA pilots. 50% of the new commands are available to existing GSS pilots, 100% of the new FO positions are available to GSS pilots. Where does redundancy come into it?

Fiftyfour- GB is indeed a small and profitable airline, and BA are large and currently unprofitable. However without the BA brand GB effectively become a high class charter airline, no different to, say, Monarch scheduled services. Would they continue to be as profitable in that form? We're acutely aware of modern commercial reality as we watch privately-owned flag carriers do things better than us, whilst state-owned ones do it worse but get away with it anyway because of subsidies. Are you confident GB would last as a stand alone outfit against the charter big boys and the low costs?

Jack Point - Four sectors? Bring it on! Thats 20% less than I used to do in a day, and I used to bring my own crusty sandwiches because they were better than the crew 'meals'.

Ornithopter - As an ex-regional pilot I have to take issue with two of your points:
2. Create a 'regional' payscale - make it the same as the BACX scales.

BA already had a 'regional' payscale and a 'regional' scheduling agreement, which they used for the profitable BA Regional division. You propose a new and lower payscale. Perhaps when the losses mount management could propose a lower scale still? Gotta be cost effective for BA! It appears you've fallen for the managment line of 'crew wages to blame'. Regional profitability stands or falls on far larger issues than pilot wages. Compare and contrast the better paid and profitable BA Regional, with the poorer paid and loss making BACX operations at BHX and MAN.

It should be remembered that quite a few BACX guys work there because that is the sort of flying they want to do. Home every evening to see the kids or not many nightstops.
Thats what the vast majority of BA Regional guys wanted to do as well, which is why they tolerated poorer pay and conditions. Strangely enough, there was no sympathy for them when the base closures were announced and a number wanted to stay on the RJ100. In fact if you trawl through the archives of PPRuNe you'll find plenty of people rubbing their hands with glee at the news and telling the BAR guys to F*** off back to LHR. This very thread contains some posts filled with resentment that they actually got to stay.

[dicksynormous]

there are a couple of f/o s that i know at gss that are probably best left where they are, so that their provenance can catch up with them before they get made up, so its all for the best really.
allegedly.

edited for spelling, not content

[ornithopter]

Hand, I take your points, but you misunderstand slightly. My suggestion of a regional pay scale is to keep the BACX guys on what they are on at the moment - not reducing their wages. The suggestion is only there so that we can be realistic, and then negotiate in the future. BA will not increase the BACX scales up to the BA scales, so it will never happen. (If they would, then great, for all of us!). I have not fallen for the 'crew wages to blame' as it plainly isn't true. What I would like to see if all of us on the same wage, regardless of what we fly (as essentially it is the same job), however realistically that isn't going to happen.

The rumours in BACX were that BAR was not profitable and that when added to the BACX fleet the profitable Manx, BRAL and Brymon became unprofitable. Whatever the truth is (and it depends on which accountant you ask) is again immaterial. The complaints when RJ crews wanted to stay/go were because there were two different workforces involved. There would be no 'f*****g off back to Heathrow' as you put it, if we were all the same workforce. Basically, BACX guys saw the BA guys as 'taking' there jobs, much the same way as the BA guys see operations by BACX out of Gatwick as 'taking' their jobs.

We can get rid of all this rubbish of them and us by making all of us into one 'us'. It makes things cheaper, makes people happier, makes the company more profitable and more flexible, and what is more, everyone is a winner. Stay regional if you want or go longhaul, or somewhere inbetween.

[Hand Solo]

Whilst I'm now bordering on the pedantic, you said:

The rumours in BACX were that BAR was not profitable and that when added to the BACX fleet the profitable Manx, BRAL and Brymon became unprofitable. Whatever the truth is (and it depends on which accountant you ask) is again immaterial

This one doesn't depend on which accountant you ask. BAR made money. £12M profit. The accounts are there to see and there is no disputing that. Adding that profitable entity to BACX did not make it suddenly unprofitable.

. Basically, BACX guys saw the BA guys as 'taking' there jobs, much the same way as the BA guys see operations by BACX out of Gatwick as 'taking' their jobs.

But the BACX crews didn't see the closure of the regional bases as taking BA jobs, did they? They were offered jobs on the RJ by their management before any discussion had taken place between BA and BALPA about how or if the aircraft would be transferred and who would crew them. Those offers were no more valid than if BACX had offered them positions on Concorde in case they could get hold of those when BA disposed of the aircraft.

We could already have a regional payscale in place and a single workforce with better T&Cs than the current BACX ones, plus a BA seniority number for some (if not all) BACX pilots with a route into BA mainline proper for all. Unfortunately the BACX reps didn't want that, and so we are left with the situation we have now.

[Skim]

Not sure the BA secondees to BACX will be to interested in a new regional pay scale.

Rumour has it, they already have the best paid shorthaul job in BA! Some well into six figures!!!!

[normal_nigel]

Ornit

I don't know of a BA pilot who wouldn't endorse most of your ideas.

Fiftyfour you either can't read or the shoulder chip is affecting your judgement. You're not in BA . Live with it. Get over it and life will suddenly be a lot happier.

NN capt LHR

[JW411]

This is a completely pointless thread. No BA F/O in his right mind, (I presume there are a few) is ever going to bid for a GSS command.

1. They simply could not take the hit in salary and allowances.

2. They would soon discover what hard work really is about.

3. They would also find that single-pilot operation on a 744F is not easy (when everyone else has walked off the flightdeck).

4. They would be unlikely to survive their first night stop in one those places where it is very easy to get people blown away (quietly) for USD10.00 with no questions asked.

5. They know nothing of freighting and would be quite useless at trying to negotiate dash in Lagos for example.

6. The whole reason that GSS is doing so well is simply because BA have been completely useless at shifting freight economically ever since the Avro York and even that is in question.

[Kep Ten Jim]

Shades of Atlas vs. AACS

[ornithopter]

Hand, it is difficult to see what other see sometimes.

When BACX people complain about BAR loosing money and being lumped with BACX, it is things like the 767 flying out of MAN which is 'BACX' but cannot be flown by BACX pilots and allegedly looses money. Surely you can understand why people say that sort of thing? IF BAR made money, why did BA keep talking about its loss making regional business (and I don't mean BACX). Why did they impose £79 fares on routes that were full with £300 fares being paid at BACX, which then turned around and made a loss (surprise!)?

But the BACX crews didn't see the closure of the regional bases as taking BA jobs, did they? They were offered jobs on the RJ by their management before any discussion had taken place between BA and BALPA about how or if the aircraft would be transferred and who would crew them. Those offers were no more valid than if BACX had offered them positions on Concorde in case they could get hold of those when BA disposed of the aircraft.

No they didn't, as the way they saw it was that BA transfer the RJ to BACX and the Airbus to mainline, merge BACX with BAR and voila, the jobs are all the same, but on different aircraft at different bases. No one ever said you would fly the same aircraft all your career, but I must admit the base change thing is often very distressing (moving house, partners jobs etc) so the best thing to do would have been to merge the workforces there and then, so no one lost a job or a base. Same number of aeroplanes, same number of routes, same number of pilots with a wider fleet to bid into, everyone's a winner.

The key to your point about SCOPE is that SOME of the BACX guys would get into BA, but what of the others? Do they just sit back and watch while some guys in the airline get better T+C's and others don't? How absurd. Would you accept it if BA said everyone on Ornithopter's fleet gets to bid for Concorde, while everyone on Hand's fleet get to stay where they are for a very long time?

Some of the clauses in the suggested scope deal were plainly stupid. Ever heard of the yanks taking seats out of an aircraft to keep it below a scope limit? Do you think that would never have happened? The BACX workforce were advised by BACXCC (part of BALPA) to refuse what BACC (part of BALPA) had suggested. What a stupid situation. BALPA fighting BALPA. Whether scope was a good or a bad thing, the people who we pay to be in the know (or whos organisation we pay) were saying DON'T DO IT! What would you do in a situation like that with professional advice?

Can't you see that mixing pilots of one airline with another advantages one airline to the cost of another? What have the guys in the smaller airline done to deserve that?

I have made my suggestions, some more enlightened people on this forum seem to see the good side. My entire point is that there is no place for fighting between airlines, BALPA or separate workforces with the same job. Until BALPA realise that forcing one airline onto another is creating, rather than attacking the root of the problem it will never be resolved.

BALPA wants to increase its membership - well represent us all then, rather than representing small bunches of people and then making the bunches fight.

Skim - You can always accomodate secondees as the name suggests, they are seconded not posted. Obviously if there is a pilot on a given wage, you cannot just take it away. Details like that are for the union to negotiate, my suggestions are broad brush, but you get the idea.

Off for tea and biscuits, I'll keep reading, but I get bored repeating myself, so I might keep quiet for a while....

[qnc3guy]

Is not GSS somehow affiliated with ATLAS of the USA?

[Blackball]

Ornithopter, you are spot on unfortunately BALPA is blind and only sees the small picture rather than the BIG picture. They shoved a whole crowd of loyal pro BALPA pilots outside of their community with their so-called "fair" pay deal this year in BA. Proving that they don't care for minorities, only their head in sand individual gains. BACC chairman?
Until BALPA works as a proper UNION representing the whole pilot workforce then we are doomed to fight amonst ourselves whilst the indidual companies ride rough shod over all of us.
Seniority of course its important but do remember that altough RAF/NAVY/ARMY pilots are pilots they arenot nor were they Civil pilots.
They made a decision on their careers long ago, they did not have to leave their chosen service, they even were given pension rights should they wish to stay on.
Their careers were based on a different playing field. The case however for a common civil seniority list is different i personally support it but it'll never happen as certain LCCs are to jealously guarding their own space.
C'est la vie!

[Wide-Body]

JW 411

1. Yes

2. As a fellow TRE , I will happily swap rosters but not pay. (but will buy you a beer as I almost live in Cbank)

3. That is not true single pilot operation, there are guys out there flying harder for less. So invalid point. And unless you are landing / taking off, if you cannot handle the 744 on your own; retire. You have some good FO’s is GSS who are more than capable.

4. Don’t you believe it sunshine, some of the backgrounds of our colleagues are various. ( I assume you were not threatening to organise the $10 hit. Although I think one or two of the Nigels I know would take it on for FUN!!! Not joking)

5. When I was freighting we loaded the cargo by ourselves. Oh and dashes in Nigeria are straight forward, Indonesian islands are much more complicated. You had to know every cousin of Sohato.

6. Basically agree, but as a pilot would you not try to maximise your earnings potential.




I agree the GSS deal is bad news for everybody but please do no generalise about the Nigel’s .It just shows a shallow depth of character. I have the privilege of working with some great guys with very different backgrounds. OK there are a few pratts, but I assume you can think of one or two in every company you have flown with.

Do not forget we are all pilots, there are bigger worries out there.

Regards,





Wide.
;)

[Jack Point]

Well said wide.

JW seems to think that his bunch of middle class first world freighters have the monopoly on wild existences. A bit like each countries bush pilots are the only ones who can fly attitude.
I personnally earned my money to fund my training as a paid thug in the third world in the eighties, and i know many ex legionaires in the business. i also know some of the gss f/os .
Indianna jones they are not, more like bridget jones. (the post of diksy refers).

Now if he worked for MK then i may have time for him.

Jack

[Hand Solo]

Ornithopter if you must post then lets stick to FACT, not RUMOUR
When BACX people complain about BAR loosing money and being lumped with BACX, it is things like the 767 flying out of MAN which is 'BACX' but cannot be flown by BACX pilots and allegedly looses money. Surely you can understand why people say that sort of thing?
Yes, because they've been too lazy to bother checking the facts. The 767 was a BAR service, latterly operated for BACX like all BAR services were. BACX and BAR were entirely seperate financial entities, which published seperate accounts. BAR made money, BACX to my knowledge has never made a significant profit since it's formation. All the ground handling at MAN and BHX was accounted for under the BAR budget too, so you can't claim they got it free.

IF BAR made money, why did BA keep talking about its loss making regional business (and I don't mean BACX)
Well they did mean BACX. See above. In the 12 months post Sept11th 2001 BAR was the only fleet in BA to make profits, £12M pounds worth. I still have the BA news reporting this 'loss'.

Why did they impose £79 fares on routes that were full with £300 fares being paid at BACX, which then turned around and made a loss (surprise!)?
Now you're really letting yourself down with this one. Do you think Ryanair or Easy sell all their seats at £1? Of course they don't so I'll say no more. Its easy to charge £300 when you have a monopoly, not so easy when the low costs start to compete though, as BACX found.

the way they saw it was that BA transfer the RJ to BACX and the Airbus to mainline, merge BACX with BAR and voila, the jobs are all the same, but on different aircraft at different bases
Well we saw it differently. It was a straight transfer of 200 jobs from BA mainline to BACX, a move the BACC was absolutely right to oppose. Hardly all the same jobs when one has substantially poorer terms and conditions.

Would you accept it if BA said everyone on Ornithopter's fleet gets to bid for Concorde, while everyone on Hand's fleet get to stay where they are for a very long time?
Is something better than nothing? Is your glass half full or empty? Thats for BACX to decide, not us.
Ever heard of the yanks taking seats out of an aircraft to keep it below a scope limit? Do you think that would never have happened?
Yes, thats why the Scope agreement precludes it. You should try reading it.

Can't you see that mixing pilots of one airline with another advantages one airline to the cost of another? What have the guys in the smaller airline done to deserve that?
Perhaps, but which way is the advantage going in this scenario? BACX now have access to plenty of RJ commands and jet flying they previously did not. Whilst the BA secondees are now well paid, the opportunity to bid for those commands is very restricted and BA pilots have effectively lost a significant number of command opportunities. BA BALPA could have said no to any BACX RJ flying if they'd wanted, would that have been a better solution for you?

You say you want BALPA to represent us all rather than making groups fight each other. Well what is they best way to represent us all? By striving to uphold better pay and conditions, or negotiating them down to the lowest common denominator. BACX pilots were more than happy to undermine the BAR pilots position by doing their work for lower wages. Is that the solidarity you crave?

[JW411]

I really do apologise chaps, I'm having problems with the new reel on my rod.

[Captain Airclues]

Wide-Body

JW411 does not work for GSS so be careful before you offer to swop rosters. :)

Airclues

[ornithopter]

Hand,

Ornithopter if you must post then lets stick to FACT, not RUMOUR

The fact is, I keep suggesting a win/win situation. You keep suggesting win/maybe win/loose situation. Do I want to see pilots wages undermined? No. Do I want to see pilots terms and conditions undermined? No. Are all BACX pilots happy to see BA pilots loose out? No. Are all BA pilots happy to see BACX pilots loose out? No. But scope certainly made it feel like that should have been a yes.

We can let the idea of BAR or BACX making a profit drop. If you have a BA news that says BAR made £12M profit, then I do not disagree, however, as I said before it depends who you talk to. Perhaps I did talk to people who didn't check their facts properly, so you can have that one.

Now you're really letting yourself down with this one. Do you think Ryanair or Easy sell all their seats at £1? Of course they don't so I'll say no more. Its easy to charge £300 when you have a monopoly, not so easy when the low costs start to compete though, as BACX found.

I am afraid the opposite is true. You are letting yourself down by believing the propaganda. The base that I flew from (now shut) had only one route with a competing low cost. The other routes were unique to us and were profitable for many years. While it is true that BACX has made a loss, and that they just 'gave up' in competition with the low costs on some routes (notably Cardiff), you cannot justify the shutting of bases which were profitable for many years until BACX came along. Now we all know that whether an airline is profitable or not is not really down to the pilots, although we can make a difference, so all this 'we are better than you' rubbish is childish. The management of a given pilots airline is nothing to do with him/her, so he/she shouldn't be punished for it. Do you think the pilots in BACX wanted to give up in the face of competiton and a 'soft' maket, or do you think they were professionals like all the rest of us?

Well we saw it differently. It was a straight transfer of 200 jobs from BA mainline to BACX, a move the BACC was absolutely right to oppose. Hardly all the same jobs when one has substantially poorer terms and conditions.

Indeed, which is why BALPA should keep us fully informed and not pitch one airline against another. Do you think if BALPA had sent us information on WHAT WAS ACTUALLY happening, rather than newsletters complaining about the other bunch, that any of this arguing would be going on? Do you think that if we worked together and had proposals from a combined pilot community that we would have had more power, or do you belive that BACC is all powerful?

Is something better than nothing? Is your glass half full or empty? Thats for BACX to decide, not us.

What a pathetic response! Is your glass half full or half empty when you are facing redundancy and being moved about the county like a lorry?

Perhaps, but which way is the advantage going in this scenario? BACX now have access to plenty of RJ commands and jet flying they previously did not. Whilst the BA secondees are now well paid, the opportunity to bid for those commands is very restricted and BA pilots have effectively lost a significant number of command opportunities. BA BALPA could have said no to any BACX RJ flying if they'd wanted, would that have been a better solution for you?

So the direct loss of 20 commands (demotions, rather than opportunities dissapearing) is an advantage is it? And splitting the workforce into two lots is progress? I am glad the BA secondees are well paid and so they should be. If we had worked together in the first place, then BA may well not have lost any command positions at all. BA BALPA could well have said no to BACX RJ flying, but also, they could have said no to undermining other peoples jobs - but they chose not to. They chose to support one lot and undermine the other. There were win/win solutions available, but they were not considered (certainly not publicly).

To make myself absolutely clear:

1. I do not support undermining of peopes T+C's and wages.
2. I similarly do not support BALPA undermining another airlines T+C's and wages, or forcing demotions on another airline.
3. I do support us working TOGETHER.
4. I do support us having the facts by which to judge what is going on, rather than opinion.

Why can't people like you realise that people like me are arguing for better things for ALL of us, not better for some and worse for others.

[FlyboyUK]

Well said Ornithopter. As a fellow BACX pilot I fully support the points raised in your last post.

Both the Mainline and BACX guys need to be presented with all the facts. Having recently completed the RJ100 sim with an ex 777 guy (who was a joy to fly with!), it is apparent that very little is known about the situation in BACX by the mainline guys. Likewise I'm sure that most BACX guys (myself included) are far from seeing the big picture in mainline. What we all need are facts to form a valid opinion on.

No-one wants to see anyone's terms an conditions eroded or their job security threatened. So guys, lets wipe the slate clean and try and work togther on this one, instead of dragging up the past and look to how we can protect everyone's future!

[Skim]

Hear hear,

let's work together. Seriously!

[Popgun]

Does anyone know the latest on the GSS Command issue? How many GSS FOs have been upgraded? How many BA FOs made a bid for the Commands?

[Captain Airclues]

Four GSS F/Os have completed their upgrades and two more are on the course. Perhaps someone from BA could answer the second question.

Airclues

[Popgun]

Thanks CPT Airclues...anyone from BA have some gen on this? Is it likely to be popular with many FOs? When does the bidding period for a GSS command end?

[maxy101]

At the risk of stirring up a hornets´nest again, may I offer a view on this? As BA F/O I do feel let down , by both BA and BALPA, for having non BA pilots flying BA work (cargo) I´m sure other pilots would feel the same if they were sent home on half pay (or no pay) and suddenly a lower cost operator brought in to fly the work. BALPA´s solution of inserting BA pilots into GSS, i feel has only undermined our position. BALPA now recognise the going rate for a BA pilot (on secondment) is a lot less than flying the same -400 in BA. We haven´t protected opportunities at all, merely driven the wedge in deeper. Of course BA are going to say "Fly for GSS", we´ve just reduced their costs for them!
What BALPA should have insisted on, is the opportunities to fly for GSS, and BA "top up" the GSS pay to a similar widebody command in BA. That would be an opportunity.

[Hand Solo]

Hasn't stopped people bidding for it. More bids than there are vacancies.

[AdrianShaftsworthy]

Suspect many of the non type-rated 'volunteers' are taking advantage of the early 744 rating from BA, (i.e. mainline 744 job out of seniority), with absolutely no intention of going on to work for GSS when their time comes.
As for the few, (some surprisingly senior), 744 rated guys putting their name forward I believe most are 'no-hopers' as far as LHS suitability is concerned. Remember the interviews involved for selection!
Apologies to any well intentioned non type-rated and qualified peeps genuinely going for it. Commiserations to the GSS FO's being affected. Shame on BALPA for signing up for the deal!

[foundation digger]

Good reply Mr Wide-Body

[Helipolarbear]

As BA lost the plot long ago, wouldn't it be great for GSS to compete directly against BA for new tenders, then all the Nigel wannabee DEC's can go lick their lollipops with all the Mandy's!:p

[Farty Flaps]

Suerly this thread should be called "ba f/o's GETTING gss commands". That would have saved alot of pointless chat as its a fact, not a wish.

:= :E

[Tandemrotor]

Oh but Farty, you miss the point.

Nobody here can stop BA pilots (who said they were all F/Os?) "GETTING" gss commands!

So, in a rather endearing gesture, by juvenile intimidation, they hope to stop them "WANTING" the job.

Are you getting the hang of this yet?

[Alpha One]

I'm not sure why helipolarbear (a corporate hleicopter pilot) decided to revive this thread after two months, particularly as, despite the title, it is mainly about BACX.
It may interest you to know that every year GSS pilots attend a one day CRM refresher. This year they are concentrating on the first item in the JAA NOTECHs, ie 'Co-operation', and in particular how it relates to the BA secodment issue. Whatever the views expressed on this forum, the GSS management are taking their responsibilities seriously.
Compare this to the attitude of the BA management, supported by some on this forum. This must be the only time that the BA pilots have agreed with the P of D. Having shown him what you are prepared to accept to captain a 744, I hope that he doesn't use it against you in the future. Please keep on telling us to bend over and take it tandemrotor. It supports our views about bullying and intimidation.

[maxy101]

Oh dear, this isn't getting us anywhere. I do hope that this alleged intimidation doesn't put off the normal, average line bloke. Why? Because some of the more "extreme" people on the edge of Briggs-Myers will be applying anyway, and if you're not careful, GSS will be full of these guys running the show.They may only be 0.1% of the BA pilot work force, but they will be up to 33odd % of your Captains. I would think twice at what you are trying to achieve here.

[Farty Flaps]

I think i'm getting the hang of this now. Is GSS the acceptable incarnation of Atlas, which had a recruiting boycott for a while as the work was all going to US types? If so i know of a couple of F/Os ( maybe more i dont know) at Gss who had no compunction ignoring the boycott to look after no1,and later their applications were processed by Gss. IN other words "lie low boys til we sort out these pesky unions " .So i dont see the problem in that Gss are being strongarmed by the people who created them. What goes around comes around.

Gss is not an independant operator , its a wholly dependant operator. If they want the freedom to promote the toy throwers then dont fly ba cargo other than tendering for it on the open market.

It is being stangled by the very loophole that atlas first tred to exploit......ERM i think.

Actually i dont care too much, just that the irony crossed my mind

[EICAS-GP]

Tandemrotor

'So, in a rather endearing gesture, by juvenile intimidation, they hope to stop them "WANTING" the job.'

Well I wonder how long it has taken for you to come to that conclusion?

Of course the 'intimidation' used by the BACC and subsequently by BA Flight Ops, to force GSS to accept BA secondees as Captains, is perfectly acceptable I suppose. Bullying is 'OK behaviour' in New Road, is it?
It goes something like this:-
1/ BACC conclude the agreement with BA without consulting GSS
2/ BACC pressurises BA to implement the agreement
3/ BA threatens to ruin GSS commercially if they do not accept their F/Os as Captains in GSS
4/ BA F/Os now take 2/3rds of commands in GSS
And GSS F/Os are supposed to lie down and accept this - I don't think so!
Bullies always lose in the end.

What has concerned GSS is that the BACC may have failed to provide their pilots with the real story concerning how this shabby deal was concluded. We fail to understand why any BA F/O would want to take a command in GSS, undertake a pay cut, work for vastly inferior terms and conditions, knowingly STEAL that command from a fellow BALPA member and then spend three years in a small airline where he will be most unwelcome - a pariah!
Is that fourth ring really worth that much? How sad!

[Hand Solo]

On the contrary I think most BA pilots are very well informed on how the deal was arranged, both in terms of BA managements failure to consult GSS and GSS managements attempts to dodge the outcome. BACC have explained it all very clearly, albeit without the use of the emotive language which appears on this thread.

We fail to understand why any BA F/O would want to take a command in GSS

Command is command, people have their own personal ambitions.

, undertake a pay cut

Not necessarily, and money isn't everything.
.
work for vastly inferior terms and conditions

There's more to life than Bidline rules, and I suspect a number of bidders will have previously worked for organisations that make GSS look rather comfortable. Its not hard to go back to where you came from.

knowingly STEAL that command from a fellow BALPA member

STEAL? No new contract means no third aircraft means no new commands. New contracts means new commands for GSS pilots. It all boils down to whether you think BACC should turn a blind eye to contracting out work or should defend the interests of BACC members. Incidentally, less than 50% of GSS pilots are BALPA members.

then spend three years in a small airline where he will be most unwelcome - a pariah!

I'm sure there are worse things in life. The individuals might be treated like pariahs by a small element of GSS pilots, but I suspect its stretching credulity to claim that the entire GSS pilot body will display open hostility towards the secondees as that would be both immature and unprofessional. Comments like that were rife in the run up to the BACX secondments, yet the reality was that most BACX pilots simply got on with the job like professionals and kept personal animosity out of the flight deck. Those who did indulge themselves in vendettas were seen as rather pathetic by both communities.

Incidentally, as I sit here and look at the details of the GSS secondment it would appear that any co-pilot up to pay point 14 in BA would receive an immediate rise in basic pay by taking up a GSS secondment. The hourly allowances are £2.50 in BA versus £2.00 for GSS plus a £10 per day overseas allowance in BA. Given the profile of the successful bidders within BA I would say that they all stand to pocket a significant pay rise through the move to GSS.

[Captain Correlli]

You are a particularly arrogant individual Kevin old chap. To comment about BACX when you are not actually part of it, and consistently misquote the situation there is bad enough. Yes, the secondees are professional, 'nice' blokes. They have been treated professionally and nicely, as most of us in BACX recognise the situation for what it is - a management and BACC stitch-up.

Let us not (again) discuss the history, let US (in BACX) advise YOU that the situation may be about to change. If there are to be mandatory redundancies in the BACX pilot community (as now looks likely) whilst we are supporting a a mainline surplus on one of our fleets on our AOC, I think you may well find the courts being approached, and BALPA for once having to be even handed.

I don't work for GSS, but the stench of heavy handed bullying comes across all too well. The smooth, glib, posturing employed by you and your ilk to 'justify' your position reminds me oh so much of a certain Antony Linton Blair. Doubtless you all feel content with the 'totality' of YOUR position too - for the moment!! I'm sure the GSS situation is once again just the BACC getting their foot in the door, and things will continue to change for the worse because a precedent will have been set.
Don't ever forget that what goes around, comes around.

Oh- maybe it would be more appropriate to refer to mainline guys as "Kevins" because that certainly aligns more accurately with their self serving, arrogant, meretricious, greedy, pompous, verbose and glib attitudes. A pox on you BA, the sooner the economic realities are served to you by the banks and finance houses the sooner we can all start again!



Yes, that is a bit of a rant - put it down to finally reading one post too many by the likes of Kevin Solo and Tandem Rotor et al, and being pointed toward the dole queue by their management practices!
:mad:

[EICAS-GP]

Hand Solo

'Incidentally, less than 50% of GSS pilots are BALPA members.'

Well, its not really surprising since:-

1/ BALPA is the driving force behind the blatant theft of their commands - ironic that this battle is not against an employer, but against one's union!.
2/ BALPA has failed totally to offer their members in GSS any effective represention to counter the decimation of their careers in GSS
3/ BALPA has totally endorsed the 'bully-boy' tactics of the BACC to steal commands from GSS F/Os
4/ BALPA is dominated by the BACC and, sadly, the pilots in GSS see no evidence that this would change even if they were 'recognised'.

For these reasons, GSS pilots are not rushing to join BALPA [and who can blame them] - in fact many existing members are leaving and getting a 1% pay rise. Sadly this fails to compensate the F/Os who are now faced with forgoing the substantial payrise that they could have reasonably expected upon upgrade.

'..... but I suspect its stretching credulity to claim that the entire GSS pilot body will display open hostility towards the secondees as that would be both immature and unprofessional.'

Don't bet on it - there is a lot of genuine anger in GSS, and not just amongst the pilot work force. Professional we will try to be - that goes without saying - but the BACC have placed the BA secondees in an invidious position. Just think how you would feel working with a stranger, an interloper, who had just caused you to lose a £20K+ rise rise? But no doubt, GSS pilots will try to adhere to the maxim - 'don't get mad, get even'. After all, GSS pilots are the victims of the bullying tactics of the BACC and have right on their side.

' No new contract means no third aircraft means no new commands. New contracts means new commands for GSS pilots.'

I wish it were as simply as that. Quite a few commands will be generated in house by the ex BA and ex Cathay Captains reaching retirement age - nothing to do with the third freighter.
In fact, it is my understanding that even if the contract for the third freighter is not renewed in May, the BA secondees remain!
Also, threats have been made by the BACC to take ALL commands in GSS commands in the near future.

How unreasonable can you get?


Finally - and this may come a surprise, although I fundamentally disagree with your arguments, may I compliment you Hand Solo on the tone of your posting. It is refreshing to read a posting from a BA PPRuNer that is polite, well argued and devoid of emotional, arrogant, OTT, claptrap.

Thank you
[

[Marty-Party]

Hand Solo

Whilst I agree with most of your post, I would suggest that any F/O above about PayPoint 9 in BA would not be interested. The money will be similar but they will lose 2 weeks effective leave (duty free week) and life style choice via bidline.

It appears that all the successful bidders are PP9 or below (seniority number 2000 or higher).

However a very substantial inducement for these guys is the heavy command time. From October 2006, the current Compuslory Pension Age of 55 will have to be scrapped at BA. This means that all commands will be delayed for up to 5 years and for some of the more mature F/Os this will mean forever - even for shorthaul at LGW.

Time to command has also been distorted by the absorbtion of CitiFlyer. Some of the CitiFlyer Captains have "Grand Father Rights" and so will be placed in the left seat of a mainline fleet before some more senior BA F/Os. Some of the CitiFlyer F/Os have been placed in the right hand seat on long-haul. Not bad eh? Turbo-prop to Jumbo in one leap!

BA F/Os get screwed just like everyone else.

To those in GSS who regard the BA F/Os as stealing their commands - what about your currrent Captains? Some get more than 2 times a GSS F/Os pay just from their BA pension. Then they get GSS command pay on top! Why don't you ask them to just slide off gracefully and let you have their job?

So to all those in GSS, aviation life in not fair.
Of course you at GSS have the right to moan, but it's a done deal so learn to live with it or go elsewhere.

[Maximuss]

It's interesting to note that it seems to be only BA postees who are enthusing about the:

"well, that's aviation, just bend over and smile, your turn will come..."

outlook on this type of situation. Of course, from the point of view of the big battalions, that is understandable, if morally and ethically bankrupt. One genuinely looks forward to reading the howls of outrage when the cold winds of economic reality finally affect the BA mainline pilot community.

[EICAS-GP]

Marty-Party

'To those in GSS who regard the BA F/Os as stealing their commands - what about your currrent Captains? Some get more than 2 times a GSS F/Os pay just from their BA pension. Then they get GSS command pay on top! Why don't you ask them to just slide off gracefully and let you have their job?'

The Captains of whom you speak were employed as a 'command bridge'. Every start up company needs experience in the LHS and trainers to do the command training.
This is why GSS employed ex BA, ex Cathay, and ex Cargolux Captains. Almost all of them will be retiring or 'sliding off gracefully' as you kindly put it, in the next couple of years.
The intention was that they would be replaced in house, by GSS F/Os - that is why they joined GSS on inferior pay and conditions.
Now thanks to the bullying tactics of the BACC, they will in fact, be replaced by greedy BA F/Os who have nothing to gain except the fourth ring on their sleeve. When they have finished in GSS they will return to their secure career in BA, to be replaced by yet another thief from BA.
Meanwhile the GSS F/O is supposed to sit in his RHS , say nothing nasty; exercise good CRM on and off the aeroplane; be professional; not be 'immature'; forget the £20K+ annual payrise; accept that 'aviation life is not fair' as you put it and have no command expectations - it is asking a lot don't you think?
It might stretch the most reasonable of men , me-thinks!

This bullying action by the BACC to steal commands in another company, is morally bereft and those who initiated it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

[Avius]

EICAS-GP,

well said, your last post describes the situation very well. I looks like the BA chaps are asking GSS F/O 's to be more professional then they are (themselves). Obviously just a "lip service" to justify their greed.

But...I would not give up on this whole thing quite yet. The courts can make "done deals" null and void. It looks like the GSS guys have very good cards in their hands, when it gets to the legal side.

Why don't you guys file a law suit. Since a lot of GSS pilots (ex. BALPA members) are getting a 1% payrise, use that to get some lawyers involved. If you're right, you're right. Not even the mighty BALPA can do anything against that..

Cheers

[EICAS-GP]

Avius

'Why don't you guys file a law suit'

Funny you mention that.....!.

Thanks for your support

[Hand Solo]

Corelli - I'm afraid you've confused me with someone completely different old chap, my names not Kevin. I may not be part of BACX, but I know and am in regular contact with a lot of people who are. The only time I misquote anything on here is when it doesn't match up with what your BA appointed managers are telling you for their own benefit. Also, there is no mainline surplus of pilots, recruitment is almost inevitable in the next 18 months. Those were places that could have been filled directly by CX pilots if their company council had not turned down the opportunity. Quite who will be approaching the courts on your behalf? It won't be the BA managers in BACX. If its your company council they'd have to explain why they are unhappy with a grant of 100+ jobs and 16 aircraft to BACX, and why they turned down a deal which would resolve the redundancy issues. Hardly a convincing case.

EICAS-GP - Yes that compliment did come as a surprise, but I thank you for it anyway.

On the subject of BALPA membership, it seems to me that you are putting the cart before the horse. Your defence of low BALPA membership is that BALPA didn't do anything to help you, which is of course not enough of you are in BALPA. You can't ask an insurance company to pay out for your car on the promise that you'll take out a policy with them afterwards, the same is true of BALPA.

My understanding of the secondment arrangements are that BACC seek a proportion of new commands. Clearly this differs from your understanding, with implications for the positions vacated by retiring Captains and the consequences of a failure to renew the contract for the third aircraft. As neither of us can be certain which interpretation is correct then any further discussion on those subjects just becomes wild speculation which helps neither of us, so I'll refrain from that.

I've no doubt BACCs goal is all commands at GSS, which would tie in with their long term goal of all BA passenger and cargo work being done by BA pilots. As a BA pilot I fully endorse that long term goal, but what is ideal and what is realistically achievable are very different beasts and I doubt either goal will be achieved any time soon.

Maximuss - you wrote
One genuinely looks forward to reading the howls of outrage when the cold winds of economic reality finally affect the BA mainline pilot community.

I'm sorry, did I miss Foot and Mouth, 9/11, SARS, shoe-bombers, missile attacks, recession, a war, massive security costs, LHR congestion, low cost carriers, price wars, subsidies for competitors, wildcat strikes and a whole host of other financial catastrophes for the airline?

Avius - I don't know which country you are based in, but in the UK you can make just about any contract you want legally binding provided it is reasonably fair to both parties. BA can quite legitimately include a stipulation in the contract for a third freighter that they wish it to be partly crewed by BA pilots. It's no different to any outsourcing contract in any other industry which stipulates the contractor will use certain staff requested by the customer. Incidentally if it wasn't for the mighty BALPA then the GSS work would still be being flown by Americans using Atlas freighters.

[Avius]

Hand Solo,

thanks for the lesson in UK law. I can assure you that the principal of free contract negotiation is valid in just about every country of the civilized world, which I'm sure the UK is a part of.

Just like you correctly mentioned, it depends on the circumstances, HOW the agreement was reached, particularly on the positive intention of both parties. Not knowing all the facts, but reading through the posts, this agreement seemed to be reached under rather dubious circumstances..

There is many "if's" and "when's", but it appears, that a smart lawyer could have fun tearing BALPA apart...

[Tandemrotor]

I genuinely did want to cease posting (and reading) this thread. However, as my parting contribution, I can do little more than echo Hand's educational contribution.

In a nutshell:

Gss's major (only?) customer, BA, identified work for a third aircraft. But they insisted that A PROPORTION of the NEW jobs created at gss by this expansion, be allocated to mainline pilots.

(Why is this so unreasonable?)

As gss is an entirely DEPENDENT, as opposed to INDEPENDENT operator, they were faced with a choice.

Reject the request, and stagnate, or grow the business by accepting the reasonable request of it's client.

THEY alone had the choice, THEY alone made their decision.

Ever heard the phrase, "the customer is always right"?

So you see, all this talk of 'stealing our jobs' is very arguable, as the jobs would never have existed without the arrival of a SMALL number of mainline pilots.

As far as filing a 'law suit' (sounds like an americanism!) I wouldn't hold your breath!

As for Capt Corelli, I am intrigued. You wrote:

"You are a particularly arrogant individual Kevin old chap. To comment about BACX when you are not actually part of it"

Doesn't that sit rather uncomfortably with the fact that you feel able to comment about gss, when you are not actually part of THAT?

Would that be sufficiently;

"polite, well argued and devoid of emotional, arrogant, OTT, claptrap" for you eicas?

[Avius]

Tandemrotor,

polite...yes, well argued...ok, but not correct. The "reasonable request" you are talking about is more like "Uncle Vito's (initially) gentle persuation" to "OFFER" protection for small business owners in good old Napoli.

BA's core business is......Passenger Transport.., not Freighter Services. BA World Cargo is nothing but a Freight forwarder, just like Panalpina, Kuhne & Nagel and many others. They do not own or operate Freighters, therefore have NO Cockpit Jobs. (mathematically ZERO cockpit jobs). How can you take away jobs if there is ZERO to begin with ???

Come on you BA guys, you must have had math in school to become pilots !!!!!

Bottom line, GSS does not take ANY jobs away from BA. On the contrary, they create office jobs at BAWC and fill the gap for a product, which BA does not provide on their own.....and BA doesn't own GSS !!

And the "customer is right" thing.....According to your logic I can buy myself a ticket on BA and then just claim, that I have the right to fly the airplane myself (Customer is always right, huh ??)

Sorry - no offence, but get real !!

[EICAS-GP]

Tandemrotor

'As gss is an entirely DEPENDENT, as opposed to INDEPENDENT operator, they were faced with a choice.
Reject the request, and stagnate, or grow the business by accepting the reasonable request of it's client.'

It might be your last posting, but I cannot let this go without challenging your use of 'reasonable'.
Since when has abject bullying been 'reasonable'?
It might be in your world, for but the rest of us, it is far from 'reasonable'. The BACC is big and powerful, GSS is small and not - QED. No negotiation - just do it or else! And then... oh yes,....stop whinging!
= BULLYING!

The BACC decided to appease the understandable complaints from their members concerning the haemorraging of work to other airlines such as Qantas [SIN to OZ], Aer Lingus [all routes to Ireland] Com Air, [JNB to GBE and DUR] GibAir, BMed etc..etc etc....... by attacking a new vulnerable fledgling airline called GSS. They were going to be easy prey and it would look good to BA pilots as the BACC would be seen to be 'doing something about it'.
The fact that BA never had the freight work in the first place - as opposed to the above airlines - seems to have been conveniently overlooked.
They then managed amazingly, to persuade a BA Flights Ops IR person [who then disappeared from the scene] to sign an agreement to allow command bidding to a completely different INDEPENDENT airline, GSS, who happened to be contracted at the time to fly BA's main deck cargo. No one in BA or BALPA thought fit to mention this to GSS.
Then the plot thickens!!
BA realised that GSS might not be too pleased - to say the least - so, following 'pressure' from BALPA to implement the agreement, BA Flight Ops themselves used threats and intimidation [cancelling the freight contracts] to force GSS into agreeing to accept BA F/Os into the LHS of their aircraft. Sign here or face commercial ruin.

'But they insisted that A PROPORTION of the NEW jobs created at gss by this expansion, be allocated to mainline pilots.'

Come on.... the BACC initially wanted ALL commands in GSS and settled for a proportion very reluctantly, under duress. Furthermore, the signs are that the BACC will be after ALL commands again in the future. Also, the agreement is so one- sided that even if the contract for the third freighter is not renewed later this year, the BA theives still stay in the left hand seat of GSS aeroplanes, thus denying GSS F/Os of their rightful commands and a pay rise of £20k+ per annum.

As I said before, this deal is totally morally bereft and those BA pilots in the BACC should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
In my view, bullying, intimidation and threats are far from 'reasonable'. What do other Ppruners think?

[Captain Correlli]

Tandem Rotor, an interesting comment ref my own posts on this thread.

To clarify, whilst I have indeed made my thoughts plain on the overbearing 'might is right' attitude of BA and the BACC on this thread about GSS, what I have not done is discuss any contractual specifics, pay grades, job entitlements which go with either pilot community. This is because, not being part of either community, I am factually unaware of those specifics. This does not preclude me from observing the broad brush ethical and moral bankrupcy of the BACC case.
Now, with ref Hand Solo, though not part of BACX, he has the gall to persistently refer to BACX terms and conditions and the detail thereof, which he consistently gets wrong. He refers to BACX CC decisions and decision making processes, which he had no part in, and which he blurs the emphasis of.

Like many of the BA community posting here, he should be a politician, because his prevarications, mendacity and posturing only ever seek to better his own lot (nothing philosophically wrong with that, BTW), but at the expense of smaller more vulnerable pilot communities. I suppose the larger hogs always manage to get their snouts in the trough sooner and stay for longer. Watching the BACC's endeavours, I am depressingly reminded of a cynic's description of life as rather like being a maggot in a jamjar, always trying to get to the top by climbing over one's colleagues.:{


(Finally, if his name isn't Kevin, why does it appear as such on the BA BALPA website (some of us have contacts too!!)

[BlueDog]

I hate to intrude on this to-ing & fro-ing between both parties, but, it would seem that neither side is really listening to each other. Instead of launching into a tirade of abuse please read the other's post carefully and try to see his/her point of view. As always there are two sides to every story. Yes the situation is not entirely fair and I can see the point of view of both sides.

As I understand it as GSS is BA's only client, they would have some right to ask how this work is conducted. Agreed the customer is not always right but it is important to please them?This is tragic for those joining GSS expecting a quick(er) command on a Jumbo. In BA, I believe, with a possible increase in retirement age, the retirement bulge almost over and an influx of CityFlyer pilots above those recent entries the time to command (even on BA LGW shorthaul - which is becoming almost an easyJet type affair) is likely to rise to perhaps 15 years. Not fair on those new joiners either?

Also, I thought all the BA mainline secondees had all left BACX & been absorbed into the mothership? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I hope this post doesn't attract some of the vitriolic language afforded other people... please?

[Skylion]

The fact is that BA long haul have never successfully operated all cargo services in their own right. BOAC started subcontracting ( to Skyways) in the 1940s and their occasional forays into doing it themselves with Yorks,DC- 7Fs, B 707s and later the single 747F quickly sold to Cathay have not been profitable. BEA and BA shorthaul efforts with DC 3s and later Argosys and the Merchantman ( Vanguard) were no more successful, although thet carried a lot of cargo. The same would be if GSS were to incur BA costs, working practices etc,- it would simply fail.

[Kurtz]

Bluedog - none of the BA mainline guys have left BACX.

[BlueDog]

Thanks for the info Kurtz. I had heard that there were a few FO's at LGW whom had been on the ATP at Manchester etc.?

[Tandemrotor]

GSS F/Os are on absolutely rock bottom pay with no perks whatsoever.

So why work for such a bad employer?

[spencer drake]

Since my first posting some time ago much has been said and argued about and even now there still seems to be many misconceptions among BA crew about GSS.
Misconception 1. It is BA work.
BA has not done this type of work since the 70s, it has no freighters, no pilot jobs have been lost. It was originally Atlas work if you remember, but there was much wailing and gnashing and teeth about the Americans flying European work (rightly so) and over a period of time GSS was set up as a predominately euro owned company to do the work. GSS is at least 49% owned by Atlas. So the term “bring the work back to BA” as used often on the BA forum is totally inappropriate, as BA would have to “start up”, their own freight outfit, virtually from scratch.
Why do you think BA didn’t use it’s own pilots/infrastructure in the first place? Does it show a lack of faith in itself to deliver a cost effective operation? This is where your real argument should be focused, if you feel strongly that BA should start flying the cargo then sit down with your management and make a convincing case. You don’t need to threaten strikes. You just need to prove on paper you can make more money, after all that is what business is all about. Stealing commands from other airlines such as GSS is an admission of defeat in this argument and is seen as desperately scavenging for the titbits thrown to you by BACC and management, and in the process upsetting the career structure (on which all pilots depend) within a small expanding independent airline.

Misconception 2. GSS fly in BA liveries.
There is no excuse to still believe this. Just look at the GSS website. Do they look familiar? They do bear a striking resemblance to Atlas don’t they? In fact they are leased to GSS by Atlas, the s.o.ps used by GSS are based on the Atlas ones. We do use “Speedbird” callsigns but then who doesn’t these days.
Misconception 3 There are more Captains than F/Os.
Untrue it is the other way round.

There is one thing however that the postings on the BA forum were right about, and that is the hostile reception from GSS to BA pilots taking GSS commands. Although why the surprise? After all didn’t I, and many others inform you of that. The interviews may well have appeared hostile because the attitude of everyone is hostile, they were merely trying to make sure you know what to expect, and that it is real and not just a way to put you off.
GSS is an independent airline and BAWC is merely the launch customer, when GSS has it’s second customer the argument that GSS is wholly dependant on BA (as BALPA argues) will be lodged firmly in the orifice from whence it spewed.
C.R.M is still a major concern, and GSS pilots will of course be as professional as they can despite the despicable circumstances they find themselves forced to accept. Another concern in GSS is that some of these BA direct entry Captains do not even meet the experience requirements as laid out in the GSS ops manual, so GSS is having to lower it’s standards to be able to accept them. Some of these so called Captains have never commanded anything larger than a light aircraft, and yet they seem to think they can command in this arena, where most of their F/Os have vastly superior experience levels and previous airline command experience. But I suppose it won’t be the first time an inferior pilot is sitting in the left as compared to the right (at least in terms of experience).
So I repeat my original statement for those pilots thinking of joining GSS, think again!! It’s not too late to withdraw as many of your number had the foresight to do. Do you really want to be imprisoned for three years in a company that didn’t invite you, doesn’t want you, and can’t wait to see the back of you. Harsh but true.

[WhoopWhoop Whoops]

GSS is an artificial airline the way AML was.Both were creations of the Failing Ayling years. Its just that GSS is still around.

When the freight work reaches a critical mass BA will suck it back into the company, probably when it can get some of its pax 747's converted. All it needs is a new idea from someone at WaterWorld. (Doesn't happen often)

It won't be tomorrow but when the guys at WW decide its Bye Bye GSS. It will be brutal for all in it.

AML cabin crew all were made redundant with 3 months notice when that change of policy took place re: AML.

All in GSS for a career take note.

It is NOT A LONG TERM BET. Sorry, but the way BA operates you better find some more customers, to survive for the long term.

BA is a fickle partner.

[Captain Airclues]

The regulations are here (www.dti.gov.uk/er/individual/tupe-pl699a.htm#transfers)

Does anyone have any practical experience of this legislation?

Airclues

[Flap33]

Sick, sorry to tell you this but I was in Cityflyer when BA was taking us over and merging us into mainline. TUPE doesn't give you the right to merged seniority (a bunch of CFE pilots set up a legal slush fund and took advice). Also, the BACC were adamant that seniority would not be (and subsequently wasn't) merged. The best outcome you could hope for is a "Grandfather Right" form of protection for existing commands.

F33

[WhoopWhoop Whoops]

Thanks for that Link.

on TUPE

It shows clearly that those regulations do not apply if the work was taken away. That is,unfortunately you would be out in the cold.

As I said before you only have to look at the history of the way BA has dealt with partners and franchises.

It has been a wild merry go round of policy changes.

BA has one consistant policy though......

Its called THE GRAND OLD DUKE OF YORK APPROACH.

UP THE HILL DOWN THE HILL and then do it all over again.

Even in BA its only safe to work at Fortress Heathrow. I once heard a senior manager say that is our honey pot!

Because it is so large and dominant on major routes it can get away with it.

But dont think they wouldnt dump GSS if they had a mind to.

Same goes for BACX after all they have bought it fiddled with it and dumped half of it already, and its still going on. IOM, Guernsey, Western Isles, Wales, Southwest of England. all within 6 months, whats next ?

Look at the facts. It was not a threat, just history!

[WhoopWhoop Whoops]

Dear Sick

I think even BA would be clever enough to argue that they are the customer and they can take the work anywhere they want.

However its just speculation, what they might do.

All I know is that Rod likes all the business in house, if posssible.

He has said that to staff.

That was why AML died.

I do think though, that he is undecided on BACX ,GSS, and he is waiting to see on LGW.

His eye currently must be on the main game...............

The Pension Hole and this year's pay rise, if he messes up on that, ALL BETS ARE OFF.