British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
.... therefore you leave yourself open to 1000's of unfair dismissal claims.
I must admit I find the number a bit high, but very recently spoke to a 747 person who seemed to think that as many as 22 (!) 747-400 hulls would be parked up before the forthcoming winter season was over! 22? Really as many as that? Or is he/she mixing up other fleet types in there as well?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said earlier, I cannot find both redundancy and SOSR used at the same time.
If we were all to live with the mantra of 'it's never been done before it can't be done!' then there would be no aviation industry in the first place!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that Longhaul aircraft require about 8-9 crews per aircraft and shorthaul about 4-5 crews.
747 requires 12 crew (11 can be carried if no pax on upper deck).
767 requires 6 crew (if 6 crew carried pax number cannot exceed 251, otherwise 7 crew, which won't happen at BA since 767 EF is 247 pax and 767 WW is 199 pax).
777 requires 8 crew (ER requires 9 crew).
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the earlier link, Litebulbs:
"SOSR did not have to be a reason that the tribunal considered to be sound, merely one that the employer considered (on reasonable grounds) to be sound...All the employer had to do, when establishing SOSR for dismissal, was provide evidence supporting a genuinely held belief that it had a substantial reason which was not ‘whimsical or capricious’."
It may be pushing reasonableness, but I would be hesitant to dismiss the possibility that BA would use SOSR both for reduction in numbers due to planes parked, and reduction in complements on flights as well. It would seem from the legislation and case law in place, that they can do as they please if the industry is in dire straits, the company is losing cash, and the competition use minimum crew complements as well.
On that assumption, the minimum legal crew complement requirements for the airline as a whole (excluding parked aircraft) are shockingly low compared to the present manpower, and BASSA seem to have left the company in the position that it is now free to do as it pleases "for its own survival".
The least they could then do is start a fair rostering system, which would in essence reduce "sickness" markedly, as more get what they want, when they want it.
"SOSR did not have to be a reason that the tribunal considered to be sound, merely one that the employer considered (on reasonable grounds) to be sound...All the employer had to do, when establishing SOSR for dismissal, was provide evidence supporting a genuinely held belief that it had a substantial reason which was not ‘whimsical or capricious’."
It may be pushing reasonableness, but I would be hesitant to dismiss the possibility that BA would use SOSR both for reduction in numbers due to planes parked, and reduction in complements on flights as well. It would seem from the legislation and case law in place, that they can do as they please if the industry is in dire straits, the company is losing cash, and the competition use minimum crew complements as well.
On that assumption, the minimum legal crew complement requirements for the airline as a whole (excluding parked aircraft) are shockingly low compared to the present manpower, and BASSA seem to have left the company in the position that it is now free to do as it pleases "for its own survival".
The least they could then do is start a fair rostering system, which would in essence reduce "sickness" markedly, as more get what they want, when they want it.
Last edited by T5 Mole; 8th Sep 2009 at 20:47.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuigini
I think you need to understand what I said
I said that 1 B747 requires 8-9 crews, not 8-9 people. ie 8-9 x the number of people comprising a crew. In other words, to fly one B747 you need 8-9 complete crews.
Currently, a crew comprises generally 15 (occasionally 16) cabin crew plus a flight crew of 2,3 or 4 (averaging probably 2.8). So for flight crew, a reduction of 8 aircraft would require 8x2.8 or about 22 fewer pilots (8 captains and 16 co-pilots, roughly), if you wish to compare.
Maybe your maths come from the BASSA school of logic, ie pure fantasy
I think you need to understand what I said
I said that 1 B747 requires 8-9 crews, not 8-9 people. ie 8-9 x the number of people comprising a crew. In other words, to fly one B747 you need 8-9 complete crews.
Currently, a crew comprises generally 15 (occasionally 16) cabin crew plus a flight crew of 2,3 or 4 (averaging probably 2.8). So for flight crew, a reduction of 8 aircraft would require 8x2.8 or about 22 fewer pilots (8 captains and 16 co-pilots, roughly), if you wish to compare.
Maybe your maths come from the BASSA school of logic, ie pure fantasy
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think your maths are a bit out for your FC numbers - The 744 needs about 10 Crews ie 20 pilots per hull - a reduction of 8 hulls would mean a reduction of 80 pilots - the 10 crews allowing for a mix of various long range ops.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say TopBunks numbers are pretty accurate given the information thats widely available within BA. Perhaps the naysayers would like to explain why he's wrong and they are right?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think TopBunks number are accurate if you don't look at the bigger picture.
New aircraft slip in as old ones are stood down and although less staff will be needed overall I think it's too simplistic a view to just take the number of aircraft stood down permanently or over winter and multiply by the number of crew required.
You really need to calculate the number of crew also needed to fly the new aircraft we have just bought and those that are coming along.
More complicated than it first seems
New aircraft slip in as old ones are stood down and although less staff will be needed overall I think it's too simplistic a view to just take the number of aircraft stood down permanently or over winter and multiply by the number of crew required.
You really need to calculate the number of crew also needed to fly the new aircraft we have just bought and those that are coming along.
More complicated than it first seems
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fargoo,
Obviously you have insight into the new orders not yet deferred no?
There are only a few new (3 more I believe after G-YMMM's replacement) 777 aircraft coming this year and nothing for next year at all. The company is desperately trying to delay the delivery of the 380 and the 787 delay is a 'god send' in disguise.
Add to that that the lead in time for training CC and FC are totally different. Whilst the training time for FC on a new aircraft type can comprise of months the same cannot be said for the CC who can be familiarised with the 'standard' cabin equipment and the 'standard' Airbus/Boeing door as the company see fit.
Why do we need the crews now when the aircraft are, at least, 18 months away?
Obviously you have insight into the new orders not yet deferred no?
There are only a few new (3 more I believe after G-YMMM's replacement) 777 aircraft coming this year and nothing for next year at all. The company is desperately trying to delay the delivery of the 380 and the 787 delay is a 'god send' in disguise.
Add to that that the lead in time for training CC and FC are totally different. Whilst the training time for FC on a new aircraft type can comprise of months the same cannot be said for the CC who can be familiarised with the 'standard' cabin equipment and the 'standard' Airbus/Boeing door as the company see fit.
Why do we need the crews now when the aircraft are, at least, 18 months away?
I was under the impression that BA's forthcoming 777s consisted of:
4 x 777-200 for 2009
6 x 777-300 starting 2010
plus
5 x leased 777-200 as interim replacement for the delayed 787, confirmed verbally by a Boeing rep in Seattle in August!
(The above are additions to 42 extant 777-200s already in the fleet.)
4 x 777-200 for 2009
6 x 777-300 starting 2010
plus
5 x leased 777-200 as interim replacement for the delayed 787, confirmed verbally by a Boeing rep in Seattle in August!
(The above are additions to 42 extant 777-200s already in the fleet.)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect Nuigini was pointing out that BA can reduce its numbers much further by reducing crew numbers to min req'd.
He has always taken the intelligent and pragmatic approach.
So, a bit snappy TopBunk. Didn't deserve a condescending.............
He has always taken the intelligent and pragmatic approach.
So, a bit snappy TopBunk. Didn't deserve a condescending.............
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arem
Mea culpa! Yes I got the FC numbers wrong - I forgot to multiply by the number of aircraft leaving the fleet!
Re the ratio of B747 captains:co-pilots, the establishment for this month shows about a 1:1.5 ratio, ie 3 co-pilots for every 2 captains, not 1:1 as you suggested.
Another way of looking at it, 940 pilots on the fleet, lose 10% of the fleet = 94 pilots, lose 15% approx 140 pilots.
Of course, this can only be an approximation, as the real numbers will be affected by the managment and training establishment requirements and the actual change to the destinations flown to. Furthermore, with 55 aircraft on the fleet (plus 2 stooddown at CWL), BA didn't fly 55 lines of aircraft work, probably nearer 51 (with 4 as spares/under check), and probably this 51 lines has reduced to 47 or so already. ie the work reduction has to an extent already been factored into the pilot establishment, so physically removing the additional airframes may well not have as large an effect as at first appears.
Mea culpa! Yes I got the FC numbers wrong - I forgot to multiply by the number of aircraft leaving the fleet!
Re the ratio of B747 captains:co-pilots, the establishment for this month shows about a 1:1.5 ratio, ie 3 co-pilots for every 2 captains, not 1:1 as you suggested.
Another way of looking at it, 940 pilots on the fleet, lose 10% of the fleet = 94 pilots, lose 15% approx 140 pilots.
Of course, this can only be an approximation, as the real numbers will be affected by the managment and training establishment requirements and the actual change to the destinations flown to. Furthermore, with 55 aircraft on the fleet (plus 2 stooddown at CWL), BA didn't fly 55 lines of aircraft work, probably nearer 51 (with 4 as spares/under check), and probably this 51 lines has reduced to 47 or so already. ie the work reduction has to an extent already been factored into the pilot establishment, so physically removing the additional airframes may well not have as large an effect as at first appears.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other way to look at cabin crew numbers is to start at the desired complement, (crews per aircraft and number on each crew), multiply by the (overall reduced) numbers of aircraft and subtract this from the number we have now.
The answer will be a big number.
The answer will be a big number.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a reminder as to the title of this thread:
British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
By looking at how one group are dealing with a near identical situation, you can learn a lot about your own situation.
Take the manpower surplus that will/has resulted from hulls being stood down. The pilot community can immediately see why this surplus has come about, and have been aware that it is on the way for nearly a year.
BALPA have kept the pilots fully informed, and there is a very good understanding amongst the community of why there is a problem, how big it is, how long it will last and the options we have for dealing with it. There is a whole section of the BALPA forum dedicated to it, with 16 different discussion threads, with reps explaining all the numbers and people suggesting different solutions, asking questions, getting answers from reps and thinking around the problem.
Newsletters are published explaining the situation and the legal aspects, time frames and so on.
Reps are engaging with BA to find a mutually acceptable solution to the surplus, the pilot community is coming together to find a way to protect the jobs of the 100 or so in surplus so they don't find themselves on the dole, it may be we all take some unpaid leave, or we all go 97% part time for 97% pay, that will be decided by consulting the members
Now, my point;
Those of you who are cabin crew, (not reps or foaming at the mouth militants), compare this to how you have been treated by BASSA? Do you feel like you have been properly informed? Do you know the legal ramifications? Do you understand precisely how the numbers of crew in surplus have come from? Have you been consulted as to whether you would like to collectively save people from the dole or just let BA CR them if it comes to that? Do you feel that your reps are engaging with BA as best they can before something is imposed? Do you trust them with your livelihood?
There is a large and growing number of crew that are slowly beginning to realise that they have badly let down. The "no no no/foot stomp/hissy fit" has worked very well in the past, there is no doubt, (unless you work(ed) at LGW/GLA/BHX or are on a new contract, in which case it didn't really work), but that method just isn't going to cut it this time.
It's time to tell BASSA to start listening to you, and stop trying to tell you what to think, you're not all sheep.
Good luck.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fargoo,
Obviously you have insight into the new orders not yet deferred no?
There are only a few new (3 more I believe after G-YMMM's replacement) 777 aircraft coming this year and nothing for next year at all.
Obviously you have insight into the new orders not yet deferred no?
There are only a few new (3 more I believe after G-YMMM's replacement) 777 aircraft coming this year and nothing for next year at all.
I think really the only true way to calculate the numbers is to compare overall fleet size before and after the new deliveries and stand downs.
Standing down the 757 fleet for example was planned a long time ago and A320's have been purchased to replace them (these are already with us).
Some of the stood down 747s have been replaced with the new 777s with more 777s coming next year.
As an outsider to this dispute I see clearly why some CC may feel the flight crew members on this board are trying to spin the figures as much as BASSA.
As I said, it's not as simple as taking the number of stood down/retired aircraft and multiplying by x amount of crew. I'm sure BA CC management would love if it was.
Flex....
thanks for that post. The BA/Balpa debate is much more what I would expect, having experienced too many rundowns in my time.
In your opinion, (OR CM), does that show that BA are capable of entering such discussions, and Bassa are not? .........Or is it simply that BA put better staff on to Balpa's case? (Having met some of the senior flight Ruperts in BA, I don't suppose it's better managers).
Are BA CC still in Marketting, or are they in Ops?
thanks for that post. The BA/Balpa debate is much more what I would expect, having experienced too many rundowns in my time.
In your opinion, (OR CM), does that show that BA are capable of entering such discussions, and Bassa are not? .........Or is it simply that BA put better staff on to Balpa's case? (Having met some of the senior flight Ruperts in BA, I don't suppose it's better managers).
Are BA CC still in Marketting, or are they in Ops?