BA to RAF

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by Juan Tugoh

Ah, I get it now, you believe what you read in the newspapers. Say no more.

You join a long queue of those who wish me to say no more JT, but why don't you say more? Why not expose the fake media news for what it is and let us all know what the BACC are proposing for this scheme?

[Bloodhound Loose]

Chugalug2,

All seems pretty straightforward to me.....

1) The RAF has a near-term shortage of pilots They have a plan to address it in the medium term through recruitment and training.

2) BA has a relationship with the RAF through the managed path scheme. And has done for decades.

3) BA has a temporary surplus of pilots and is willing to loan them out to the RAF. A win-win.

BALPA cannot order airline HR departments to set up sabbaticals for pilots. It can encourage companies to liaise with the RAF and no more. This is not a BALPA issue.

As has been said, any UK airline pilot can apply to the RAF and see how far they get through the selection process. Any ex mil pilot can apply for the rejoinders scheme. That’s not a closed shop.

Finally, are you aware of any other companies that have approached the RAF with a request to place pilots under sabbatical arrangements?

[Chugalug2]

It all rather turns on what you mean by "near term" BL. Anyone who has a relationship with BA would be well advised to regularly count the spoons. Why the RAF should wish to involve itself in a scheme with any particular company, managed path or not, is a question best reserved for another thread perhaps, but again the words Vested Interests come inexorably to mind. No-one knows how long the hit to the airlines will be post Covid-19. No-one knows how long it will take to turn around the fiasco that is UK Military Pilot Training. If the two don't coincide then either the RAF will be overstocked with surplus pilots or indeed severely short of them yet again. I say again, where is the advantage to the RAF in dealing with BA rather than with individual pilots and the individual deals it makes with them? This is a buyers market as far as employing pilots is concerned. Time the buyer started acting accordingly.

[Bloodhound Loose]

I say again, the RAF is dealing with individual pilots: via the careers office and rejoiners scheme.

In terms of temporary work, to deal with individuals then you need a pilot to be under the employment of a company willing to engage in sabbaticals. BA is the only company to have come out of the blocks publicly in that respect.

You make a secondary point that consideration needs to be given to agreements for cessation of temporary contracts. I’m sure it will be.

[Chugalug2]

BL:-

In terms of temporary work, to deal with individuals then you need a pilot to be under the employment of a company willing to engage in sabbaticals

Why? My guess is (and it's only my guess!) is that BA will be up and running well before MFTS is, though many other companies won't be (some possibly never). In that case BA (who I suspect will be topping up the salaries of their pilots who are detached to the RAF) will want them back well before the RAF wants to release them. How will that be resolved, in BA's favour or the RAF's? Better to deal with individuals, from BA and elsewhere, who are on temporary contracts which will cease, minimum notice not withstanding, when the RAF so decide. Unprecedented? We live in unprecedented times! No-one would accept such terms? Faced with the possibility of ending their flying careers entirely I suspect many will take a punt on a second RAF flying career that could well continue for some years and well beyond any planned sabbatical timescale.

[Bloodhound Loose]

Chug,

I’m not sure what you’re proposing? Bin any talk of sabbaticals and the RAF go for permanent employment options only?

You’re also viewing the problem with a lens of your own making. For a start you’re assuming that the sabbatical jobs the RAF will offer are cockpit based.

Your points about potential issues of ending sabbaticals are heard. Think it’s probably best to row back and leave those with the full picture to sort this one out - ie the relevant HR departments.

[Chugalug2]

BL, no I most definitely am not proposing anything other than a temporary arrangement, but one which will outlast any BA proposed sabbatical. No company can tolerate its pilots being unavailable to them though still employed if they are now needed on the flight line. BA most definitely won't tolerate it and will simply recall them. The RAF needs to recognise that the real world (especially BA's world!) doesn't run to plan but to events, dear boy, events. It needs to have control of the situation from the get go, ie personal contracts that are temporary and which can be ended (albeit with some compensation) or extended (by mutual agreement) as required by the RAF. That means those pilots could close the training shortage gap for as long as it exists. BA pilots on sabbatical cannot be relied on to do anything of the sort.

Row back? Yer 'avin a larf aint'cher?

[Douglas Bahada]

The RAF does not need to recognise a thing.

You join or rejoin the services it will be at their pleasure. No sabbatical from BA. You will be subject to military law. No unions. You piss them off and 6 months to a year in charge of Bog roll in Benbeccula. They won't give a **** that your position has come up again at BA and you need to leave. You take the queen's shilling and you do their bidding. You will then realise that you have been shafted by professionals. Rather you than me.

[3 bladed beast]

Juan Tugoh


Sensible comments mate. My only thoughts are where exactly these returning pilots would go? I can only talk from the Multi Engine side of things, but certain aircraft at Waddington are on their way out and the others barely fly. the Voyager fleet is full, the A400 OCU has a very low output, the C17 is well manned. And there are so many pilots in the training system waiting their turn. I would love to see some of my old mates return, but I just don't know how quickly they would get to/through an OCU and then be useful on the frontline.


There are plenty of gapped posts however......

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by Douglas Bahada

The RAF does not need to recognise a thing.

You join or rejoin the services it will be at their pleasure. No sabbatical from BA. You will be subject to military law. No unions. You piss them off and 6 months to a year in charge of Bog roll in Benbeccula. They won't give a **** that your position has come up again at BA and you need to leave. You take the queen's shilling and you do their bidding. You will then realise that you have been shafted by professionals. Rather you than me.

It used to be OC GD Flight Benbecula in my time but same difference I guess. So if there are no BA sabbaticals and you do the full period service commission, then why the need for a separate BA deal at all? Or is the BA period different from that on offer to other applicants? I'm confused and I'm sure that others are to. Why is there seemingly one system for BA pilots and another for non BA pilots? Or is there? If we could just have the t's crossed, the i's dotted, we can all see if justice is being done and seen to be done. Thank you...

[Juan Tugoh]

Originally Posted by Douglas Bahada

The RAF does not need to recognise a thing.

You join or rejoin the services it will be at their pleasure. No sabbatical from BA. You will be subject to military law. No unions. You piss them off and 6 months to a year in charge of Bog roll in Benbeccula. They won't give a **** that your position has come up again at BA and you need to leave. You take the queen's shilling and you do their bidding. You will then realise that you have been shafted by professionals. Rather you than me.

Of course once you are in the RAF you are subject to QRs and you will go where you are directed, but just like every other person in the military there will be a contract giving conditions of exit. This will all have been worked out prior to anyone, from any airline, joining or rejoining the RAF, RN or Army. Just like a normal end of contract or option point or PVR would be honoured. Silly to suggest otherwise and silly to suggest that the end of secondment and return conditions and early release or extension of service would not all be part of the agreement between the services and BA (insert any other airline that agrees secondments).

As to where any secondees/rejoiners go, that will be part of the secondment agreement. Not all the secondments would be for flying positions, but the RAF is short of pilots c150 or so.

The MOD has been sent anonymised service histories/details of experience from BA and has sought permission to approach various individuals directly about possible opportunities. This is a recruitment process and the “offer” from the RAF to those individuals will have to be acceptable, else there will be no uptake. I have no idea what those “offers” will be, but this is essentially a process similar to that of a headhunter, matching a clients skills and abilities to an employers requirements and then negotiating an acceptable contract, if it doesn’t work for both parties, it doesn’t work at all, no one side is in the driving seat or has the whip hand.

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by Douglas Bahada

The RAF does not need to recognise a thing.

As Juan as explained this a joint scheme and is being negotiated between parties all involved, so it does look like the RAF is recognising "things".

It won't simply be a case of some individuals taking the "Queen's shilling", as you put it, and thereby putting yourself in the hands of the RAF and QR's forever.

[Chugalug2]

JT:-

Silly to suggest otherwise and silly to suggest that the end of secondment and return conditions and early release or extension of service would not all be part of the agreement between the services and BA (insert any other airline that agrees secondments).

As to where any secondees/rejoiners go, that will be part of the secondment agreement. Not all the secondments would be for flying positions, but the RAF is short of pilots c150 or so.

Why this emphasis on secondment (nee sabbatical)? What difference does it make to the RAF if a pilot is seconded from BA (what other airline would be able to offer secondment in today's lockdown situation?), or has been threatened with or been made redundant by their employers? They are all equally assessed and made/not made offers presumably. Or are they? No doubt the BACC attitude is that BALPA members of other airlines should approach their company CC's/PLC's for similar schemes to BA's, but we all know that isn't going to happen. What we do know is that the BACC draws its strength from the combined membership of BALPA and from their subs, and BALPA has a moral duty to all its members to ensure equal opportunities for re-employment as far as is reasonably possible .

Right, that's the soapbox oration out of the way and I'll step down from it if someone could kindly give me a hand. Thank you....

[Juan Tugoh]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

JT:-

Why this emphasis on secondment (nee sabbatical)? What difference does it make to the RAF if a pilot is seconded from BA (what other airline would be able to offer secondment in today's lockdown situation?), or has been threatened with or been made redundant by their employers? They are all equally assessed and made/not made offers presumably. Or are they? No doubt the BACC attitude is that BALPA members of other airlines should approach their company CC's/PLC's for similar schemes to BA's, but we all know that isn't going to happen. What we do know is that the BACC draws its strength from the combined membership of BALPA and from their subs, and BALPA has a moral duty to all its members to ensure equal opportunities for re-employment as far as is reasonably possible .

Right, that's the soapbox oration out of the way and I'll step down from it if someone could kindly give me a hand. Thank you....

Why the emphasis on BA secondments? Simple, if you you think about it for a moment; that’s what this thread is about. The clue is that the title of the thread is “BA to RAF.”

What other CCs and the companies they are employed by is between those CCs, their respective companies and the MOD. This project is a BACC project, BA and the RAF (and other services) are engaged with it. What others do is up to them.

The BACC represents exclusively BA pilots. If BALPA and the NEC wish to try to arrange something across the industry then that is for them to do. There is no moral obligation on the BACC to represent any other group of pilots, only those of BA. Any member of BALPA is free to contact their respective CCs and try to organise something similar, the BACC were first, that is all.

Given the representation of ex service pilots in other companies I don’t doubt their respective CCs are already on it, but that is a matter for them.

Secondment because there will be a return clause for the BA pilots. Other companies will do as they see fit, but if there is no right to return, all they would be doing is acting as a recruitment portal for the services and the RAF (and I guess others) already have that.

If you feel BALPA has some kind of moral duty to level the playing field for all then write to them and lobby them.

[Chugalug2]

Thanks for the reply JT and for being so frank. I'm not very surprised of course, but it spells out the BACC position clearly so that no-one can now be in any doubt. We have here two powerful entities in UK aviation; the MOD and British Airways. It seems they are very much hand in glove with each other regarding BA pilot careers thanks to the Managed Path Scheme which now it seems is a two way highway, with pilots shuttling to and fro between the two on a supply and demand basis. Very cosy and convenient no doubt but it raises questions about why pilots trained to UK military standards at tax-payers expense should be directed by the MOD to one particular airline rather than to UK airlines in general. It may no longer be nationalised, but the irony is that then it was somewhat hostile to recruiting service pilots, preferring its home reared Hamsters instead. Its competitors are now going to shrivel up before our very eyes thanks to the effect of Covid-19 and it must be smacking its lips in gleeful anticipation. Given the twin advantages of its size and slots, we can now add the Managed Path Scheme which provides it with trained military pilots who can be off-loaded back to their origin in hard times like these. I ask again, where is the advantage to the RAF in this arrangement and to its long suffering tax-payers?

[Juan Tugoh]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

Thanks for the reply JT and for being so frank. I'm not very surprised of course, but it spells out the BACC position clearly so that no-one can now be in any doubt. We have here two powerful entities in UK aviation; the MOD and British Airways. It seems they are very much hand in glove with each other regarding BA pilot careers thanks to the Managed Path Scheme which now it seems is a two way highway, with pilots shuttling to and fro between the two on a supply and demand basis. Very cosy and convenient no doubt but it raises questions about why pilots trained to UK military standards at tax-payers expense should be directed by the MOD to one particular airline rather than to UK airlines in general. It may no longer be nationalised, but the irony is that then it was somewhat hostile to recruiting service pilots, preferring its home reared Hamsters instead. Its competitors are now going to shrivel up before our very eyes thanks to the effect of Covid-19 and it must be smacking its lips in gleeful anticipation. Given the twin advantages of its size and slots, we can now add the Managed Path Scheme which provides it with trained military pilots who can be off-loaded back to their origin in hard times like these. I ask again, where is the advantage to the RAF in this arrangement and to its long suffering tax-payers?

You seem determined to see this as bad thing. If the MOD and the RAF and other Services don’t see anything in it for them, they will doubtless not take anyone in. It’s their call, no one can force them to take anyone. Indeed they are choosing who they want, not just taking people that BA want rid of. I’ll say no more on this as you can only view it through a very negatively biased lens. The MOD feel differently from you and that is what counts, your opinion far less so. Feel free to write to your MP with your dislike of this. There is no stitch up here just two organisations making a mutually beneficial arrangement. It is not exclusive, anyone from another airline can also approach the MOD with a similar offer if they feel it to be worth while for them. It is not BAs or the BACCs responsibility to protect anyone’s jobs other than those of the people they represent, BALPA on a larger basis can do whatever their members ask them to do.

[Union Jack]

Originally Posted by Juan Tugoh

You seem determined to see this as bad thing. If the MOD and the RAF and other Services don’t see anything in it for them, they will doubtless not take anyone in. It’s their call, no one can force them to take anyone. Indeed they are choosing who they want, not just taking people that BA want rid of. I’ll say no more on this as you can only view it through a very negatively biased lens. The MOD feel differently from you and that is what counts, your opinion far less so. Feel free to write to your MP with your dislike of this. There is no stitch up here just two organisations making a mutually beneficial arrangement. It is not exclusive, anyone from another airline can also approach the MOD with a similar offer if they feel it to be worth while for them. It is not BAs or the BACCs responsibility to protect anyone’s jobs other than those of the people they represent, BALPA on a larger basis can do whatever their members ask them to do.

But I can't help wondering if this would include stitching on and wearing two flying badges simultaneously, for identification purposes only of course.

Jack

[Chugalug2]

JT, I can see the benefits to BA in the Managed Path Scheme. I can see the benefits to RAF pilots who might seek a job in BA. What I can't see are any benefits to the RAF/MOD compared to a more general scheme for enabling its pilots to transition into commercial aviation as a whole. We are after all talking about a foreign owned company here. You say the MOD feels differently to me. Apparently it does, but why? A rhetorical question of course but nonetheless a real one. I am genuinely puzzled!

[Douglas Bahada]

here is no stitch up here just two organisations making a mutually beneficial arrangement

​​​​​​So this is a mutually beneficial arrangement between the state and a private company facilitated by a union.

[Lordflasheart]

...
just two THREE organisations

Well according to scuttlebutt, Virgin are telling their pilots there are 100 pilot positions available on the RAF's A330 and A400M fleets, so there should be plenty of light blue jam for everyone.

No sabbaticals for VS pilots though: only the exit door and a 'simplified entry pathway' to the RAF.

...