British Airways Citiexpress
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think part of the answer to your question will be found in the next business plan. The regional management will be under intense pressure to cut costs and return a profit. How they seek to do this will no doubt be at your expense.
Putting aside personal attacks I would point out again that the management dumped on the Jetstream Fleet and a number of pilots either lost their jobs or their seats. This was justified I suspect because either the fleet or the bases were not making money.
I would be extremely wary of BA managers and their figures. They are so easily manipulated by the various ways in which costs are applied as to be almost worthless.
I can however point out that according to the last full year results BA set aside £27 Million against onerous lease conditions on the Jetstreams that went to Eastern.
How can it make sense to slash a fleet and then subsidise another carrier to operate it? Had BA offered the £27 Million to Citiexpress might it not have helped to improve marketing and ultimately sales to the point where the Jetstreams earned their keep?
I continue to doubt the management abilities of your current team. I also believe there are other agendas at work here and you should all be on your guard.
Regards BP
Putting aside personal attacks I would point out again that the management dumped on the Jetstream Fleet and a number of pilots either lost their jobs or their seats. This was justified I suspect because either the fleet or the bases were not making money.
I would be extremely wary of BA managers and their figures. They are so easily manipulated by the various ways in which costs are applied as to be almost worthless.
I can however point out that according to the last full year results BA set aside £27 Million against onerous lease conditions on the Jetstreams that went to Eastern.
How can it make sense to slash a fleet and then subsidise another carrier to operate it? Had BA offered the £27 Million to Citiexpress might it not have helped to improve marketing and ultimately sales to the point where the Jetstreams earned their keep?
I continue to doubt the management abilities of your current team. I also believe there are other agendas at work here and you should all be on your guard.
Regards BP
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.V. I think what happens now is quite clear.
However anyone wants to portray the figures a significant number of "moderate" line pilots have said very clearly that they support their CC.
Democracy is such that few (if any?) governements in modern history have ever been elected with more than 50% support from their electorate. There is a strong message for CX management and more importantly their BA bosses and they ignore it at their peril.
CX mangement have committed to deal properly with the issues of pay, Reduction in operation (with incentives for early retirement ) and access to BA.
There is a time scale to each of these issues and if they either fail to deliver on promise or delay then I understand that there will be a full ballot for targetted Industrial action.
However anyone wants to portray the figures a significant number of "moderate" line pilots have said very clearly that they support their CC.
Democracy is such that few (if any?) governements in modern history have ever been elected with more than 50% support from their electorate. There is a strong message for CX management and more importantly their BA bosses and they ignore it at their peril.
CX mangement have committed to deal properly with the issues of pay, Reduction in operation (with incentives for early retirement ) and access to BA.
There is a time scale to each of these issues and if they either fail to deliver on promise or delay then I understand that there will be a full ballot for targetted Industrial action.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinytim
You are of course correct to say that, some of those people who voted yes, were voting to support their CC. I think it also fair to say that morale is not, as was described earlier, "at rock bottom."
Let's not get into why so many people were unable to support the CC's call for support.
Let us all hope that all CX pilots receive a fair and equitable pay rise (recognising the sacrifices many have made over recent years)
It is also perfectly reasonable for the schedules dealing with base closures and pilot displacement, to be handled in the best interests of those most affected.
The only issue that may be tricky to deal with, is the one of access to mainline. I still do not see (as I believe I said earlier in the thread) how BACX management, CC, or it's pilots, can change whatever BA decide is THEIR selection criteria? Though I STRONGLY suspect the threat of industrial action CERTAINLY will not achieve it!
You mentioned a timescale. What if BA don't recruit this year?
If a full on merger was being proposed, as with CFE, then fair enough, the issue of 'selection' simply would not occur. All CX pilots would join the master seniority list, and free movement would be available for ALL pilots, TO, as well as from, the regions. This of course would be strongly resisted by management (both BA and CX) since it would, at a stroke, destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!
Finally, I would suggest that, employment by mainline would be fairly unattractive for a very significant proportion of CX pilots. For a start, anyone older than their early forties, would be unlikely to see a command of ANY description before retirement, which currently (unlike CX) would be at 55, and no longer on a final salary basis! Any legislative change in retirement age (2006?) will simply result in a total freeze on career progression for 5 years!
Meaning no command opportunities for anything up to 15 years!
Those hoping for a longhaul command would need to join before they were 35!
I wouldn't imagine any captain in BACX would be too happy with the thought of a pay cut, (FO PP1!) and 9-10 years back in the RHS!
Also, how many people living in the North of England, Scotland, etc would be happy to relocate to 60 minutes drive from London?
And if you think the idea of shorthaul out of LHR sounds fun, think again! Why do you think secondment to CX was so popular??
So there it is, copilots relatively new to BACX, under the age of 35, who can live in the South of England on a relatively low wage, who aren't phazed by the idea of 9-10 years in the RHS, operating out of LHR, should do well!
Oh, and I didn't mention the joy of life at the bottom of a bidline fleet!
Only playing devil's advocate you understand!
Given the number of CX pilots this career path is likely to appeal to, I think you may be tempted to agree that the BACX CC's rejection, some while ago, of limited access to BA, may in hindsight, have been something of a misjudgement?
Which brings us, I suppose, back to the 'vote of confidence.'
You are of course correct to say that, some of those people who voted yes, were voting to support their CC. I think it also fair to say that morale is not, as was described earlier, "at rock bottom."
Let's not get into why so many people were unable to support the CC's call for support.
Let us all hope that all CX pilots receive a fair and equitable pay rise (recognising the sacrifices many have made over recent years)
It is also perfectly reasonable for the schedules dealing with base closures and pilot displacement, to be handled in the best interests of those most affected.
The only issue that may be tricky to deal with, is the one of access to mainline. I still do not see (as I believe I said earlier in the thread) how BACX management, CC, or it's pilots, can change whatever BA decide is THEIR selection criteria? Though I STRONGLY suspect the threat of industrial action CERTAINLY will not achieve it!
You mentioned a timescale. What if BA don't recruit this year?
If a full on merger was being proposed, as with CFE, then fair enough, the issue of 'selection' simply would not occur. All CX pilots would join the master seniority list, and free movement would be available for ALL pilots, TO, as well as from, the regions. This of course would be strongly resisted by management (both BA and CX) since it would, at a stroke, destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!
Finally, I would suggest that, employment by mainline would be fairly unattractive for a very significant proportion of CX pilots. For a start, anyone older than their early forties, would be unlikely to see a command of ANY description before retirement, which currently (unlike CX) would be at 55, and no longer on a final salary basis! Any legislative change in retirement age (2006?) will simply result in a total freeze on career progression for 5 years!
Meaning no command opportunities for anything up to 15 years!
Those hoping for a longhaul command would need to join before they were 35!
I wouldn't imagine any captain in BACX would be too happy with the thought of a pay cut, (FO PP1!) and 9-10 years back in the RHS!
Also, how many people living in the North of England, Scotland, etc would be happy to relocate to 60 minutes drive from London?
And if you think the idea of shorthaul out of LHR sounds fun, think again! Why do you think secondment to CX was so popular??
So there it is, copilots relatively new to BACX, under the age of 35, who can live in the South of England on a relatively low wage, who aren't phazed by the idea of 9-10 years in the RHS, operating out of LHR, should do well!
Oh, and I didn't mention the joy of life at the bottom of a bidline fleet!
Only playing devil's advocate you understand!
Given the number of CX pilots this career path is likely to appeal to, I think you may be tempted to agree that the BACX CC's rejection, some while ago, of limited access to BA, may in hindsight, have been something of a misjudgement?
Which brings us, I suppose, back to the 'vote of confidence.'
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 1st Mar 2004 at 20:18.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with all you say, even the rejection of the proposed limited seniority list merger - although BALPA / Management business is, as you know politics. Politics is the art of the possible, and any CC would find it difficult getting support for a measure which disadvantaged 75% of it's members!
Further, while being happy to use the CFE merger as an example, you conveniently omit the facts. As presumably you know VERY WELL, CFE captains retained grandfather rights on the RJ, and onto similiar sized aircraft at the relevant base (LGW). Granted there was a job for job adjustment factored in there, but by and large all Jet captains retained a command, and received a payrise. They did not become PP1 FOs, which is your somewhat slanted description of what would hapeen to BACX.
I have doubts about your supposed non-management status. Using a small amount of truth to obscure a "BIG LIE" is a well known BA management technique.
Further, while being happy to use the CFE merger as an example, you conveniently omit the facts. As presumably you know VERY WELL, CFE captains retained grandfather rights on the RJ, and onto similiar sized aircraft at the relevant base (LGW). Granted there was a job for job adjustment factored in there, but by and large all Jet captains retained a command, and received a payrise. They did not become PP1 FOs, which is your somewhat slanted description of what would hapeen to BACX.
I have doubts about your supposed non-management status. Using a small amount of truth to obscure a "BIG LIE" is a well known BA management technique.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pompuspilot you are wrong when you say" by in large all jet captains retained a command." Rough figures were 52 Captains from 110 on the RJ fleet a few of which decided against exercise their right to "grandfather" rights, only 1 Captain I belive from the ATR made it across.
These figures I think are accurate to within +/-2.
These figures I think are accurate to within +/-2.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontiuspilot
I did not intend to imply that, in a merger, any BACX captains would do anything other than retain their seats, on any similar sized aircraft based in the regions, paid as PP1 captains (unsure as to whether £54K ,minus London weighting, would be a payrise?) I apologise if I misled.
Absolutely right it should happen that way. (Though I think the non 'GF' CFE skippers may have done rather better than their 'protected' colleagues!! - Paid as skippers in the RHS of a 400 would probably put a smile on most faces!!)
I believe a merger, however limited, could work well for both pilot groups.
This is the discussion the BACX CC should be engaged in! I feel certain BA BALPA would support it, though management would require some SERIOUS persuasion. With the greatest of respect, BA BALPA appear to share a very pragmatic view with big BA management.
However, as I understand it, that is not what the CC are seeking. They are simply trying to ease the selection process, with I agree, a little justification.
However, and please correct me if I misunderstand, once a job is accepted into mainline, under some 'enhanced' scheme, any applicant would be slotted in at the bottom of the seniority list, paid as a PP1 FO, along with anyone else joining at that time. ALL should expect to be RHS for a minimum of 9-10 years! (Perhaps 14-15 years if the retirement age is raised!)
For that reason alone, I suspect the idea of a job in mainline may not appeal to too many BACX pilots!
Hang on, I've just had a thought!
Pontius Pilot
Were you meaning to imply that BACX skippers could join mainline, but remain in the regions as mainline secondees?
Wow, that went right over my head!!
I did not intend to imply that, in a merger, any BACX captains would do anything other than retain their seats, on any similar sized aircraft based in the regions, paid as PP1 captains (unsure as to whether £54K ,minus London weighting, would be a payrise?) I apologise if I misled.
Absolutely right it should happen that way. (Though I think the non 'GF' CFE skippers may have done rather better than their 'protected' colleagues!! - Paid as skippers in the RHS of a 400 would probably put a smile on most faces!!)
I believe a merger, however limited, could work well for both pilot groups.
This is the discussion the BACX CC should be engaged in! I feel certain BA BALPA would support it, though management would require some SERIOUS persuasion. With the greatest of respect, BA BALPA appear to share a very pragmatic view with big BA management.
However, as I understand it, that is not what the CC are seeking. They are simply trying to ease the selection process, with I agree, a little justification.
However, and please correct me if I misunderstand, once a job is accepted into mainline, under some 'enhanced' scheme, any applicant would be slotted in at the bottom of the seniority list, paid as a PP1 FO, along with anyone else joining at that time. ALL should expect to be RHS for a minimum of 9-10 years! (Perhaps 14-15 years if the retirement age is raised!)
For that reason alone, I suspect the idea of a job in mainline may not appeal to too many BACX pilots!
Hang on, I've just had a thought!
Pontius Pilot
Were you meaning to imply that BACX skippers could join mainline, but remain in the regions as mainline secondees?
Wow, that went right over my head!!
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 2nd Mar 2004 at 05:02.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da Dog - fine, but the skippers who went to the RHS were not taking a paycut. As TR pointed out, in many respects they too got a good deal financially.
TandemR. Thanks, yes, that is exactly what I mean. There is not the job for job adjustment like LGW since the type is not (yet) being replaced. It may well be there would be some who might see a bid onto larger metal being attractive; however most of us are where we are because that is where we want be - just like mainline secondees. So, why should we be treated any differently. Again, you're right that as far as I know, the current plan is to persuade Waterside to ease the entry requirements to mainline to soak up the current surplus. Ref BACC, all the aims and objectives for both CCs are not identical, so its difficult - I imagine - for our CC to plan effectively with both management and BACC.
What really causes the headaches however is our (mainline) management's continued insistence on moving not just the goalposts, but the entire playing field again and again and again.
We do not believe there IS any plan, objective, goal (ha ha), call it what you will. Hence our dunderheads live in a world of crisis management (actually, the crisis IS their management!) where sweeping major changes occur every other week. The CC is flat out just trying to remind them of last weeks/months/quarters/years commitments which they change like a cardsharp at their own whim in direct contradiction to previous formal SIGNED arrangements. This wastes so much time dragging out signed documents and previous agreements etc that the world has changed yet again by the time they have to backpedal. If there were any genuine attempt to show leadership, or an objective that lasted longer than a week or so - they would probably have us all onside. Sadly, they resemble a bunch of monkeys, dancing to an organ-grinder who actually wants nothing more than his own safe passage to his next management sinecure.
By the way, even a PP1 jet command pay grade coupled with mainline allowances would indeed represent a significant pay rise for all but our most senior guys - who would naturally enough be pay frozen. Retirement age may be an issue, but I suspect the organ grinders in Brussels will soon be having an effect on THAT!
TandemR. Thanks, yes, that is exactly what I mean. There is not the job for job adjustment like LGW since the type is not (yet) being replaced. It may well be there would be some who might see a bid onto larger metal being attractive; however most of us are where we are because that is where we want be - just like mainline secondees. So, why should we be treated any differently. Again, you're right that as far as I know, the current plan is to persuade Waterside to ease the entry requirements to mainline to soak up the current surplus. Ref BACC, all the aims and objectives for both CCs are not identical, so its difficult - I imagine - for our CC to plan effectively with both management and BACC.
What really causes the headaches however is our (mainline) management's continued insistence on moving not just the goalposts, but the entire playing field again and again and again.
We do not believe there IS any plan, objective, goal (ha ha), call it what you will. Hence our dunderheads live in a world of crisis management (actually, the crisis IS their management!) where sweeping major changes occur every other week. The CC is flat out just trying to remind them of last weeks/months/quarters/years commitments which they change like a cardsharp at their own whim in direct contradiction to previous formal SIGNED arrangements. This wastes so much time dragging out signed documents and previous agreements etc that the world has changed yet again by the time they have to backpedal. If there were any genuine attempt to show leadership, or an objective that lasted longer than a week or so - they would probably have us all onside. Sadly, they resemble a bunch of monkeys, dancing to an organ-grinder who actually wants nothing more than his own safe passage to his next management sinecure.
By the way, even a PP1 jet command pay grade coupled with mainline allowances would indeed represent a significant pay rise for all but our most senior guys - who would naturally enough be pay frozen. Retirement age may be an issue, but I suspect the organ grinders in Brussels will soon be having an effect on THAT!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!"
Would TR or anyone care to remind of what that reason was? Do you feel that CX has actually delivered on its promises TR? I would suggest that the incompetence of CX management has done the most damage to the business.
As for the fair and equitable pay deal may I suggest another approach. We appear to have two sets of flight crew performing the same tasks for vastly different pay and allowances yet both are ultimately employed by BA. In my opinion you are being discriminated against by your employer.
Why don't you approach BALPA and ask the union to provide legal resources in order to obtain an opinion on this? If there is a view that according to employment law you are being discriminated against then you could obtain compensation through legal action. Even the threat of it might change attitudes.
BA has a duty to act within the law and employment law has changed a great deal over recent years. Regardless of whether TDLF or any of the managers claim it is BALPA's fault they are still liable as employers.
It is ironic however that the union does seem to have made matters worse by allowing a system of pay and rewards to be introduced that set one group of members against another.
Anyway it is worth a go and it will not cost you anything so get on to the CC and ask them to obtain an opinion from an expert asap.
Regards BP
Would TR or anyone care to remind of what that reason was? Do you feel that CX has actually delivered on its promises TR? I would suggest that the incompetence of CX management has done the most damage to the business.
As for the fair and equitable pay deal may I suggest another approach. We appear to have two sets of flight crew performing the same tasks for vastly different pay and allowances yet both are ultimately employed by BA. In my opinion you are being discriminated against by your employer.
Why don't you approach BALPA and ask the union to provide legal resources in order to obtain an opinion on this? If there is a view that according to employment law you are being discriminated against then you could obtain compensation through legal action. Even the threat of it might change attitudes.
BA has a duty to act within the law and employment law has changed a great deal over recent years. Regardless of whether TDLF or any of the managers claim it is BALPA's fault they are still liable as employers.
It is ironic however that the union does seem to have made matters worse by allowing a system of pay and rewards to be introduced that set one group of members against another.
Anyway it is worth a go and it will not cost you anything so get on to the CC and ask them to obtain an opinion from an expert asap.
Regards BP
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Roman Empire
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That seems to be a bloody good idea BP.
I hope our CC are reading this. For sure, the threat of legal action would be interesting to watch, because currently, even the threat of the threat of Industrial Action has had our management (ha ha) running round in circles and giving some ground on points where we initially told there was zero room for negotiation!
Power to the pilots!
I hope our CC are reading this. For sure, the threat of legal action would be interesting to watch, because currently, even the threat of the threat of Industrial Action has had our management (ha ha) running round in circles and giving some ground on points where we initially told there was zero room for negotiation!
Power to the pilots!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigpants,
There are various sets of terms and conditions because at the moment BA can and do pay different rates for the same job across the whole of BA and are doing nothing wrong in this.
Look at CFE post 1999 when it was wholly owned by BA, their pilots were doing the same job as a 737-500 driver at BA EOG yet the pay was different.
Look at all the people who work at LGW, they do the same job as their counterparts at LHR but for less money and worse T&C.
Look at the Cabin Crew pre and post 1997 yep same job different pay.
For the time being CX CC would be pi$$ing money against the wall consulting with a barrister on this topic.
There are various sets of terms and conditions because at the moment BA can and do pay different rates for the same job across the whole of BA and are doing nothing wrong in this.
Look at CFE post 1999 when it was wholly owned by BA, their pilots were doing the same job as a 737-500 driver at BA EOG yet the pay was different.
Look at all the people who work at LGW, they do the same job as their counterparts at LHR but for less money and worse T&C.
Look at the Cabin Crew pre and post 1997 yep same job different pay.
For the time being CX CC would be pi$$ing money against the wall consulting with a barrister on this topic.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da Dog and others were you comparing like with like at CFE and EOG?
At CX you have two groups of pilots flying the same type of aircraft on the same routes with a common employer, BA. but very different rates of pay. I would suggest this is discrimination.
I am somewhat bemused that as a member of BALPA (?) you don't feel that the association owes you something for your monthly contribution.
Taking advice would not cost BALPA much and it can afford it and it owes you all something.
Lastly a successful Tribunal (which does not require a barrister unlike say the high court) can award back pay. In short legal action although more time consuming and less macho than a strike may be far more effective.
Regards BP
At CX you have two groups of pilots flying the same type of aircraft on the same routes with a common employer, BA. but very different rates of pay. I would suggest this is discrimination.
I am somewhat bemused that as a member of BALPA (?) you don't feel that the association owes you something for your monthly contribution.
Taking advice would not cost BALPA much and it can afford it and it owes you all something.
Lastly a successful Tribunal (which does not require a barrister unlike say the high court) can award back pay. In short legal action although more time consuming and less macho than a strike may be far more effective.
Regards BP
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish you well........... I don't however expect BALPA to waste their time and my money on a fruitless task, the CAB would tell you your wasting your time, but I don't expect you to belive me.
Pre pay deal the company wanted 737 rated pilots(earning more cash and with better T&C) based at LHR to work albeit on a temporary basis at LGW, the only thing that stopped the company was BALPA intervention, after various discussions it came to light that what your alluding to is perfectly just.
If you do not like my CFE V EOG example, then I draw your attention to the various cabin crew pay scales at LHR where a junior on the new contract will earn £6800 less than a junior on the old contract same job ,same base ,same $hit different pay.
Pre pay deal the company wanted 737 rated pilots(earning more cash and with better T&C) based at LHR to work albeit on a temporary basis at LGW, the only thing that stopped the company was BALPA intervention, after various discussions it came to light that what your alluding to is perfectly just.
If you do not like my CFE V EOG example, then I draw your attention to the various cabin crew pay scales at LHR where a junior on the new contract will earn £6800 less than a junior on the old contract same job ,same base ,same $hit different pay.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well has anyone recently challenged BA on this issue from either the cabin crew or flight crew?
Have a look at article 141 (European Court of Justice) or the Equal Pay Act 1970 and other recent cases Equal Opportunities Commission etc.
Neither BALPA or the cabin crew unions might be keen to pursue this because so many of their more long serving members benefit from the existing pay structures.
I would repeat that it is at least worth getting an opinion on this issue however unlikely some might feel it to be.
Regards BP
TR you are entitled to your opinion however rudely you choose to express it but I belive my posts are reasonable and considered.
I have been in BA 7 years served in the regions twice and was directed out twice. My motives remain to see a healthy regional service run in a fair and equitably manner by BA. For that reason I choose not to exercise my "grandfather rights" and stay because in my view the deal was quite unfair to others and would make for enormous difficulties in running the operation.
The fact that BALPA played its part in setting up the arrangement does'nt make it right. Their record on treating people from outside BA has not always been a very happy one (Dan Air etc)
Now can you answer perhaps my questions from the previous posts and state you own motives?
Lastly, I prefer to see every avenue explored before industrial action is taken and I believe my suggestion is worth at least a phone call to BALPA.
Regards BP
Have a look at article 141 (European Court of Justice) or the Equal Pay Act 1970 and other recent cases Equal Opportunities Commission etc.
Neither BALPA or the cabin crew unions might be keen to pursue this because so many of their more long serving members benefit from the existing pay structures.
I would repeat that it is at least worth getting an opinion on this issue however unlikely some might feel it to be.
Regards BP
TR you are entitled to your opinion however rudely you choose to express it but I belive my posts are reasonable and considered.
I have been in BA 7 years served in the regions twice and was directed out twice. My motives remain to see a healthy regional service run in a fair and equitably manner by BA. For that reason I choose not to exercise my "grandfather rights" and stay because in my view the deal was quite unfair to others and would make for enormous difficulties in running the operation.
The fact that BALPA played its part in setting up the arrangement does'nt make it right. Their record on treating people from outside BA has not always been a very happy one (Dan Air etc)
Now can you answer perhaps my questions from the previous posts and state you own motives?
Lastly, I prefer to see every avenue explored before industrial action is taken and I believe my suggestion is worth at least a phone call to BALPA.
Regards BP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP
"destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!"
BA has now achieved a 'low wage' work force in the regions, flying the same operation as it's mainline (high wage?) crews were 2 years ago.
Presumably you would agree, that was the Group's entire motivation?
Never mind that BAR was making a profit, and BACX, currently at least, is not!
Management is therefore likely to fight tooth and nail, to prevent any merging of seniority/T&Cs etc, since that would....
"destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!"
Agreed?
I should say that I am deeply impressed by your altruism...
"For that reason I choose (chose?) not to exercise my "grandfather rights" and stay because in my view the deal was quite unfair to others and would make for enormous difficulties in running the operation."
You say you have been 'directed' out of the regions twice in the last 7 years! Whilst technically feasible, you did of course, on BOTH occasions have the option to stay!
Sorry all, if I have strayed too far from the thread, which is of course BACX, but BP seemed to want an answer!
"destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!"
BA has now achieved a 'low wage' work force in the regions, flying the same operation as it's mainline (high wage?) crews were 2 years ago.
Presumably you would agree, that was the Group's entire motivation?
Never mind that BAR was making a profit, and BACX, currently at least, is not!
Management is therefore likely to fight tooth and nail, to prevent any merging of seniority/T&Cs etc, since that would....
"destroy the reason for handing so much regional flying to CX in the first place!"
Agreed?
I should say that I am deeply impressed by your altruism...
"For that reason I choose (chose?) not to exercise my "grandfather rights" and stay because in my view the deal was quite unfair to others and would make for enormous difficulties in running the operation."
You say you have been 'directed' out of the regions twice in the last 7 years! Whilst technically feasible, you did of course, on BOTH occasions have the option to stay!
Sorry all, if I have strayed too far from the thread, which is of course BACX, but BP seemed to want an answer!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigpants, I for one agree with your thinking. It is morally wrong to pay different pay to different groups of people doing the same job.
However you assume that BALPA has morals and that big companies also have them. BALPA is according to themselves is a Democratic organisation, where the majority win.
The majority of BA Balpa members work out of LHR, therefore BALPAs inerest lies there. They will sell anyone or any group down the swanee to protect those people and their jobs and salaries. Remember 1% of 100 is more than 1% of 10 to BALPA.
Lastly you cannot blame BA for exploiting this issue they are after all just doing their job for the shareholders by maximising any opportunity given to them. BALPA have unfortunately given them this divide and conquer on a plate.
Still if people feel strongly enough about it they can always vote with their feet. there is another Union called the IPA who don't charge a % and offer similar protective service.
Maybe however people prefer to continue to throw good money after bad. Multiply your 1% over a career its an awful lot of money.
However you assume that BALPA has morals and that big companies also have them. BALPA is according to themselves is a Democratic organisation, where the majority win.
The majority of BA Balpa members work out of LHR, therefore BALPAs inerest lies there. They will sell anyone or any group down the swanee to protect those people and their jobs and salaries. Remember 1% of 100 is more than 1% of 10 to BALPA.
Lastly you cannot blame BA for exploiting this issue they are after all just doing their job for the shareholders by maximising any opportunity given to them. BALPA have unfortunately given them this divide and conquer on a plate.
Still if people feel strongly enough about it they can always vote with their feet. there is another Union called the IPA who don't charge a % and offer similar protective service.
Maybe however people prefer to continue to throw good money after bad. Multiply your 1% over a career its an awful lot of money.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR thank you for the reply. As I am sure you are aware there were a number of times last year when as a result of poor rosters and other management mistakes a number of seconded mainline Captains grossed in excess of £10,000 in one month.
Quite how this fits into the low wage regime that you speak of I don't know but it does at least partly explain why CX is not making money.
When I was directed from the 75/76 at MAN in 1997 I was not offered the chance to stay either by the union or the management.
Regards BP
This may be of some help to those of you at CX who wish to improve pay and conditions without going on strike. I apolgise that it is a bit lengthy.
BA Standing Instructions Number 15 Subsidiary Companies
"Unless clearly inappropriate, subsidiary companies will follow British Airways Standing Instructions whether or not they contain specific references to a subsidary company or to subsidary companies in general"
BA Standing Instructions Number 6 Code of Business Conduct
sub topic People Relationships
"We will Treat our employees fairly, respecting their individual and collective rights"
"Promote equality of opportunity and encourage diversity in our workforce"
Employment Guide
"It is British Airways policy to promote equality of opportunity in employment regardless of sex etc etc This will apply to the recruitment and selection of work to employees in all parts of British Airways and at all levels"
My point being you need a test case to prove discrimination. If you have a female pilot at CX doing the same work as a male secondee from mainline then I believe she would have a claim against BA. If the claim succeeds then you all are in line for improved pay and conditions.
The procedure for doing this can be found at the Equal Opportunites Commission website. It consists of a very straightforward questionnaire that is partly filled out by the complainent and then sent to CX.
For those of you who think this hogwash I would like to quote from the BA intranet "Policies and Legislation"
Equal Pay Act (1970)
"The equal pay task force has recently recommended that the existing legislation on equal pay be amended to make it easier to use.
An equal pay questionnaire was intorduced in April/May 2003 with formal time limits for the employer to respond.
Revised codes of practice on Equal Pay came into effect on 01 December 03.
If any manager receives one of these questionnaires, they should forward them to the legal Department as soon as possible."
Legislation also provide a very robust defense for females who are bullied or intimidated as a result of submitting such a questionnaire.
Regards BP
Quite how this fits into the low wage regime that you speak of I don't know but it does at least partly explain why CX is not making money.
When I was directed from the 75/76 at MAN in 1997 I was not offered the chance to stay either by the union or the management.
Regards BP
This may be of some help to those of you at CX who wish to improve pay and conditions without going on strike. I apolgise that it is a bit lengthy.
BA Standing Instructions Number 15 Subsidiary Companies
"Unless clearly inappropriate, subsidiary companies will follow British Airways Standing Instructions whether or not they contain specific references to a subsidary company or to subsidary companies in general"
BA Standing Instructions Number 6 Code of Business Conduct
sub topic People Relationships
"We will Treat our employees fairly, respecting their individual and collective rights"
"Promote equality of opportunity and encourage diversity in our workforce"
Employment Guide
"It is British Airways policy to promote equality of opportunity in employment regardless of sex etc etc This will apply to the recruitment and selection of work to employees in all parts of British Airways and at all levels"
My point being you need a test case to prove discrimination. If you have a female pilot at CX doing the same work as a male secondee from mainline then I believe she would have a claim against BA. If the claim succeeds then you all are in line for improved pay and conditions.
The procedure for doing this can be found at the Equal Opportunites Commission website. It consists of a very straightforward questionnaire that is partly filled out by the complainent and then sent to CX.
For those of you who think this hogwash I would like to quote from the BA intranet "Policies and Legislation"
Equal Pay Act (1970)
"The equal pay task force has recently recommended that the existing legislation on equal pay be amended to make it easier to use.
An equal pay questionnaire was intorduced in April/May 2003 with formal time limits for the employer to respond.
Revised codes of practice on Equal Pay came into effect on 01 December 03.
If any manager receives one of these questionnaires, they should forward them to the legal Department as soon as possible."
Legislation also provide a very robust defense for females who are bullied or intimidated as a result of submitting such a questionnaire.
Regards BP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP
We really should stop this! However:
"As I am sure you are aware there were a number of times last year when as a result of poor rosters and other management mistakes a number of seconded mainline Captains grossed in excess of £10,000 in one month."
Whyever WOULD I be aware? In my experience it is only LHR where people wander around talking about the size of their paypackets!!
The figure you mention could be the result of 3 or 4 days of overtime! Shock, horror! ("Poor rosters"? "Other management mistakes"? Mmmm...) Ever heard of 'sickness?'
Of course this kind of thing NEVER occured when those shiny airbuses were in the regions! Which is OBVIOUSLY why they made so much profit!
The motivation for the content of your posts (including those from some months ago) really does puzzle me. Particularly since you were offered the chance to stay!
You made your choice, now go and enjoy the cat lounge, and bidline!
Now, back to BACX?
We really should stop this! However:
"As I am sure you are aware there were a number of times last year when as a result of poor rosters and other management mistakes a number of seconded mainline Captains grossed in excess of £10,000 in one month."
Whyever WOULD I be aware? In my experience it is only LHR where people wander around talking about the size of their paypackets!!
The figure you mention could be the result of 3 or 4 days of overtime! Shock, horror! ("Poor rosters"? "Other management mistakes"? Mmmm...) Ever heard of 'sickness?'
Of course this kind of thing NEVER occured when those shiny airbuses were in the regions! Which is OBVIOUSLY why they made so much profit!
The motivation for the content of your posts (including those from some months ago) really does puzzle me. Particularly since you were offered the chance to stay!
You made your choice, now go and enjoy the cat lounge, and bidline!
Now, back to BACX?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will end in Tears
I did not make my choice out of altruism, I felt that despite the fact that there was some merit in the Grandfather rights issue it would result in a deeply divided workforce. I did not see how I could run a safe and happy flight deck under these conditions, your view may be different.
You claim ignorance that some individuals may have grossed over £10,000 per month flying an RJ around Europe. Are you accusing me of making it up? Do you believe this reflects a sensible situation or are some milking the problems of CX for their own ends?
This all reminds me of a previous accident suffered by BA about 30 years ago when they lost a Trident. The Captain on that occasion had been in the crewroom and was involved in a row over industrial action.
He left the crewroom clmbed into his jet and got airborne. Very shortly after take off someone made a critical error that was not noticed, possibly due to distraction and the aircraft stalled. All on board were killed.
The current problems at CX are a concern to all BA employees. There must be major CRM problems within the flight crew community arising from disparities in pay and the possibility of industrial action. Unless they are resolved CX runs the risk of suffering a serious incident.
If you don't learn from history you are forced to relive it. The lessons from the PI accident remain valid today and should not be ignored.
BP
You claim ignorance that some individuals may have grossed over £10,000 per month flying an RJ around Europe. Are you accusing me of making it up? Do you believe this reflects a sensible situation or are some milking the problems of CX for their own ends?
This all reminds me of a previous accident suffered by BA about 30 years ago when they lost a Trident. The Captain on that occasion had been in the crewroom and was involved in a row over industrial action.
He left the crewroom clmbed into his jet and got airborne. Very shortly after take off someone made a critical error that was not noticed, possibly due to distraction and the aircraft stalled. All on board were killed.
The current problems at CX are a concern to all BA employees. There must be major CRM problems within the flight crew community arising from disparities in pay and the possibility of industrial action. Unless they are resolved CX runs the risk of suffering a serious incident.
If you don't learn from history you are forced to relive it. The lessons from the PI accident remain valid today and should not be ignored.
BP