Can BALPA be trusted to represent scope companies?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why will it improve the standard of operation, if GSS have Captains who may well have never commanded anything bigger than a seneca before, who are in a totally new environment with unfamiliar sops, who know sweet fa about freight ops, and whose very presence ignites hostility from F/Os who may well have far superior experience levels, and have familiarity with sops and freight ops.
You exemplify the CRM issue better than I ever could with your we're BA we're the best mentality. Which simply is delusion. You may well be hot snot in familiar surroundings but at GSS you will be just another pilot stealing a future from someone else.
Good point about Loganair, BA's inconsistency and weakness in this argument is clear for all to see.
You exemplify the CRM issue better than I ever could with your we're BA we're the best mentality. Which simply is delusion. You may well be hot snot in familiar surroundings but at GSS you will be just another pilot stealing a future from someone else.
Good point about Loganair, BA's inconsistency and weakness in this argument is clear for all to see.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ascot,Berks,Great Britain
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really. Most BA pilots would prefer to see ALL work that is generated by BA flown by BA pilots. However you simply can't get everything you want in a negotiation and the result was a SCOPE agreement between BA and its pilots. We are seeing the first results of that agreement. There can now be no expansion of non-BA operations flying BA work. There is an agreed list of destinations//routes beyond which the franchise type operations may not be allowed to go without contravening that agreement. GSS expansion breaks our agreement with our employer. BA the corporation needs to get to grip with its cost base rather than hide from reality by passing out business it generates to other organisations.
I sympathise with those that feel such an agreement compromises their own prospects. The fact is though that BA pilots can not stand by and see BA generated work farmed to other airlines.
I sympathise with those that feel such an agreement compromises their own prospects. The fact is though that BA pilots can not stand by and see BA generated work farmed to other airlines.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SCOPE.......ha ha ha. At BACX we are already flying 110 seaters, and operating in and out of LGW. So don't make me laugh with your effing BA double effing standards.
SCOPE, yeah yeah yeah, BACX are OK to fly the aircraft, OK to operate into LGW, but apparently not good enough for your precious effing seniority list, even though some of our guys have (wait for it) flown MAINLINE aeroplanes out of LHR and LGW as part of a normal line operation and operating crew - just to help you out.
Quite funny watching BA pilots say they have mortgages too - where??? - effing France or further. Most selfish pompous navel gazing self serving bunch of individuals I have ever been ashamed to be part of the same professional grouping as. Better standards (re the GSS comments) ? I remember a BA cadet chopped from BACX, had to go back and have another 737 course to enable her to pass a pretty basic ATP course the second time around.
No point getting excited though, it's all about votes and pressure groups. Mind you, I do like the sound of 12 quid a month......
SCOPE, yeah yeah yeah, BACX are OK to fly the aircraft, OK to operate into LGW, but apparently not good enough for your precious effing seniority list, even though some of our guys have (wait for it) flown MAINLINE aeroplanes out of LHR and LGW as part of a normal line operation and operating crew - just to help you out.
Quite funny watching BA pilots say they have mortgages too - where??? - effing France or further. Most selfish pompous navel gazing self serving bunch of individuals I have ever been ashamed to be part of the same professional grouping as. Better standards (re the GSS comments) ? I remember a BA cadet chopped from BACX, had to go back and have another 737 course to enable her to pass a pretty basic ATP course the second time around.
No point getting excited though, it's all about votes and pressure groups. Mind you, I do like the sound of 12 quid a month......
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"At BACX we are already flying 110 seaters, and operating in and out of LGW"
As per our scope agreement. Even the Almightly BACC can undo what's already agreed between BA and the franchises.
If our seniority list is so poxy, why do you all want to come on to it? Personally, I'd welcome you all on to it (at the bottom as always). The more people below you on a seniorty list the better.
More people to do the dross work, allowing me to go part time, do one, maybe two carribean trips a month and spend a bit more time on my (tax efficient) hacienda in Spain.
As per our scope agreement. Even the Almightly BACC can undo what's already agreed between BA and the franchises.
If our seniority list is so poxy, why do you all want to come on to it? Personally, I'd welcome you all on to it (at the bottom as always). The more people below you on a seniorty list the better.
More people to do the dross work, allowing me to go part time, do one, maybe two carribean trips a month and spend a bit more time on my (tax efficient) hacienda in Spain.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little Prince
What an erudite posting, and humour too!
You seem blissfully unaware of what the current INTERIM arrangement with BACX, dictates will happen to ALL 100+ seat flying in 6 years time! (That is RJ, or ANY replacement!)
Perhaps you should educate yourself!
Do let us know how your BA application goes later this year.
What an erudite posting, and humour too!
You seem blissfully unaware of what the current INTERIM arrangement with BACX, dictates will happen to ALL 100+ seat flying in 6 years time! (That is RJ, or ANY replacement!)
Perhaps you should educate yourself!
Do let us know how your BA application goes later this year.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been over this all before, and nobody is going to change their opinion. This thread is not about whether BA pilots should come to GSS, it is about whether there is any point in pilots in companies such as GSS being represented by BALPA.
When the BACC were making the scope agreement with BA, there were long time BALPA members in GSS whose careers were going to be affected by this agreement. No matter whether BALPA had a representative agreement with GSS or not, it would have been polite of BALPA to have informed these pilots of the possible effects on their future. As it was, the deal was forced upon GSS without the knowledge of these BALPA members.
My view is that it is a complete waste of time and money for any GSS pilot to be a member of BALPA because the BACC will always come out on top. It is much better for the GSS pilots to join the IPF, who have a record of taking on the big guys (who was it who stopped the US Air pilots coming to fly the BA 737's?).
I know that some of you would like to go over the same old arguements again, but let's get back to the title of the thread. Is there any point in GSS/BACX pilots being members of BALPA, or would we be better off paying our money to the IPF?
BTW, the BA guys are already with us, flying on 'look-see' trips. I don't know whether any of them are PPRuNers, but I'm sure that they will tell you that they have been treated with curtesy and respect. I did hear a GSS F/O ask one of the BA guys if his BA pullover was bullet-proof, but he then bought him a beer.
Airclues
When the BACC were making the scope agreement with BA, there were long time BALPA members in GSS whose careers were going to be affected by this agreement. No matter whether BALPA had a representative agreement with GSS or not, it would have been polite of BALPA to have informed these pilots of the possible effects on their future. As it was, the deal was forced upon GSS without the knowledge of these BALPA members.
My view is that it is a complete waste of time and money for any GSS pilot to be a member of BALPA because the BACC will always come out on top. It is much better for the GSS pilots to join the IPF, who have a record of taking on the big guys (who was it who stopped the US Air pilots coming to fly the BA 737's?).
I know that some of you would like to go over the same old arguements again, but let's get back to the title of the thread. Is there any point in GSS/BACX pilots being members of BALPA, or would we be better off paying our money to the IPF?
BTW, the BA guys are already with us, flying on 'look-see' trips. I don't know whether any of them are PPRuNers, but I'm sure that they will tell you that they have been treated with curtesy and respect. I did hear a GSS F/O ask one of the BA guys if his BA pullover was bullet-proof, but he then bought him a beer.
Airclues
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is there any point in GSS/BACX pilots being members of BALPA"
Yes. They should be members of BALPA. The more BALPA members there are the more BA pilots will benefit. The more BA pilots benefit, the higher the 'benchmark', and thus the better able BALPA is to argue for improved T&Cs at other operators.
BA pilots will happily take on the burdens of higher pay, more time off, better rosters etc to improve the lot of other pilot groups. Never say we don't give you anything. We are prepared to suffer all of the above, in order to give you a higher benchmark.
Yes. They should be members of BALPA. The more BALPA members there are the more BA pilots will benefit. The more BA pilots benefit, the higher the 'benchmark', and thus the better able BALPA is to argue for improved T&Cs at other operators.
BA pilots will happily take on the burdens of higher pay, more time off, better rosters etc to improve the lot of other pilot groups. Never say we don't give you anything. We are prepared to suffer all of the above, in order to give you a higher benchmark.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ascot,Berks,Great Britain
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackball
Never meant to imply that no work had already been given away. Rather that enough was enough. I'm sure my earlier posting complained about being passed on numerous occasions by BA painted but non BA operated aircraft. I am only too well aware of the happenings at LGW.
Never meant to imply that no work had already been given away. Rather that enough was enough. I'm sure my earlier posting complained about being passed on numerous occasions by BA painted but non BA operated aircraft. I am only too well aware of the happenings at LGW.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel,
Point taken, just wantes to put the record straight. This thread being about should one trust BALPA on scope. Certainly not all agreements according to them are "Collective Agreements", this then gives them the right to change any agreement they so choose. Result SCOPE and other agreements are not woth the paper they are written on.
Then again feel free to throw your hard earned 1% down the proverbial drain its still a free country.
Point taken, just wantes to put the record straight. This thread being about should one trust BALPA on scope. Certainly not all agreements according to them are "Collective Agreements", this then gives them the right to change any agreement they so choose. Result SCOPE and other agreements are not woth the paper they are written on.
Then again feel free to throw your hard earned 1% down the proverbial drain its still a free country.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ascot,Berks,Great Britain
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackball
Not really sure what you mean by "not all agreements are collective agreements".. If you're pointing out the way that some agreements seem to only get partially followed through I take your point. I would have to point out though that our agreements with our employer are not legally enforceable so many companies push at the limits until close to generating industrial unrest in the belief that only at this point are they extracting max value.
BALPA are undoubtedly far from perfect. Most of us here have at some time lost from some BALPA approved deal. However I do believe that were BALPA not to exist many employers would be imposing far worse conditions than they presently succeed in doing. It is sadly an imperfect world. As it stands I believe I am better of IN than OUT so on that basis I do not accept I am throwing money down the drain.
Indeed should I ever be unfortunate enough to find myself in difficulties with my employer I suspect I will be very glad of all those 1 %s.
With regards the point of this thread it has always seemed odd to me that different, competing companies have one joint union for pilots. Indovidual company unions would undoubtedly have fought some cases harder than BALPA. I do however think that some overall professional level representation such as BALPA is a good thing for putting our case at the govt level.
That said if such a situation existed, and us BA folk were as bad as some of you believe, would you have been better or worse off? I suppose you could make the case that in the event of mergers/acquisitions/franchises etc getting something is better than getting nothing and I suspect that seperate company unions would seek to represent ONLY their members resulting in some people losing out TOTALLY in any conflict.
I guess you pays you money (or not...) and takes your choice.
Not really sure what you mean by "not all agreements are collective agreements".. If you're pointing out the way that some agreements seem to only get partially followed through I take your point. I would have to point out though that our agreements with our employer are not legally enforceable so many companies push at the limits until close to generating industrial unrest in the belief that only at this point are they extracting max value.
BALPA are undoubtedly far from perfect. Most of us here have at some time lost from some BALPA approved deal. However I do believe that were BALPA not to exist many employers would be imposing far worse conditions than they presently succeed in doing. It is sadly an imperfect world. As it stands I believe I am better of IN than OUT so on that basis I do not accept I am throwing money down the drain.
Indeed should I ever be unfortunate enough to find myself in difficulties with my employer I suspect I will be very glad of all those 1 %s.
With regards the point of this thread it has always seemed odd to me that different, competing companies have one joint union for pilots. Indovidual company unions would undoubtedly have fought some cases harder than BALPA. I do however think that some overall professional level representation such as BALPA is a good thing for putting our case at the govt level.
That said if such a situation existed, and us BA folk were as bad as some of you believe, would you have been better or worse off? I suppose you could make the case that in the event of mergers/acquisitions/franchises etc getting something is better than getting nothing and I suspect that seperate company unions would seek to represent ONLY their members resulting in some people losing out TOTALLY in any conflict.
I guess you pays you money (or not...) and takes your choice.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Jellystone Park
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any none-BA pilots reading this thread, particularly those with a franchise or with BACX should wake up, smell the coffee and join the IPF, sooner rather than later. I have no personal gripe against any individual BA pilot, nor do I really blame them as a body for protecting their own interests. I do object to the sleek, arrogant bluster from the usual offenders - BA pilots seem incapable of understanding that many many of us never wanted to join their organisation at any cost. History I suppose, but clearly tact, and a sympathetic understanding rather than the pushy 'my wallet first and always' attitude might elicit a little more understanding and much less rancour between pilot groups.
As a BACX pilot, personally, I would quite like to know what this agreement six years hence over scope is supposed to be about - first I've heard of it.
It might also be instructive and educational for BA pilots as a body - not just the sh1t stirrers on here - to consider the situation in the USA. Over there, there are many major operators, (most big enough to consider BA a tiddler) who operate regional subsidiaries. Funnily enough, there is not the overt dislike and in some cases actual hatred of all BA stand for that we have in the UK. Why?
Well, in spite of lay-offs, extremely variable crewing requirements, furloughs and far worse employment stability, the two groups work together. American 'mainline' pilots do not consider themselves 'better' than their regional cousins, just more fortunate, and the two groups work together to progress as many people into the better paid mainline jobs as possible. And boy, do they ever operate scope in the USA, but not to the deliberate detriment and disadvantagement of their brethren. Perhaps this is because ALPA are more fair minded, perhaps because the American culture is more egalitarian, almost certainly because there is not just one BA type monstrosity refusing to let anyone into the playground unless they jump through some quite quite ridiculous hops. Yes, I know the hoops are a management criteria, however one might reasonably expect BALPA in toto to be pushing for their removal for all Franchise/BACX personnel who wanted to join mainline - obviously at the bottom of this list. If they have the demmonstrated clout to pull off the shafting of GSS, and for the BALPA Chair to suddenly join BA management, then you're not telling me they couldn't do achieve a different joining structure for subsidiaries. Ah, but that would be altruistic I guess, and wouldn't assist in the purchase of many second homes eh?
Such a shame, BA pilots are no different to any other group, some very good, some bloody awful, and the vast majority just average - ie like the rest of us.
(And that is some admission from someone who has been trained by the best of the best i.e HM Forces)
Not to lose the message of this thread, join the IPF guys. BALPA are not going to change, so it's no use grumbling about it and provoking the same of bullsh1t from the same old BA tossers who like winding everyone up.
Corny. x x x x
As a BACX pilot, personally, I would quite like to know what this agreement six years hence over scope is supposed to be about - first I've heard of it.
It might also be instructive and educational for BA pilots as a body - not just the sh1t stirrers on here - to consider the situation in the USA. Over there, there are many major operators, (most big enough to consider BA a tiddler) who operate regional subsidiaries. Funnily enough, there is not the overt dislike and in some cases actual hatred of all BA stand for that we have in the UK. Why?
Well, in spite of lay-offs, extremely variable crewing requirements, furloughs and far worse employment stability, the two groups work together. American 'mainline' pilots do not consider themselves 'better' than their regional cousins, just more fortunate, and the two groups work together to progress as many people into the better paid mainline jobs as possible. And boy, do they ever operate scope in the USA, but not to the deliberate detriment and disadvantagement of their brethren. Perhaps this is because ALPA are more fair minded, perhaps because the American culture is more egalitarian, almost certainly because there is not just one BA type monstrosity refusing to let anyone into the playground unless they jump through some quite quite ridiculous hops. Yes, I know the hoops are a management criteria, however one might reasonably expect BALPA in toto to be pushing for their removal for all Franchise/BACX personnel who wanted to join mainline - obviously at the bottom of this list. If they have the demmonstrated clout to pull off the shafting of GSS, and for the BALPA Chair to suddenly join BA management, then you're not telling me they couldn't do achieve a different joining structure for subsidiaries. Ah, but that would be altruistic I guess, and wouldn't assist in the purchase of many second homes eh?
Such a shame, BA pilots are no different to any other group, some very good, some bloody awful, and the vast majority just average - ie like the rest of us.
(And that is some admission from someone who has been trained by the best of the best i.e HM Forces)
Not to lose the message of this thread, join the IPF guys. BALPA are not going to change, so it's no use grumbling about it and provoking the same of bullsh1t from the same old BA tossers who like winding everyone up.
Corny. x x x x
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that the owners of BMed and GB would be quite happy to have BA pilots flying the franchise companies' aircraft. I'm also sure that the inevitable higher cost of the flight crew could be 'squared away' in a lower franchise fee to BA. - i.e. no net extra cost to the franchise companies and Rod at BA buys peace from his pilots. But, quite simply, BA cannot afford to run franchise routes. BA has debts of £5 billion and is struggling to even make a day to day profit on routes that other airlines would kill to get hold of. BA cant afford to take on the capital costs of running the franchise routes themselves. Nothing at BA gets approved unless its going to make a return of at least 10% on capital.
At GB and BMed there is a high proportion of Balpa members, and of those there is a high proportion who would be prepared to become BA employees. The condition would be equal treatment - merged seniority lists. The companies, the aircraft, the personnel, the routes, the slots - none of these belong to BA - BA merely owns the name, the logo and the style of service.
If the BA pilots could swallow merged seniority lists, then they could be involved in an expanding world and help to take the competition head on - something BA can't do with its horrendous financial situation and straitjacket method of operation.
If the BA pilots can't accept a merged list there will be 'no deal' - there will be a static franchise situation, which may dwindle or drift by the franchises signing up with some of the competition. Those guys presently at the bottom half of BA will have a very long long wait to get near the top of a receding seniority list - they may not even make it.
The crew councils from the three companies need to use Balpa to resolve the issue, and the more Balpa members in all the companies involved, the better. Ideally the franchise companies have to get a larger proportion of their pilots as members, in an attempt to persuade the BACC to deal fairly with minnows. All that the ordinary members in all three companies ask for is fair and equal treatment But the BACC history is to draw lines in the sand, put shackles around commercial progress, and I fear that yet again the younger BA guys will loose out to the BA atlantic barons.
At GB and BMed there is a high proportion of Balpa members, and of those there is a high proportion who would be prepared to become BA employees. The condition would be equal treatment - merged seniority lists. The companies, the aircraft, the personnel, the routes, the slots - none of these belong to BA - BA merely owns the name, the logo and the style of service.
If the BA pilots could swallow merged seniority lists, then they could be involved in an expanding world and help to take the competition head on - something BA can't do with its horrendous financial situation and straitjacket method of operation.
If the BA pilots can't accept a merged list there will be 'no deal' - there will be a static franchise situation, which may dwindle or drift by the franchises signing up with some of the competition. Those guys presently at the bottom half of BA will have a very long long wait to get near the top of a receding seniority list - they may not even make it.
The crew councils from the three companies need to use Balpa to resolve the issue, and the more Balpa members in all the companies involved, the better. Ideally the franchise companies have to get a larger proportion of their pilots as members, in an attempt to persuade the BACC to deal fairly with minnows. All that the ordinary members in all three companies ask for is fair and equal treatment But the BACC history is to draw lines in the sand, put shackles around commercial progress, and I fear that yet again the younger BA guys will loose out to the BA atlantic barons.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cornflake,
Sorry mate but you're 180 out of touch with reality in your US mainline/regional partner summary.
If the feeling was as cozy as you paint there'd be no need for scope clauses in the first place!
ALPA is being sued by a group representing regional carriers' pilots claiming that ALPA does not offer them equal representation (ie. ALPA has a conflict of interest).
Scope agreements are designed to limit flying being transferred from mainline carriers to third parties. Ironically, the mainline career most regional pilots aspire to is disappearing before their very eyes as regional carriers pick up these former mainline routes. What used to be a stepping stone is now very possibly a permanent career.
At AA, American transfers routes to American Eagle and the Eagle guys think they've "won". Until Eagle flights are transferred to American Connection whereupon they cry "foul!". There's always someone who will be "cheaper".
Mainline management, knowing that regional pilots are paid less than they are worth, consistently violate scope agreements. At some point wannabe pilots have to ask themselves whether the expense and effort may be better spent chasing another more desirable career.
DD
Sorry mate but you're 180 out of touch with reality in your US mainline/regional partner summary.
If the feeling was as cozy as you paint there'd be no need for scope clauses in the first place!
ALPA is being sued by a group representing regional carriers' pilots claiming that ALPA does not offer them equal representation (ie. ALPA has a conflict of interest).
Scope agreements are designed to limit flying being transferred from mainline carriers to third parties. Ironically, the mainline career most regional pilots aspire to is disappearing before their very eyes as regional carriers pick up these former mainline routes. What used to be a stepping stone is now very possibly a permanent career.
At AA, American transfers routes to American Eagle and the Eagle guys think they've "won". Until Eagle flights are transferred to American Connection whereupon they cry "foul!". There's always someone who will be "cheaper".
Mainline management, knowing that regional pilots are paid less than they are worth, consistently violate scope agreements. At some point wannabe pilots have to ask themselves whether the expense and effort may be better spent chasing another more desirable career.
DD
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an erudite posting from dallasdude. He has summarised the problem perfectly. I suppose there's a lot to do with the 'tall poppy' syndrome in the UK, whereby anybody who 'has it better' than anybody else is a target to be dragged down to their level. "Got a stable roster, decent income and quality of life? Well wait 'til you have it as bad as me, then you'll know something". Unfortunately many people in the UK have failed to recognise the point that there is always someone willing to do it cheaper, and theres always a management willing to exploit that. I don't pay my 1% to BALPA to allow them to conspire to reduce my pay and opportunities to give work to people who are willing to do it for peanuts. If GSS pilots want to join the IPF, then so be it, but don't think that the IPF would give you a better deal than BALPA in BA Scope negotiations. Remember GSS only has ONE customer and thats BA. If they don't like the way you want to do business with them, they can always go elsewhere, and what will the IPF do for you then?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you guys really believe that anyone who doesn't work for BA works for peanuts? That's madness - BMed and GB have salaries that, although not the best, are a good average. The suggestion here is that we should all rather stay unemployed until our big break to join BA comes. But, with the state of BA, that's not coming very quickly, is it? I also contest the earlier view that the franchises have many people keen to join BA. Who would benefit from that? Certainly not F/Os with more than a year's service - their command prospects would look very poor indeed. Not captains with many years to retirement, because they've seen what happened to Cityflyer captains who didn't want to uproot their families to follow their 'grandfather right' on the RJ. The point of this thread was a good one, and it shows that the whole scope thing will benefit a few BA senior F/Os and disadvantage at least two more whole company's worth of pilots.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I apologise unreservedly for the intemperate nature of my last post. The trouble is simply the conflict caused by the attitude of the BA barons and would-be barons.
I endorse wholeheartedly the views put forward far more eloquently than my own capabilities, written by fiftyfour and HoleyMoley. Its as simple as that really, until BA pilots realise they are not really in a position to make the same demands that thet their forebears did, and that their Company is groaning under such a mountain of debt that things will HAVE to change - they are on a loser. Basically, none of us like change, the human condition likes stability, however it is the one constant that be relied upon "events, dear boy, events!"
BA pilots admittedly have such a hopeless management structure it is difficult to see how things can return to a properly geared business model - certainly it won't happen with the constant sniping all the employee groups in BA do at each other - and yes, they have successful introduced that habit into their wholly owned subsidiary.
However, evolution works in industry and business as well as nature - that's how old Stelios came about. Things which cannot - or will not change -.............ask the mammoth, the sabretooth and the dodo. I think the latter might best represent the likes of quidnunc, tandem rotor and hand solo etc
IPF - a big argument for a massive monthly saving. BALPA have done a lot of good for us in the detail, but the broad brush strokes are still on the palette, and the painter is controlled by the likes of - hmm, tricky to tell BALPA from BA management sometimes.
I endorse wholeheartedly the views put forward far more eloquently than my own capabilities, written by fiftyfour and HoleyMoley. Its as simple as that really, until BA pilots realise they are not really in a position to make the same demands that thet their forebears did, and that their Company is groaning under such a mountain of debt that things will HAVE to change - they are on a loser. Basically, none of us like change, the human condition likes stability, however it is the one constant that be relied upon "events, dear boy, events!"
BA pilots admittedly have such a hopeless management structure it is difficult to see how things can return to a properly geared business model - certainly it won't happen with the constant sniping all the employee groups in BA do at each other - and yes, they have successful introduced that habit into their wholly owned subsidiary.
However, evolution works in industry and business as well as nature - that's how old Stelios came about. Things which cannot - or will not change -.............ask the mammoth, the sabretooth and the dodo. I think the latter might best represent the likes of quidnunc, tandem rotor and hand solo etc
IPF - a big argument for a massive monthly saving. BALPA have done a lot of good for us in the detail, but the broad brush strokes are still on the palette, and the painter is controlled by the likes of - hmm, tricky to tell BALPA from BA management sometimes.
quidnunc
dear quidnunc
By a soupcon of misfortune, the real world beckons, with it come the franchises and the low costs. You see, the passengers pay the wages, not BA, despite how it may seem in your own little protectionist racket.The reason BA had to franchise was to protect market share and maintain a profile on routes that you and your ilk thought were below you. You are, I would guess, pretty low on BA's seniority list or you wouldn't be so keen to protect your position.
In the company I work for, we work with our management, not against them, this is why BALPA membership in our ex franchise operation is less than 50%.
In your operation, you and your management do not co-operate which is why you rely on BALPA. Remember the miners and the printers and the photolab guys at Grunwick. You won't win in the end.
Look at BHX, where BA has let several routes go to code shares and ex franchise carriers, not to mention the trade that has been lost to the low costs because you and your head have kept your appointment with the sand.
Thank you for reminding me that the good thing about being with an independent airline is that I don't have to spend a couple of days down route with an obvious twit such as yourself.
By a soupcon of misfortune, the real world beckons, with it come the franchises and the low costs. You see, the passengers pay the wages, not BA, despite how it may seem in your own little protectionist racket.The reason BA had to franchise was to protect market share and maintain a profile on routes that you and your ilk thought were below you. You are, I would guess, pretty low on BA's seniority list or you wouldn't be so keen to protect your position.
In the company I work for, we work with our management, not against them, this is why BALPA membership in our ex franchise operation is less than 50%.
In your operation, you and your management do not co-operate which is why you rely on BALPA. Remember the miners and the printers and the photolab guys at Grunwick. You won't win in the end.
Look at BHX, where BA has let several routes go to code shares and ex franchise carriers, not to mention the trade that has been lost to the low costs because you and your head have kept your appointment with the sand.
Thank you for reminding me that the good thing about being with an independent airline is that I don't have to spend a couple of days down route with an obvious twit such as yourself.