MYT - I can't believe it!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
faq
No. To the contrary, one of the CC members has gone up by 36 positions when you compare it to me. He would have definitely been demoted before BALPA changed the way demotions are going to be carried out.
However, allegedly this individual was not involved in the negotiations.
The whole thing is a little messy, to say the least.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all
A genuine question please.
On page 1 of this thread it was stated that this LIFO male/female issue was because of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Now, if this is the case, why are people having a go at the Balpa CC if their actions/recommendations are restricted by an Act of Parliament?
I stress, this is a genuine question and not meant to be inflammatory.
A genuine question please.
On page 1 of this thread it was stated that this LIFO male/female issue was because of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Now, if this is the case, why are people having a go at the Balpa CC if their actions/recommendations are restricted by an Act of Parliament?
I stress, this is a genuine question and not meant to be inflammatory.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps One
I accept that your question is genuine, but I think the reason is very simple. There are clearly many other more fundamental issues that have arisen out of the first post that have greater and more far reaching implications than just the male/female issue. That's the way this forum business works.
It would be daft to start a new post on what is principally the same subject becuase it didn't directly relate to the first person's post, don't you think? We would have 10 different posts on essentially the same subject.
VS....I would hope that said individual who would scoot up the seniority list by 36 places abstained from any votes or discussions, on the grounds that he had a compulsory 'conflict of interest' to declare. If he did, then he should be applauded! Any reference to male should also imply female and singular should also include plural, for the sake of correctness.
Besides; having a pop at BALPA is always fair game, due to their dark deeds
I accept that your question is genuine, but I think the reason is very simple. There are clearly many other more fundamental issues that have arisen out of the first post that have greater and more far reaching implications than just the male/female issue. That's the way this forum business works.
It would be daft to start a new post on what is principally the same subject becuase it didn't directly relate to the first person's post, don't you think? We would have 10 different posts on essentially the same subject.
VS....I would hope that said individual who would scoot up the seniority list by 36 places abstained from any votes or discussions, on the grounds that he had a compulsory 'conflict of interest' to declare. If he did, then he should be applauded! Any reference to male should also imply female and singular should also include plural, for the sake of correctness.
Besides; having a pop at BALPA is always fair game, due to their dark deeds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am lead to believe that the deal is not sealed yet. Apparently a few things could still happen. I wasn't told anymore than that.
In the next few days we'll be told a bit more.
Whatever the outcome I know one thing. Apart from the people that have directly benefited out of the deal or the negotiators, nobody agrees with the whole thing.
Although not a lot, there is some comfort there.
Cheers Jack.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company would like to use the Captains seniority list for demotions but will not do so unless there is a call from the shop floor in sufficent numbers. They have agreed to accept the CC's wish to use LIFO reluctantly.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheelbarrow
It is not important why the two list system exists! The fact is it does and not just at MYT. I have stated here and on the company wed site that I have no problem with a single list based on date of joining.
My objection is four members of the CC have in effect introduced a single seniority list without consulting the crews at this critical time. The CC represent less than 50% of the crews. The IPA asked to be included in talks and I have heard today the CC were asked by the company if they wanted the IPA involved but the offer of help was declined!
The company is not happy with the situation and nor are a large number of the crews but the CC will not be moved. So as far as I am concerned they are not acting in the best interests of either the crews or the company on this issue and have created division within the work force that will take many years to sort out and cost the company dearly in goodwill. So whilst I support the CC on many issues and even the concept of a single seniority list I cannot see how any fair minded individual can say the CC have handled this issue well or even correctly. The longer this goes on the more convinced I and others become that the CC have got this badly wrong all be it with the best of intentions.
I hope they soon see this and take action. Either to reverse their position or ballot the crews if they fail to do either membership of BALPA will be badly effected and further damage will be done to the company.
It is not important why the two list system exists! The fact is it does and not just at MYT. I have stated here and on the company wed site that I have no problem with a single list based on date of joining.
My objection is four members of the CC have in effect introduced a single seniority list without consulting the crews at this critical time. The CC represent less than 50% of the crews. The IPA asked to be included in talks and I have heard today the CC were asked by the company if they wanted the IPA involved but the offer of help was declined!
The company is not happy with the situation and nor are a large number of the crews but the CC will not be moved. So as far as I am concerned they are not acting in the best interests of either the crews or the company on this issue and have created division within the work force that will take many years to sort out and cost the company dearly in goodwill. So whilst I support the CC on many issues and even the concept of a single seniority list I cannot see how any fair minded individual can say the CC have handled this issue well or even correctly. The longer this goes on the more convinced I and others become that the CC have got this badly wrong all be it with the best of intentions.
I hope they soon see this and take action. Either to reverse their position or ballot the crews if they fail to do either membership of BALPA will be badly effected and further damage will be done to the company.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Somerset
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So you have a scenario where someone who has had their Command for 6 months will keep it over someone who has had it for 3+ years purely because they have been in the company longer. Fair?"
Sounds OK to me A4? That's the idea of a LIFO surely, DOJ?
Sounds OK to me A4? That's the idea of a LIFO surely, DOJ?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very fair if that is the accepted system in play at the time! The point is that this was not the accepted system for demotions!
LIFO is accepted for the reduction in size of the overall establishment and is not contested.
LIFO is accepted for the reduction in size of the overall establishment and is not contested.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be those who agree with demotion from date of joining company and those who agree with it from date of command. It obviously depends on where you sit. in MYT, where there is conflict in areas such as base change requests, courses for 767/A330, leave preference and a whole host of things the "seniority list" IS King, and not the date of joining the company. Now the seniority list is conveniently dismissed by the BALPA CC, and against the company's wishes as has already been pointed out. But that is not the real issue here as seniority lists are something to resolve at another date.
As Kinsman has mentioned, the point is that the BALPA CC did not consult or ballot their members and appear to be at variance with the BALPA policy and its previous practices on demotion. They are still blinkered to all that is happening around them and fail to realise, or at least won't admit, that they have got it so wrong on this occasion. MYT BALPA CC LISTEN TO YOUR MEMBERS, WHILE YOU STILL HAVE SOME, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !
Whilst you can't make everyone happy, had the CC taken heed of its members at least we could have moved forward in a united way. As it is now, there much divisiveness and anger spreading throughout the workforce. The rifts appearing and the fallout from this will take a long time to repair if urgent action isn't taken to get members onside !
As Kinsman has mentioned, the point is that the BALPA CC did not consult or ballot their members and appear to be at variance with the BALPA policy and its previous practices on demotion. They are still blinkered to all that is happening around them and fail to realise, or at least won't admit, that they have got it so wrong on this occasion. MYT BALPA CC LISTEN TO YOUR MEMBERS, WHILE YOU STILL HAVE SOME, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !
Whilst you can't make everyone happy, had the CC taken heed of its members at least we could have moved forward in a united way. As it is now, there much divisiveness and anger spreading throughout the workforce. The rifts appearing and the fallout from this will take a long time to repair if urgent action isn't taken to get members onside !
Join Date: May 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Demotion should be on Command seniority but it is not possible under present employment law so the Captain has to be made redundant and then re-employed as a FO.
Redundancy has always been LIFO so it must apply in this case.
It would appear command seniority lists are now meaningless and a single seniority list possibly indicating Captain or F/O is all that is required.
Get the feeling BALPA had no choice and would have found itself in a difficult legal position had it taken a different view.
I suppose in truth once we join a company it should not be possible to leapfrog to a higher seniority by virtue of an early command, we are all employed as pilots, perhaps status is irrelevent to the issue.
Redundancy has always been LIFO so it must apply in this case.
It would appear command seniority lists are now meaningless and a single seniority list possibly indicating Captain or F/O is all that is required.
Get the feeling BALPA had no choice and would have found itself in a difficult legal position had it taken a different view.
I suppose in truth once we join a company it should not be possible to leapfrog to a higher seniority by virtue of an early command, we are all employed as pilots, perhaps status is irrelevent to the issue.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: cheshire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote, from the Airtours (now MYT obviously) Pilots Polcies and Procedures manual, which forms part of the contract of employment.
PPP-6-1
SENIORITY
“Seniority within the company is established on the basis of date of commencement of employment (or calculated date of commencement of employment, if applicable)”
PPP-7-10
REDUNDANCY
“Redundancy for pilots is based on a “last In, First Out” policy. This may be supplemented by a call for volunteers for redundancy.”
Quote, from the COMPANY (NOT BALPA) announcement headed PROPOSED FLEET REDUCTION - FLIGHT DECK SELECTION PROCEDURE.
“Captain Redundancy – Redeployment to Senior First Officer
As a result of the imbalance between Captains and FO/SFO resulting from the application of LIFO it will be necessary for a number of Captains’ positions to be made redundant.”
All the above is attributable only to the company, BALPA have interpreted and the conclusions have been debated on this forum. Are BALPA right or wrong?
PPP-6-1
SENIORITY
“Seniority within the company is established on the basis of date of commencement of employment (or calculated date of commencement of employment, if applicable)”
PPP-7-10
REDUNDANCY
“Redundancy for pilots is based on a “last In, First Out” policy. This may be supplemented by a call for volunteers for redundancy.”
Quote, from the COMPANY (NOT BALPA) announcement headed PROPOSED FLEET REDUCTION - FLIGHT DECK SELECTION PROCEDURE.
“Captain Redundancy – Redeployment to Senior First Officer
As a result of the imbalance between Captains and FO/SFO resulting from the application of LIFO it will be necessary for a number of Captains’ positions to be made redundant.”
All the above is attributable only to the company, BALPA have interpreted and the conclusions have been debated on this forum. Are BALPA right or wrong?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squeacky
You have been a little selective in your extract!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPP-6-1
There are seperate seniority lists for Captains and First Officers/Senior First Officers. First Officers/Senior First Officers promoted to command from the same Command List irrespective of different appointment dates created by the training plan will be listed on the Captains Seniority list in the same sequence as their names were recorded on the First Officer Seniority list.
A Seniority list as at the date of issue of this revised Manual is at Annex A. Updated lists will be promulgated from time to time in Flight Crew Notices(FCN), and the Chief Pilot holds a Master List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPP-7-10
Redundancy
Redundancy for pilots is based on a "Last In, First Out" policy. This maybe supplemented by a call for volunteers for redundancy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now in paragraph 7-10 you will see no reference to date of joining! However, it has always been accepted that this meant date of joining in the same way we had all accepted that demotions would be according to the Captains Seniority list in Annex A!!!
Once again no one has any problem with using date of joining for overall work force reduction and this may include some Captains who gained very early or direct entry Commands. Redundancy/Redeployment is the mechanical method of demoting a Captain to remove the extra salary, under the current PPP this should be done in accordance with the Captains Seniority list.
The Company wanted to use the two Seniority lists for Redundancy which would have meant one or two Captains who are at present going to leave the Company would have stayed. The CC chose to use Global LIFO not the Company. Global LIFO based on date of joining in fact is not in accordance with the PPP as you can see from 7-10. Which states only LIFO with two seniority lists e.g. "last in, First out" according to the positions on the respective list.
However, you can justify using date of joining for redundancy in terms of leaving the company based on paragraph 1, PPP-6-1. But this is the heart of the problem and is open to question especially when applied to demotions no matter how you choose to mechanically carry them out. This is why other airlines have stuck to the Captains Seniority list for demotions when two lists exist.
The Crew Council chose to apply LIFO based on date of joining to demote Captains against the expressed wish of the management. The CC had a choice and they are wrong, very wrong!
You have been a little selective in your extract!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPP-6-1
There are seperate seniority lists for Captains and First Officers/Senior First Officers. First Officers/Senior First Officers promoted to command from the same Command List irrespective of different appointment dates created by the training plan will be listed on the Captains Seniority list in the same sequence as their names were recorded on the First Officer Seniority list.
A Seniority list as at the date of issue of this revised Manual is at Annex A. Updated lists will be promulgated from time to time in Flight Crew Notices(FCN), and the Chief Pilot holds a Master List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPP-7-10
Redundancy
Redundancy for pilots is based on a "Last In, First Out" policy. This maybe supplemented by a call for volunteers for redundancy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now in paragraph 7-10 you will see no reference to date of joining! However, it has always been accepted that this meant date of joining in the same way we had all accepted that demotions would be according to the Captains Seniority list in Annex A!!!
Once again no one has any problem with using date of joining for overall work force reduction and this may include some Captains who gained very early or direct entry Commands. Redundancy/Redeployment is the mechanical method of demoting a Captain to remove the extra salary, under the current PPP this should be done in accordance with the Captains Seniority list.
The Company wanted to use the two Seniority lists for Redundancy which would have meant one or two Captains who are at present going to leave the Company would have stayed. The CC chose to use Global LIFO not the Company. Global LIFO based on date of joining in fact is not in accordance with the PPP as you can see from 7-10. Which states only LIFO with two seniority lists e.g. "last in, First out" according to the positions on the respective list.
However, you can justify using date of joining for redundancy in terms of leaving the company based on paragraph 1, PPP-6-1. But this is the heart of the problem and is open to question especially when applied to demotions no matter how you choose to mechanically carry them out. This is why other airlines have stuck to the Captains Seniority list for demotions when two lists exist.
The Crew Council chose to apply LIFO based on date of joining to demote Captains against the expressed wish of the management. The CC had a choice and they are wrong, very wrong!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: cheshire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn’t quote the paragraphs regarding the seniority lists because there is no mention of company seniority, only seniority within rank. It doesn’t appear to contradict the first paragraph.
If seniority within the company is established on the basis of date of commencement of employment and LIFO is used for redundancy, and the company are making Captains redundant then, err, so you are saying that, err, mmm, but…..
Oh so seniority is not based on date of commencement of employment but based on your most recent change of role/position within the company. (Are you sure it says that?)
Ahh, it’s so much clearer now. The PPP manual should say that redundancy will be decided by seniority within rank, company seniority is irrelevant, because that is how other airlines do it, and the company want to do it that way anyway. Quick, call BALPA tell them to disregard the PPP and everyone will accept it.
Bye, bye
If seniority within the company is established on the basis of date of commencement of employment and LIFO is used for redundancy, and the company are making Captains redundant then, err, so you are saying that, err, mmm, but…..
Oh so seniority is not based on date of commencement of employment but based on your most recent change of role/position within the company. (Are you sure it says that?)
Ahh, it’s so much clearer now. The PPP manual should say that redundancy will be decided by seniority within rank, company seniority is irrelevant, because that is how other airlines do it, and the company want to do it that way anyway. Quick, call BALPA tell them to disregard the PPP and everyone will accept it.
Bye, bye
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many of the posts here and on Arena shouting their views about this subject are BALPA members and not just the spungers who take all the benefits to our pay and conditions that BALPA have fought for over the last years and are just too mean to pay their dues. A lot I think.
The BALPA members I have spoken to ARE SUPPORTING THE CC just because they are not posting does not mean there is no support!
The majority of the membership understand that the CC have stuck to LIFO because it is the only firm legal thing in that old out of date rag the PPP, and as for the Captains seniority list. All of us if we are honest with our selves know some of the Captains on the Captains seniority are there sooner than others because of who they drink or golf with and which fleet they are on has a lot to do with it. The list keeps changing every few months because some one complains so what use is it's value?
If you take the time to compare the LIFO and Captains seniority list there are ten or so Captains that will be effected over those who are in the frame on both lists depending on which method you use for selection and it is terrible that this is the case but there are guarantees that these pilots whose Captains position is made redundant will be offered a SFO position and will get back to the LHS. Little consolation I know but a job. I agree that it does seem unfair that a few people will keep their command when they are newly promoted but think of the majority and live with it because all this bitching will only make any future negotions difficult, the company is the fly on the wall here and in Arena and we are only helping them formulate a new attack on our conditions.
No wonder the company were not in favour of using LIFO for the reduction of Captains because most of these Captains are pilots on the Airbus and the management is Airbus. Think of the training cost, and do we realy want those other pilots on our fleet!
They would of ditched the Boeing and DC10 pilots if they could and taken back only the guys they wanted to drink and golf with and they would be at the bottom of all the lists that they choose to make.
Get real guys this is a money saving exercise and the more money they save the bigger the bonus for those at the top. If MYT has got the pilot numbers they want after this no more flying in both seats until all the Captains get back to the LHS and the FO's get their jobs back.
The HR department and the company management have more spin than Labour and have put the blame for all this at BALPA,s door but remember they are trying to reduce membership with the method they put news to the pilots and will put further cost cutting measures in place if they can. Some pilots are playing straight into their hands.
BALPA and the CC are working hard to save jobs and have done. FACT
The BALPA members I have spoken to ARE SUPPORTING THE CC just because they are not posting does not mean there is no support!
The majority of the membership understand that the CC have stuck to LIFO because it is the only firm legal thing in that old out of date rag the PPP, and as for the Captains seniority list. All of us if we are honest with our selves know some of the Captains on the Captains seniority are there sooner than others because of who they drink or golf with and which fleet they are on has a lot to do with it. The list keeps changing every few months because some one complains so what use is it's value?
If you take the time to compare the LIFO and Captains seniority list there are ten or so Captains that will be effected over those who are in the frame on both lists depending on which method you use for selection and it is terrible that this is the case but there are guarantees that these pilots whose Captains position is made redundant will be offered a SFO position and will get back to the LHS. Little consolation I know but a job. I agree that it does seem unfair that a few people will keep their command when they are newly promoted but think of the majority and live with it because all this bitching will only make any future negotions difficult, the company is the fly on the wall here and in Arena and we are only helping them formulate a new attack on our conditions.
No wonder the company were not in favour of using LIFO for the reduction of Captains because most of these Captains are pilots on the Airbus and the management is Airbus. Think of the training cost, and do we realy want those other pilots on our fleet!
They would of ditched the Boeing and DC10 pilots if they could and taken back only the guys they wanted to drink and golf with and they would be at the bottom of all the lists that they choose to make.
Get real guys this is a money saving exercise and the more money they save the bigger the bonus for those at the top. If MYT has got the pilot numbers they want after this no more flying in both seats until all the Captains get back to the LHS and the FO's get their jobs back.
The HR department and the company management have more spin than Labour and have put the blame for all this at BALPA,s door but remember they are trying to reduce membership with the method they put news to the pilots and will put further cost cutting measures in place if they can. Some pilots are playing straight into their hands.
BALPA and the CC are working hard to save jobs and have done. FACT
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fed Up
I am fed up with upset CP's, people who don't want to relocate, indignant BALPA members, and all. I've just lost my job for the 3rd time in 5 years, as an FO who could now be a Captain, but will now end up as an FO at the bottom of someone else's seniority list. I am a parent, and am over 40 years old.
Shut up and get a life, you selfish lot. Or at least, try to be constructive.
Shut up and get a life, you selfish lot. Or at least, try to be constructive.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roy Hud
Sorry you are loosing your job.
I feel that I was far from indigant as a BALPA member, only teling it like it is.
MYT is cutting jobs NOT BALPA.
Pilots may jump ship and the ship may sail on and you may be rescued from the life boat.
You and other pilots are on your own without BALPA and you should join or be prepaired to swim in a sea full of sharks that is aviation today.
P.S. Hows EMU
Sorry you are loosing your job.
I feel that I was far from indigant as a BALPA member, only teling it like it is.
MYT is cutting jobs NOT BALPA.
Pilots may jump ship and the ship may sail on and you may be rescued from the life boat.
You and other pilots are on your own without BALPA and you should join or be prepaired to swim in a sea full of sharks that is aviation today.
P.S. Hows EMU
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
Just imagine how blo*dy awful it would be for all of us without BALPA. It would be like working for that O'Reilly chap at Ryanair.
OK, the solution's not perfect but it's better than the company's likely solution.
For those who have taken the pay rises and the steadily improving rostering on the back of their colleagues' subs to BALPA.....well who cares about your opinion anyway. You've sponged for too long. Go and join a non-union outfit and see how you get on there.
I'm with the silent majority backing BALPA.
Just imagine how blo*dy awful it would be for all of us without BALPA. It would be like working for that O'Reilly chap at Ryanair.
OK, the solution's not perfect but it's better than the company's likely solution.
For those who have taken the pay rises and the steadily improving rostering on the back of their colleagues' subs to BALPA.....well who cares about your opinion anyway. You've sponged for too long. Go and join a non-union outfit and see how you get on there.
I'm with the silent majority backing BALPA.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bernulli
The spungers may think the grass is greener but it still is fxxxxxx grass! BALPA are doing a good job for us.
I'm with the majority. And it's BALPA members with MYT
The spungers may think the grass is greener but it still is fxxxxxx grass! BALPA are doing a good job for us.
I'm with the majority. And it's BALPA members with MYT