Trouble Brewing at CitiExpress
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Timbucktoo
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite so Mr Angry.
Within BA CX you have to look at this latest affront to the pilot community against a background of:
Apalling roster instability
Very high levels of disruption
Crew shortages due to lack of forward planning
Morale sub zero
To make matters worse the company seriously proposed that any wage increase should be paid for by cutting disruption payments and Mr DF has been on the phone to just about every available pilot to try to pursuade him/her to give up leave!!
An operation in crisis is hardly going to be helped by resorting to intimidation of pilots to fly beyond prescribed hours of safety.
Within BA CX you have to look at this latest affront to the pilot community against a background of:
Apalling roster instability
Very high levels of disruption
Crew shortages due to lack of forward planning
Morale sub zero
To make matters worse the company seriously proposed that any wage increase should be paid for by cutting disruption payments and Mr DF has been on the phone to just about every available pilot to try to pursuade him/her to give up leave!!
An operation in crisis is hardly going to be helped by resorting to intimidation of pilots to fly beyond prescribed hours of safety.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheikh - thought it worth 'popping back in' to the discussion as it is beginning to appear that the 'refusal' of discretion might have had more to do with industrial issues than actual safety. Even more important that the captain concerned is extremely careful as I tried to indicate earlier. Please do NOT get the impression that I do not sympathise with what you describe as your work patterns - there are cautions, however, which need to be heeded.
I suspect the CAA will have little interest if this is the case. BALPA may also 'disappoint'.
An old ploy when telephoned by management to be 'pressured' into extending is to have terrible trouble with the phone line and to say " I don't know if you can still hear me, but can you send me a telex message as I cannot hear you". You will not hear much more.
I suspect the CAA will have little interest if this is the case. BALPA may also 'disappoint'.
An old ploy when telephoned by management to be 'pressured' into extending is to have terrible trouble with the phone line and to say " I don't know if you can still hear me, but can you send me a telex message as I cannot hear you". You will not hear much more.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes this situation galling is that I believe Mr DF has not been very active flying wise for some years.
Could someone give us some idea of how many flying hours TDF has achieved over the last 3 years? Perhaps more interesting would be his total command experience on any airliner!
For someone with so little experience to be suspending a skipper for apparently refusing discretion is poor. Had he been forced to work the rosters and cope with recent disruption he might better appreciate the current attitudes and lack of morale.
BP
Could someone give us some idea of how many flying hours TDF has achieved over the last 3 years? Perhaps more interesting would be his total command experience on any airliner!
For someone with so little experience to be suspending a skipper for apparently refusing discretion is poor. Had he been forced to work the rosters and cope with recent disruption he might better appreciate the current attitudes and lack of morale.
BP
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: GB
Age: 69
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discretion is (should be) simply there in order to be able to fly home after say the 3rd sector downroute, having suffered a delay for whatever reason.
If it seems like that the arrival into destination (4th sector) will have to be under discretion, then that's what the crew should be deciding upon before leaving for the 4th sector from downroute.
I think in most cases we would all be wanting to bring the flight home.
However, to leave base (3rd sector) knowing that discretion will definitely have to be used and it is because of poor rostering, perhaps right up to max FDP, then I would not be doing it. Why???
Because no one knows how badly I may have slept the night before, because no one can measure my accumulative fatigue over the last few days, because I may consider operating beyond the legal limit UNSAFE.
Sure, they may say to me: fly your 3rd sector and then stay downroute, or set off home (4th sector) and land half way, or similar nonsense, which can not be refused, but then DO IT, do just that.
Stay there or land somewhere, thereby teaching the bully department that you have rights which you will stand up for!
You have a life, you ARE life. It's YOUR life.
If it seems like that the arrival into destination (4th sector) will have to be under discretion, then that's what the crew should be deciding upon before leaving for the 4th sector from downroute.
I think in most cases we would all be wanting to bring the flight home.
However, to leave base (3rd sector) knowing that discretion will definitely have to be used and it is because of poor rostering, perhaps right up to max FDP, then I would not be doing it. Why???
Because no one knows how badly I may have slept the night before, because no one can measure my accumulative fatigue over the last few days, because I may consider operating beyond the legal limit UNSAFE.
Sure, they may say to me: fly your 3rd sector and then stay downroute, or set off home (4th sector) and land half way, or similar nonsense, which can not be refused, but then DO IT, do just that.
Stay there or land somewhere, thereby teaching the bully department that you have rights which you will stand up for!
You have a life, you ARE life. It's YOUR life.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately ABird747s nightmare scenario would never occur as BA cabin crew would walk off the aircraft leaving passengers stranded the moment they went beyond their industrial limits, which usually fall well short of CAP371. The issue of discretion with them is a total non-issue. It just ain't happening!
Never a truer word spoken. I have never come across a bunch of people so intent on getting off a service the second they can as this lot at BA.
Except of course if they are going home or going to a premium destination.
By the way did peple on here know that BA's beloved cabin crew get extra money (to stop them going sick) for going to "unpopular" destinations such as Miami?
And we wonder why we have problems making money!!
BTSM
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is becoming highly personalised in a completely unnecessary manner! I know from personal experience that, in BACX, any reasonable refusal to work into discretion is accepted without question.
However, please re-read GWYN's hypothetical situation!
Let us say, hypothetically speaking, a Captain cancelled a service on the basis of his FTL limits, having previously indicated his refusal to utilise any discretion, and entirely on the basis of a slot delay!
Wouldn't his passengers, and on their behalf his management, be entitled to ask why the service was cancelled, if it subsequently transpired that, due to slot improvement, the service could have operated within the crew's normal FDP?
Some might say, this captain could be accused of letting down his customers, his airline, AND his colleagues!
Perhaps he needs a reality check!
Hypothetically speaking of course!
Sheikh Zabik;
I assume you know the full story, and can clear this up for us?
However, please re-read GWYN's hypothetical situation!
Let us say, hypothetically speaking, a Captain cancelled a service on the basis of his FTL limits, having previously indicated his refusal to utilise any discretion, and entirely on the basis of a slot delay!
Wouldn't his passengers, and on their behalf his management, be entitled to ask why the service was cancelled, if it subsequently transpired that, due to slot improvement, the service could have operated within the crew's normal FDP?
Some might say, this captain could be accused of letting down his customers, his airline, AND his colleagues!
Perhaps he needs a reality check!
Hypothetically speaking of course!
Sheikh Zabik;
I assume you know the full story, and can clear this up for us?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PommyLand - but I'll be back!
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks TR
It's pleasing to know that at least one person is able to read and understand what I believed to be a quite clear outline of a hypothetical scenario, and comment upon it.
Perhaps those who know what really happened would care to enlighten the rest of us, and maybe the discussion might then be restricted to the real issues.
It's pleasing to know that at least one person is able to read and understand what I believed to be a quite clear outline of a hypothetical scenario, and comment upon it.
Perhaps those who know what really happened would care to enlighten the rest of us, and maybe the discussion might then be restricted to the real issues.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way did peple on here know that BA's beloved cabin crew get extra money (to stop them going sick) for going to "unpopular" destinations such as Miami?
Perhaps you ought to get your facts right before casting a jealous eye over your colleagues remuneration package.
<Steps down off soap box>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its from savings from BEP why is it still being paid? How can it be saved if they bare paying it?
Its a bribe to make the seagulls come to work.
As if they need it with CSD's basic running at circa £35k pa with 20 grand allowances on top.
Sorry for the thread creep. Can't help it when these over paid prima donnas, Windsor Witches and precious "boys", go on about their money.
£50 grand a year to serve the tea.
Also going back to the original thread.
Q.If the cabin crew refuse to extend past their industrial agreement(usually lees tha scheme) then do they have to justify it?
Ans. Absolutely not. Indeed there is a letter from BA advising cc that they should work to Industrial or scheme whichever is limiting.
It would seem that if a captain refuses to operate into discretion (way more than industrial) they he/she has to justify themselves to their manager, and,according to BOAC, have a limited career span.
One rule for one and one for BASSA who control the operation anyway.
BTSM
Its a bribe to make the seagulls come to work.
As if they need it with CSD's basic running at circa £35k pa with 20 grand allowances on top.
Sorry for the thread creep. Can't help it when these over paid prima donnas, Windsor Witches and precious "boys", go on about their money.
£50 grand a year to serve the tea.
Also going back to the original thread.
Q.If the cabin crew refuse to extend past their industrial agreement(usually lees tha scheme) then do they have to justify it?
Ans. Absolutely not. Indeed there is a letter from BA advising cc that they should work to Industrial or scheme whichever is limiting.
It would seem that if a captain refuses to operate into discretion (way more than industrial) they he/she has to justify themselves to their manager, and,according to BOAC, have a limited career span.
One rule for one and one for BASSA who control the operation anyway.
BTSM
Last edited by behind_the_second_midland; 30th Sep 2004 at 19:11.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all of us are on £50k pa. I for one am on a basic of 11k +allowances.
The reason that the payment came about was that BA asked cabin services (as it was then) to save X amount. Through union negotiation and the usual hand wringing the desired amount of savings were indentified. On top of these an unavoidable amount of say £2m (not the actual amount for argument's sake) extra was saved.
BA as a thank you for the savings said that they'd give it back to the crew. The best way of doing it and avoiding a higher tax burden on BA was the Destination Payment.
True, it has been put on certain less popular routes but only as a way of "softening" the blow of a long sector out to SEA for only a nightstop for example.
I cannot defend the bahviour of the small minority of crew who abuse the sickness system. Thankfully it seems to be on the decline with the attrition of said Windsor Witches (good one!) et al. One thing though, us tray slingers may go on about our money (especially at the lower end of the pay scale -- trying to make ends meet) but pilots are also known to go on about their pensions, bidline and pay package; people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I recognise why pilots who work very hard for their licences are pi$$ed off when they find that some lazy, old, leather winged CSD is earning more than them for doing diddly-squat. Trust me, it's not nice for us the other side of the door working with them either.
The reason that the payment came about was that BA asked cabin services (as it was then) to save X amount. Through union negotiation and the usual hand wringing the desired amount of savings were indentified. On top of these an unavoidable amount of say £2m (not the actual amount for argument's sake) extra was saved.
BA as a thank you for the savings said that they'd give it back to the crew. The best way of doing it and avoiding a higher tax burden on BA was the Destination Payment.
True, it has been put on certain less popular routes but only as a way of "softening" the blow of a long sector out to SEA for only a nightstop for example.
I cannot defend the bahviour of the small minority of crew who abuse the sickness system. Thankfully it seems to be on the decline with the attrition of said Windsor Witches (good one!) et al. One thing though, us tray slingers may go on about our money (especially at the lower end of the pay scale -- trying to make ends meet) but pilots are also known to go on about their pensions, bidline and pay package; people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I recognise why pilots who work very hard for their licences are pi$$ed off when they find that some lazy, old, leather winged CSD is earning more than them for doing diddly-squat. Trust me, it's not nice for us the other side of the door working with them either.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A-bird
Ok. You make some good points.
Maybe we shouldn't have hijacked this thread but we all have a soapbox.
I agree that it must be unpleasant working with some of these "WW's" and agree that this type don't help anyone, least out wage payers. However nor do the self righteous pompous flight crew types (of which you'll find a few on here).
God we're almost in agreement.
Will you go out with me?
BOAC. Poetic licence from your reply to Nigel.
BTSM
Ok. You make some good points.
Maybe we shouldn't have hijacked this thread but we all have a soapbox.
I agree that it must be unpleasant working with some of these "WW's" and agree that this type don't help anyone, least out wage payers. However nor do the self righteous pompous flight crew types (of which you'll find a few on here).
God we're almost in agreement.
Will you go out with me?
BOAC. Poetic licence from your reply to Nigel.
BTSM
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, BTSM, if that is 'poetic licence', I suggest you don't give up the day job to be a poet.
Tandemrotor has hit this particular nail on the head. No-one has given us enough FACTS to make comment on the detail of this case, just on the general topic. Based on what we have, without further information (from the Sheikh?), it is beginning to look like an 'industrial' refusal.
I would say to all who 'rely' on BALPA riding to their rescue if they petulantly refuse to extend when all are really fit to do so, purely for 'industrial' issues, then their 1% would have been much better spent having BALPA ride to their rescue over what they claim is unreasonable rostering and other 'practices'.
Tandemrotor has hit this particular nail on the head. No-one has given us enough FACTS to make comment on the detail of this case, just on the general topic. Based on what we have, without further information (from the Sheikh?), it is beginning to look like an 'industrial' refusal.
I would say to all who 'rely' on BALPA riding to their rescue if they petulantly refuse to extend when all are really fit to do so, purely for 'industrial' issues, then their 1% would have been much better spent having BALPA ride to their rescue over what they claim is unreasonable rostering and other 'practices'.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure the community that at LHR anarchy riegns and is never likely to go away. We are still masters at over paying and under working enjoying customs and practices that go back 29 years. I am in awe of the fact we still make money and it is the likes of BACX staff that will make the main commitments to cost savings followed by the regions whlist the fat continues to grow. I am sure that at some point in the future the party will have to stop.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when is discretion not discretion? When it is "Industrial". Is that what you are saying BOAC? Surely not!
CAP 371 is quite clear and makes the presumption in favour of limiting the duty to the permitted FDP. It is the exercise of discretion to extend a duty which requires justification possibly, not the lack of will to extend beyond permitted FDP. In my submission no justification is required and a Commander is entirely within his rights to refuse to "go into discretion" (which is a misleading phrase anyway) without assigning any reason whatsoever.
There can be no such distinction as between an "Industrial" reason or indeed any other for failing to agree to extend a duty period.
In the particular case the subject Commander is a well respected individual who has a number of issues with the company. Having elected to accept a 75% roster (A few months ago when CX was shedding pilots!) she found herself in a situation where she had almost as much FDP as a 100% roster due to some highly creative work by crewing. She was being rostered to the limit virtually every day. When she complained it is alleged that she was treated inappropriately and subsequently has been discriminated against on a number of grounds. This treatment is and was the subject of formal complaint which may or may not lead to Legal proceedings.
Against this background she found herself in a situation where a duty would extend beyond prescribed FDP, warned the company that she would not be prepared to extend before the duty (which they did not heed) and, surprise, surprise, when down the line FDP was to run out, packed her bags and went to a hotel for the night.
So BOAC, by your estimation, you would say this was an "Industrial" refusal. Here is someone who alleges that she is being abused by the Company on a number of fronts, with zero tolerance and goodwill as a result. The response of the manager concerned is of no surprise to those of us who are familiar with him. I suspect he will come to regret it.
What is needed is a clear statement either from the CAA or a judicial interpretation of what otherwise seems quite clear in plain english. Otherwise it appears that the word "discretion" will have been hijacked by inept management who, having lost the good will of their workforce, are seeking to beat yet more work out of an already tired and demoralised community.
CAP 371 is quite clear and makes the presumption in favour of limiting the duty to the permitted FDP. It is the exercise of discretion to extend a duty which requires justification possibly, not the lack of will to extend beyond permitted FDP. In my submission no justification is required and a Commander is entirely within his rights to refuse to "go into discretion" (which is a misleading phrase anyway) without assigning any reason whatsoever.
There can be no such distinction as between an "Industrial" reason or indeed any other for failing to agree to extend a duty period.
In the particular case the subject Commander is a well respected individual who has a number of issues with the company. Having elected to accept a 75% roster (A few months ago when CX was shedding pilots!) she found herself in a situation where she had almost as much FDP as a 100% roster due to some highly creative work by crewing. She was being rostered to the limit virtually every day. When she complained it is alleged that she was treated inappropriately and subsequently has been discriminated against on a number of grounds. This treatment is and was the subject of formal complaint which may or may not lead to Legal proceedings.
Against this background she found herself in a situation where a duty would extend beyond prescribed FDP, warned the company that she would not be prepared to extend before the duty (which they did not heed) and, surprise, surprise, when down the line FDP was to run out, packed her bags and went to a hotel for the night.
So BOAC, by your estimation, you would say this was an "Industrial" refusal. Here is someone who alleges that she is being abused by the Company on a number of fronts, with zero tolerance and goodwill as a result. The response of the manager concerned is of no surprise to those of us who are familiar with him. I suspect he will come to regret it.
What is needed is a clear statement either from the CAA or a judicial interpretation of what otherwise seems quite clear in plain english. Otherwise it appears that the word "discretion" will have been hijacked by inept management who, having lost the good will of their workforce, are seeking to beat yet more work out of an already tired and demoralised community.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you TT - at last we have some useful background. Please accept that I am not on 'managements' side' - my only 'management' experience was being CP of a one-man AOC where the discretionary decision was easy and unchallenged
I think where 'she' will have the problem (and I HAVE seen this happen before) is that the company will need to know how 'she' knew before departure 'she' (or the crew) would not be fit for the subsequent sector. Their argument could well be "Well, how did you know you would not be fit to return? Were you fit to operate the outbound sector, then?" I HAVE seen colleagues suffer at management's hands with such actions.
- no, I am not able to make that analysis. All I am saying is
1) be careful with this one or there could be 'tears'
2) it appears there are big 'industrial' issues in the company, so there is a possibility of this.
The fact that the company was advised before departure is to 'her' advantage.
As I have said before, and I know the CAA will support a company who press this - if you don't believe me, write to your ops inspector and ask him to put it in writing - captain's 'discretion' is normally 'expected' to be used to recover a situation PROVIDING THE CAPTAIN JUDGES THE FLIGHT CAN SAFELY BE MADE (my Italics). This is what I suspect TDLF will be promoting - ie 'Why could you not operate the sector safely?". That is solely the captain's call, but WILL NEED to be justified if challenged. C'est la Vie as my French 'friends' say.
Why don't you get that 'clear statement' from the CAA yourself? I suspect you will not like the answer. Read MJ's post on page 1 again - it is from CAP 371 - the only restriction in the CAA's eye's is "provided 'he' is satisfied that the flight can be made safely". 'Discretion' has been a problem for a long time, and this situation is not new - and I suspect will not go away.
I think where 'she' will have the problem (and I HAVE seen this happen before) is that the company will need to know how 'she' knew before departure 'she' (or the crew) would not be fit for the subsequent sector. Their argument could well be "Well, how did you know you would not be fit to return? Were you fit to operate the outbound sector, then?" I HAVE seen colleagues suffer at management's hands with such actions.
So BOAC, by your estimation, you would say this was an "Industrial" refusal
1) be careful with this one or there could be 'tears'
2) it appears there are big 'industrial' issues in the company, so there is a possibility of this.
The fact that the company was advised before departure is to 'her' advantage.
As I have said before, and I know the CAA will support a company who press this - if you don't believe me, write to your ops inspector and ask him to put it in writing - captain's 'discretion' is normally 'expected' to be used to recover a situation PROVIDING THE CAPTAIN JUDGES THE FLIGHT CAN SAFELY BE MADE (my Italics). This is what I suspect TDLF will be promoting - ie 'Why could you not operate the sector safely?". That is solely the captain's call, but WILL NEED to be justified if challenged. C'est la Vie as my French 'friends' say.
Why don't you get that 'clear statement' from the CAA yourself? I suspect you will not like the answer. Read MJ's post on page 1 again - it is from CAP 371 - the only restriction in the CAA's eye's is "provided 'he' is satisfied that the flight can be made safely". 'Discretion' has been a problem for a long time, and this situation is not new - and I suspect will not go away.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From BA bidline rules
(industrial)
It then says
ie any reason you can think of.
Therefore you can refuse to extend Industrial limits up to even FLTs(never mind discretion on that) and BALPA have publicly stated that they will fully support any pilot who refuses for whatever reason. Can't be any clearer than that.
Thankfully for BA this rarely happens.
BTSM
BLR 10.1 "British Airways will plan Trips within Section 10 limits; these are the limits of
the Pilot's contractual obligation."
the Pilot's contractual obligation."
It then says
British Airways may request and anticipate that the crew member will be prepared to extend to the relevant Flight Time Limitations of the British Airways Scheme. BA crew management recognises and accepts that there will be wholly proper reasons why, on occasion, an individual crew member will be unable to accede to this request. Such reasons would include (but need not be restricted to) the pre-flight rest obtained, previous fatiguing Duties, the displacement of the next Trip or social commitments of an important nature."
Therefore you can refuse to extend Industrial limits up to even FLTs(never mind discretion on that) and BALPA have publicly stated that they will fully support any pilot who refuses for whatever reason. Can't be any clearer than that.
Thankfully for BA this rarely happens.
BTSM
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinytim
Thank you for the few more details you have provided.
You said, "when down the line FDP was to run out, packed her bags and went to a hotel for the night."
As did her passengers presumably.
Can you confirm, or deny that this decision was taken on the basis of a slot delay, and that, had the slot come forward (as of course we know they can) the duty may have been completed with minimal extension, if any 'extension' at all?
Thank you for the few more details you have provided.
You said, "when down the line FDP was to run out, packed her bags and went to a hotel for the night."
As did her passengers presumably.
Can you confirm, or deny that this decision was taken on the basis of a slot delay, and that, had the slot come forward (as of course we know they can) the duty may have been completed with minimal extension, if any 'extension' at all?
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 1st Oct 2004 at 13:14.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTSM - repeating - introducing the 'comfy' BLR protection to this discussion is STILL a red herring! This is not BA Mainline. Remember BLR did not apply (as of July 5th) at LGW. Consider yourself lucky.
Last edited by BOAC; 1st Oct 2004 at 11:10.