BA Pilots to ballot for strike over OpenSkies
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Barking
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming all this goes ahead , will it actually be possible afterwards to go direct entry to openskies without ever working for mainline.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO OpenSkies is a reactive and separate business opportunity. If it were my money/trainset I'd do it this way too. So I have to say, it will be a NO to strike action for me.
Please don't shoot me down for stating my opinion, and no I am not a management stooge.
Please don't shoot me down for stating my opinion, and no I am not a management stooge.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: London
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
demonmonkey,
appreciate the comments, I too will have to seriously consider which box I will tick; the BACC are not denying that openskies is a great opportunity for BA - for a nil cost option, with openskies crew being on the mainline seniority list, I can't see why the LT would wish to push this to a strike.
Recently flying with a SM the argument was - BALPA will, if OS crew join the mainline seniority list, eventually push for equal terms and conditions! hence OS will fail! BALPA have said that they except equal terms and conditions!!!!! in order for OS to succeed! so why not BA agree to OS guys having the benefits that we have now - a flow between fleets??
good blog for any interested.....
http://ba-strike.*************/2008/...ke-ballot.html
agree with Super Stall - if you knew the facts!!!! BA pilots/BALPA are not against open skies!!!! It could be great for BA - amazing with the support of the pilot community.
appreciate the comments, I too will have to seriously consider which box I will tick; the BACC are not denying that openskies is a great opportunity for BA - for a nil cost option, with openskies crew being on the mainline seniority list, I can't see why the LT would wish to push this to a strike.
Recently flying with a SM the argument was - BALPA will, if OS crew join the mainline seniority list, eventually push for equal terms and conditions! hence OS will fail! BALPA have said that they except equal terms and conditions!!!!! in order for OS to succeed! so why not BA agree to OS guys having the benefits that we have now - a flow between fleets??
good blog for any interested.....
http://ba-strike.*************/2008/...ke-ballot.html
agree with Super Stall - if you knew the facts!!!! BA pilots/BALPA are not against open skies!!!! It could be great for BA - amazing with the support of the pilot community.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA's proposal benefits everyone in this scenario. Mainline terms and conditions are infinitely easier to protect and DEPs in OS have a much easier route into mainline when their seniority number permits it. No-one wins long-term if BA get their way with this. It's just the very thin end of a very long wedge that ultimately will see all of our terms and conditions diminished in, I would suggest, all airlines. After all, if BA manage to destroy mainline T and Cs such that top pay skippers earn 50k less than they do now, can anyone see VS sitting back and letting that go unnoticed?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgo - no. Go did not ever use BA aircraft or Pilots.
The crucial difference though is that Go was never going to affect BA's core (80% of profits) business - the North Atlantic. OS aircraft will be carrying passengers that would otherwise be on Mainline seats, and it's very easy to extrapolate from that why BA will use this to drive down everyones pay & conditions, and thus why I'm 100% behind the BACC....
The crucial difference though is that Go was never going to affect BA's core (80% of profits) business - the North Atlantic. OS aircraft will be carrying passengers that would otherwise be on Mainline seats, and it's very easy to extrapolate from that why BA will use this to drive down everyones pay & conditions, and thus why I'm 100% behind the BACC....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read with much interest the threads over this. I see both sides, BA management will do what ever they see fit as a PLC company. Whilst i appreciate BA pilots want to protect their t&c's, I applaud you for this, however, everyone is entitled to apply to openskies and shouldnt be held responsible, everyone will do what is right for them. I question the strength of BALPA and its motives. Remember there is no sentiment in business and there is always someone there ready to fill your shoes. Just as an example Tesco opens stores worldwide and employ people on different t&c's and do they really care about their employees welfares, all they care about is the $ in the bank! Your only as good as your last flight!
PS....As the daily mail says 'your all good looking'!!!
PS....As the daily mail says 'your all good looking'!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I question the strength of BALPA and its motives
I think you will find that BA is doing the same.
Talked to 4 of my mates in the carrier today and will say this. All are level headed and pragmatic people who understand that change in a changing world is a must. Of the 4 of them guess how many fully support the BACC on this issue?
Survey says: 4/4= 100%
Anyone want to wager when the company backs down?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Smoke
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3221899.ece
Extracts from full article in The Times today:
Hmmm.
Extracts from full article in The Times today:
British Airways pilots use Heathrow crash as weapon in dispute
The pilots’ union will use the narrowly averted disaster last Thursday to appeal today to British Airways to abandon what it claims could be a weakening of safety standards at a new sister airline.
Minutes before a Boeing 777 crash-landed at Heathrow, the BA committee of the British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa) had voted to hold a strike ballot among the airline’s 3,000 pilots.
The union, which is objecting to BA’s plans to create an airline with a separate body of pilots who will fly between New York and Paris or Brussels, decided to suspend the ballot to allow the airline to focus on recovering from the crash-landing.
BA has claimed that the safety standards will be the same at the new airline, OpenSkies, as at the main company.
But Balpa says that it is concerned that separate qualifications are being introduced, meaning that OpenSkies’ pilots would have to take additional courses if they wanted to transfer to British Airways.
Balpa will argue today that the crash underlined the importance of having highly trained and experienced pilots conforming to a common set of standards. BA has praised the quick actions of the pilots, John Coward and Peter Burkill, in preventing a far worse incident.
Jim McAuslan, Balpa’s general secretary, said: “If the past 72 hours haven’t changed the company’s mind, I don’t know what will. We are concerned that OpenSkies may have different standards.
“We are also concerned that, once you start outsourcing, you lose control of quality.”
The pilots’ union will use the narrowly averted disaster last Thursday to appeal today to British Airways to abandon what it claims could be a weakening of safety standards at a new sister airline.
Minutes before a Boeing 777 crash-landed at Heathrow, the BA committee of the British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa) had voted to hold a strike ballot among the airline’s 3,000 pilots.
The union, which is objecting to BA’s plans to create an airline with a separate body of pilots who will fly between New York and Paris or Brussels, decided to suspend the ballot to allow the airline to focus on recovering from the crash-landing.
BA has claimed that the safety standards will be the same at the new airline, OpenSkies, as at the main company.
But Balpa says that it is concerned that separate qualifications are being introduced, meaning that OpenSkies’ pilots would have to take additional courses if they wanted to transfer to British Airways.
Balpa will argue today that the crash underlined the importance of having highly trained and experienced pilots conforming to a common set of standards. BA has praised the quick actions of the pilots, John Coward and Peter Burkill, in preventing a far worse incident.
Jim McAuslan, Balpa’s general secretary, said: “If the past 72 hours haven’t changed the company’s mind, I don’t know what will. We are concerned that OpenSkies may have different standards.
“We are also concerned that, once you start outsourcing, you lose control of quality.”
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst i commend the pilots of BA 38. I am astounded that the Times would make such remarks about the capabilities of other pilots for other reputable airlines. I seem to remember that some of the best aviators in the world came from far and afield and not just the UK and BA. We all strive for perfection,that is about being a professional, when the day comes that you dont strive for perfection, it is time to hang up your hat. How dare they say that BA pilots are better than other airlines pilots, we all do the same job. 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my two cents, or pence in this case.
If there was ever a reason to strike this is it! If you allow the camels head in to the tent on this issue you will be forever lost. Stand your ground and DEMAND that BA management use BA crew at existing rates. The APA and I think all Oneworld unions will support you on this. This is a watershed event gentlemen! Make no mistake!
If there was ever a reason to strike this is it! If you allow the camels head in to the tent on this issue you will be forever lost. Stand your ground and DEMAND that BA management use BA crew at existing rates. The APA and I think all Oneworld unions will support you on this. This is a watershed event gentlemen! Make no mistake!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This action is ridiculously out of proportion, and headlines in every daily newspaper screaming "BA pilots to strike" will not be at all helpful to the airline during its peak booking season.
As I understand it, the core BA mainline fleet will either remain at the same size or will grow. In order to release the 757s for Open Skies, the A320-211s (the BCal order) will remain in the fleet for around three to four years longer than originally planned. They had been scheduled for retirement this year and next year, but will instead remain in the fleet to free up 757s from short-haul operations to go to Open Skies.
On that basis, no BA pilots will lose jobs and their promotion prospects will be no better or no worse than they were before Open Skies was born because the BA mainline fleet size will be exactly the same.
Surely there is a compromise here which says that as long as the BA mainline fleet remains at X aircraft and can continue to grow with the scheduled deliveries of the four extra 777s and then A380s/787s further down the line, then that ought to suffice? Striking over putting two 757s into Europe on non BA T&Cs is simply ridiculous and those favouring such action really need to stand back and consider just how ridiculous this is. Provided that there is no impact on BA's mainline fleet, why should BALPA have the right to represent crews on those aircraft and be on mainline T&Cs? No other start-up airline would be forced to.
If you want to ensure that the operation cannot be a "Trojan Horse" then propose some kind of ring-fencing of the core BA mainline fleet of X aircraft in return for which Open Skies could operate 2,3,4 aircraft - whatever. If it grows beyond that point, Open Skies could only add an aircraft if BA mainline adds an aircraft to its mainline fleet. That way, you ensure that the existing BA jobs are protected and that growth prospects still exist in both operations. A strike will be messy, there is no guarantee you will win and if you lose the battle, you will be far worse off than a sensibly-negotiated compromise like this which meets everyone's needs and avoids a serious impact on BA customer perception this year.
As I understand it, the core BA mainline fleet will either remain at the same size or will grow. In order to release the 757s for Open Skies, the A320-211s (the BCal order) will remain in the fleet for around three to four years longer than originally planned. They had been scheduled for retirement this year and next year, but will instead remain in the fleet to free up 757s from short-haul operations to go to Open Skies.
On that basis, no BA pilots will lose jobs and their promotion prospects will be no better or no worse than they were before Open Skies was born because the BA mainline fleet size will be exactly the same.
Surely there is a compromise here which says that as long as the BA mainline fleet remains at X aircraft and can continue to grow with the scheduled deliveries of the four extra 777s and then A380s/787s further down the line, then that ought to suffice? Striking over putting two 757s into Europe on non BA T&Cs is simply ridiculous and those favouring such action really need to stand back and consider just how ridiculous this is. Provided that there is no impact on BA's mainline fleet, why should BALPA have the right to represent crews on those aircraft and be on mainline T&Cs? No other start-up airline would be forced to.
If you want to ensure that the operation cannot be a "Trojan Horse" then propose some kind of ring-fencing of the core BA mainline fleet of X aircraft in return for which Open Skies could operate 2,3,4 aircraft - whatever. If it grows beyond that point, Open Skies could only add an aircraft if BA mainline adds an aircraft to its mainline fleet. That way, you ensure that the existing BA jobs are protected and that growth prospects still exist in both operations. A strike will be messy, there is no guarantee you will win and if you lose the battle, you will be far worse off than a sensibly-negotiated compromise like this which meets everyone's needs and avoids a serious impact on BA customer perception this year.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supine huh? BA pilots haven't been on strike for 20 years because management have always settled. Do you think they think we are supine. They might be trying it on now, but I've still got three months salary stashed away from the last dispute. I'll last a strike longer than BA will.
Albert Hall - BA's word counts for nothing. Once Open Skies starts without pilots on the seniority list BA will simply ignore any agreement on it's restrictions. BA predict just 3% growth at LHR. Any significant future growth in BA is out of the EU or in the US if the 2nd stage of the Open Skies treaty goes ahead. BA pilots are not prepared to see themselves excluded from this work in return for a handful of new aircraft at LHR.
Albert Hall - BA's word counts for nothing. Once Open Skies starts without pilots on the seniority list BA will simply ignore any agreement on it's restrictions. BA predict just 3% growth at LHR. Any significant future growth in BA is out of the EU or in the US if the 2nd stage of the Open Skies treaty goes ahead. BA pilots are not prepared to see themselves excluded from this work in return for a handful of new aircraft at LHR.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that 777 sitting on the grass didn't really wake anybody up down at waterside did it! mainly because it will have less effect on profits than the fine our inept management incurred last year. (100 mill right off for the jet, what did we right off due to w*nkers on phones?)
had it been sitting in the middle of hatton cross the i shudder to think.
seems the 2 seconds off pilots being clapped into the lobby and thanked for their efforts counted for f*ck all.
willy dosen't want the best pilots flying for the safest airline. he's not interested in working with us. he really doesn't give a fig about BA. willy is only in it for whatever makes him the most cash in the shortest time. and that means he want's the cheapest pilots flying for an airline that's just safe enough, and only for as long as he is hanging around. this is the start of the end, unless we say enough is enough.
i can stay out longer than the board will let willy keep me out. massive mortgage, kid and expensive lifestyle will not be an excuse. if i don't my already reduced pension will be calculated against a much reduced final salary, and all so that a bunch of greedy snake oil salesmen can swan off into the sunset with bags of cash, sorry boys id rather buy a smaller house and teach the rich stupid wannabes that os will be recruiting than impoverish my future for the boards present.
f*ck 'm
had it been sitting in the middle of hatton cross the i shudder to think.
seems the 2 seconds off pilots being clapped into the lobby and thanked for their efforts counted for f*ck all.
willy dosen't want the best pilots flying for the safest airline. he's not interested in working with us. he really doesn't give a fig about BA. willy is only in it for whatever makes him the most cash in the shortest time. and that means he want's the cheapest pilots flying for an airline that's just safe enough, and only for as long as he is hanging around. this is the start of the end, unless we say enough is enough.
i can stay out longer than the board will let willy keep me out. massive mortgage, kid and expensive lifestyle will not be an excuse. if i don't my already reduced pension will be calculated against a much reduced final salary, and all so that a bunch of greedy snake oil salesmen can swan off into the sunset with bags of cash, sorry boys id rather buy a smaller house and teach the rich stupid wannabes that os will be recruiting than impoverish my future for the boards present.
f*ck 'm
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Qantas pilots went through this process 3 years ago and are now paying for their trust in management by the planned exponential expansion of Jetstar International without their involvement.
Committee members were told back then that Jetstar International would be no more than 9 aircraft. Latest orders of the 787 have 115 to the group and the CEO saying they could ALL go to Jetstar if it suited them.
BA guys, learn from the management text book writ large for you. Either get yourselves into those flight decks from day one or forget about what you thought were your career plans. Not a warning, just a simple statement of fact.
Good luck guys and girls.
Committee members were told back then that Jetstar International would be no more than 9 aircraft. Latest orders of the 787 have 115 to the group and the CEO saying they could ALL go to Jetstar if it suited them.
BA guys, learn from the management text book writ large for you. Either get yourselves into those flight decks from day one or forget about what you thought were your career plans. Not a warning, just a simple statement of fact.
Good luck guys and girls.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The heavy heavy, I think it is unreasonable and unfair to drag the recent 777 event into this debate. With due respect and huge credit to what those guys achieved last week, it's insulting and degrading to other pilots to say that they could only have achieved the same safe outcome only if they were on the BA seniority list or were BALPA members. We both know that's a sweeping generalisation and I suggest that we park that subject on the other topic where it rightly belongs and has an equal right to be discussed at length.
I think it is also worth mentioning that airlines cannot run themselves. Whatever you may think of those who work in Waterside, they do have a job to do, just the same as you. There's a hell of a lot less people working in Waterside and Compass Centre than there were five years ago. I'm not saying that it's enough less than there were - there may be scope for further cuts, I don't know - but BA or any airline cannot function without them. Just remember that some of those "w*nkers on phones" are the people who sort out your payslip and transfer money to your bank account each month. Would you rather sack all them and not get paid? I think not.
I stick by my views. BA may predict only 3% growth in LHR but that figure is not going to get any better or worse regardless of whether Open Skies takes off. That's what you signed up to, and it's not worth foregoing that 3% growth as long as you have some protection of the core operation and a deal which ensures that growth is spread through both mainline and the subsidiary. The Qantas guys don't sound to have done that, but it shouldn't take a strike or threat of one to achieve the protection you need.
I think it is also worth mentioning that airlines cannot run themselves. Whatever you may think of those who work in Waterside, they do have a job to do, just the same as you. There's a hell of a lot less people working in Waterside and Compass Centre than there were five years ago. I'm not saying that it's enough less than there were - there may be scope for further cuts, I don't know - but BA or any airline cannot function without them. Just remember that some of those "w*nkers on phones" are the people who sort out your payslip and transfer money to your bank account each month. Would you rather sack all them and not get paid? I think not.
I stick by my views. BA may predict only 3% growth in LHR but that figure is not going to get any better or worse regardless of whether Open Skies takes off. That's what you signed up to, and it's not worth foregoing that 3% growth as long as you have some protection of the core operation and a deal which ensures that growth is spread through both mainline and the subsidiary. The Qantas guys don't sound to have done that, but it shouldn't take a strike or threat of one to achieve the protection you need.