BA Pilots to ballot for strike over OpenSkies
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB - incorrect, it was an IFALPA ban. I'd say it stands to reason that it had some sort of effect otherwise the management wouldn't have made lifting it a pre-condition of starting talks.
Like I said, it's not the B all and end all but it's a handy tool and Capt Kremlin is spot on about the effect on the ban breakers at Aer Lingus.
If you leave a half decent job to join an airline under a ban then you should know what you're getting into, it's unpleasant and with so many other jobs out there at the moment I think it'll be quite effective in this case.
Like I said, it's not the B all and end all but it's a handy tool and Capt Kremlin is spot on about the effect on the ban breakers at Aer Lingus.
If you leave a half decent job to join an airline under a ban then you should know what you're getting into, it's unpleasant and with so many other jobs out there at the moment I think it'll be quite effective in this case.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the proposed OpenSkies config being just 82 seats, won't it fall into a similar category as the BA CityFlyer RJ 100s when it comes to operating outside of the Scope agreement if you have less than 100 seats?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is stra-a-a-a-a-a-nge (he said in a very sarcastic voice).
When bmi wanted to form bmibaby and went ahead with the creation of a lesser paid/treated workforce using press-ganged bmi mainline emplyees (redundancy or relocation being the coshes used) BALPA not only didn't fight the attempt they actually helped it along.
Can someone explain why BAlpa did this and yet are willing to support a fight in the case of BA????????????????
No?
Thought not.
When bmi wanted to form bmibaby and went ahead with the creation of a lesser paid/treated workforce using press-ganged bmi mainline emplyees (redundancy or relocation being the coshes used) BALPA not only didn't fight the attempt they actually helped it along.
Can someone explain why BAlpa did this and yet are willing to support a fight in the case of BA????????????????
No?
Thought not.
Controversial, moi?
BA pilots are a MINORITY within BALPA.
Presumably BMI BALPA pilots have elected representatives and have a BMI Company Council?
If so perhaps you had better ask that question of them rather than BA BALPA pilot's who have absolutely nothing to do with the running of the BMI company council.
Presumably BMI BALPA pilots have elected representatives and have a BMI Company Council?
If so perhaps you had better ask that question of them rather than BA BALPA pilot's who have absolutely nothing to do with the running of the BMI company council.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the proposed OpenSkies config being just 82 seats, won't it fall into a similar category as the BA CityFlyer RJ 100s when it comes to operating outside of the Scope agreement if you have less than 100 seats?
acbus1 - do bmibaby pilots have a number on the bmi master seniority list?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pilots are a MINORITY within BALPA.
Presumably BMI BALPA pilots have elected representatives and have a BMI Company Council?
About time BAlpa head office did their elected job and revised the whole corrupt and ineffective mess.
If so perhaps you had better ask that question of them rather than BA BALPA pilot's who have absolutely nothing to do with the running of the BMI company council.
Apart from that obvious point, aren't we all in the "union" together, then? Don't you have any concern for your bretheren in bmi? Aren't you worried that BAlpa resoures are being unfairly allocated? Aren't you concerned by the precedents set in bmi?
Or are you only interested in yourself and know full well that BAlpa has the same BiAs?
"I'm all right, Jack (or, in this case, Barrie)" is the Nigellian BAttle cry.
Misallocation of resources and self interest rule. So much for being a "union". It disgusts me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trust you have looked at the BALPA books and have evidence that BA pilots get the lions share of resources, or are you just shooting from the hip?
Re the BMI CC:
Well who voted for them? BMI pilots surely? If your company council doesn't perform then get rid of it! We have had a 'Night of the long knives' in BA in the past when those we felt were more interested in representing their own interests than ours were purged, much to their shock. It worked for us, perhaps you should try it.
Well there has recently been a big change at the top of the NEC, but notwithstanding that the leadership has to come from your own company council. If they tell head office there is no appetite for a fight then it's not head offices job to refute that.
Yes we are in the union together. Yes we are concerned for our brethren in bmi. I don't know if resources are unfairly allocated within BALPA, but I know the BACC has to fight for funds from head office and we take out a lot less than we put it in subs. And yes, we are concerned by the precedents set in bmi, and other airlines, but what do you think BA pilots could do about it?
I'm sure it's very comforting to be able to blame BALPA and BA for all your woes, but everything that has been achieved by the BACC in BA has come from the BACC: pay reform, pensions, Scope, rostering reform. It's all come primarily from the BACC with admin and some negotiating support from BALPA head office. So just to clarify, is your complaint that BALPA head office turned down the BMI CCs request for admin and negotiating support, or that the BMI CC didn't have the cojones to stand up to the company?
Re the BMI CC:
An interesting mix of interests are represented. Mainly an interest in weedling their way into management via selling their colleagues down the river in order to gain favour.
About time BAlpa head office did their elected job and revised the whole corrupt and ineffective (outside of BA) mess.
Apart from that obvious point, aren't we all in the "union" together, then? Don't you have any concern for your bretheren in bmi? Aren't you worried that BAlpa resoures are being unfairly allocated? Aren't you concerned by the precedents set in bmi?
I'm sure it's very comforting to be able to blame BALPA and BA for all your woes, but everything that has been achieved by the BACC in BA has come from the BACC: pay reform, pensions, Scope, rostering reform. It's all come primarily from the BACC with admin and some negotiating support from BALPA head office. So just to clarify, is your complaint that BALPA head office turned down the BMI CCs request for admin and negotiating support, or that the BMI CC didn't have the cojones to stand up to the company?
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
acbus1: if bmi pilots are in a dispute, then BALPA will support them.
If you think we are only interested in ourselves, then please explain why pilot unions from around the world are pouring in messages of support and advice.
Do you not think that there are wider implications for all EU-based pilots, including, presumably, yourself?
If you think we are only interested in ourselves, then please explain why pilot unions from around the world are pouring in messages of support and advice.
Do you not think that there are wider implications for all EU-based pilots, including, presumably, yourself?
Why is this case any different than either Go or Brymon, both of which were wholly owned by BA and working on entirely different terms and conditions? There were no strike ballots then, so what has changed?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GO was set up to chase a different market from mainline. They went for budget travellers when BA was still only interested in high yield. Brymon never operated anything above 100 seats and BRAL only had 4 BAe 146s which were permitted under the 2003 Scope agreements.
On the other hand, OS is set up to chase premium transatlantic passengers, which sounds remarkably similar to BA mainlines business plan.
On the other hand, OS is set up to chase premium transatlantic passengers, which sounds remarkably similar to BA mainlines business plan.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brymon was at one time an independant airline. It was purchased by BA and it became a wholly owned subsidiary of BA, although it operated seperate to BA. Then came BACX and the the name disappeared along with BRAL and Manx and eventually BAR, but still that was what most people suspect was the intention!
For what its worth I'm with you TR and all the Nigels. What BA management is trying to do is slash and burn your jobs, but to those who compare BACX with Open Skies consider this: Brymon was completely seperate to Mainline and its employees both enjoyed the benefits of BA but also contributed to its financial bottom line. BRAL/Manx were purchased by BA and the 3 companys were merged with BAR. Up until then they did their own thing operating routes that BA did'nt or could'nt do(PLH eg). The employees in Brymon/BRAL/Manx were either happy to stay where they were enjoying the lifestyle of a regional pilot living where they wanted to live with a reduced income or they used it as stepping stone and moved on. BA and BACX ruined that and they found themselves forced to have reduced lifestyle along with reduced salarys. These pilots NEVER asked to undercut BA pilots although BA Management forced them to do so being made to fly the RJ for much less than BA pilots.
Anyway ladies and gentlemen I support you in your struggle. Good luck!
For what its worth I'm with you TR and all the Nigels. What BA management is trying to do is slash and burn your jobs, but to those who compare BACX with Open Skies consider this: Brymon was completely seperate to Mainline and its employees both enjoyed the benefits of BA but also contributed to its financial bottom line. BRAL/Manx were purchased by BA and the 3 companys were merged with BAR. Up until then they did their own thing operating routes that BA did'nt or could'nt do(PLH eg). The employees in Brymon/BRAL/Manx were either happy to stay where they were enjoying the lifestyle of a regional pilot living where they wanted to live with a reduced income or they used it as stepping stone and moved on. BA and BACX ruined that and they found themselves forced to have reduced lifestyle along with reduced salarys. These pilots NEVER asked to undercut BA pilots although BA Management forced them to do so being made to fly the RJ for much less than BA pilots.
Anyway ladies and gentlemen I support you in your struggle. Good luck!
Last edited by Shark Slayer; 28th Jan 2008 at 00:18. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: T5
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the wording of title does not seem to make sense !
I would imagine that the actual text within the IFALPA industrial manual asks other groups/companies not to come rushing to BAs aide by providing sub chartered airframes or aircrew's - over any period of industrial unrest.
I would imagine that the actual text within the IFALPA industrial manual asks other groups/companies not to come rushing to BAs aide by providing sub chartered airframes or aircrew's - over any period of industrial unrest.