BA Pilots to ballot for strike over OpenSkies
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't merit a reply really, Courtney, but
needs comment...
the BACC think that it does which is what the whole thing is about
another operation that doesn't affect you or your contracts
the BACC think that it does which is what the whole thing is about
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly the great British public will not support your strike action if it was to go ahead. Nurses and other low paid professionals will always get the sympathy vote. Notice how support for fireman and even the police is sadly lacking. Times have changed and the majority of the public aren't in unions nor do they have the support of the public sector and so having experienced or about to experience changes in their own circumstances won't be too happif if again their two weeks in the sun is disrupted.
The city gent will simply postpone or most likely re-book with an alternative carrier. As for the regions well don't worry as the first flight BA cancel is the MAN shuttle so landing back into LHR and being told your on your own yet again is the Managements way of harming things
The city gent will simply postpone or most likely re-book with an alternative carrier. As for the regions well don't worry as the first flight BA cancel is the MAN shuttle so landing back into LHR and being told your on your own yet again is the Managements way of harming things
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey what is it with you people and your 'public support' fixation? How many times do you have to be told we don't expect or need public support? Last time I checked you weren't flying the planes so whether you support the strike or not doesn't make one jot of difference.
It has been mentioned briefly before, but where exactly do the pilots in BA’s other subsidiary company - City Flyer Mk2 stand in all this?
Under current agreements, unless the company replaces the RJ 100’s with RJ85’s (or similar), their work transfers back to Mainline two years from now. So, what will happen to those affected by this transfer of work? BACC seem quite happy to have them on the BA list, and yet the company refuses. The assumption therefore must be that in BA’s eyes, their positions will become redundant in 2010.
BA might find itself in a bit of a pickle if it tries all the usual tricks to wriggle out of its obligations to offer suitable alternative employment to these people within the group. Through various TUPE arrangements, many have 15 years or more service with their ultimate employer BA. Like it or not, BA pull the strings at CF and are ultimately responsible. The courts are likely to take a dim view if BA tries to hide behind its corporate structure and play the subsidiary game in attempt to dump workers in one part of the group at the same time as recruiting in another.
Using the selection process to avoid its responsibilities is not likely to impress either. Precedents were set when BACX cabin crew were made redundant and were offered positions in Mainline. No selection tests for them, just a token “motivational” interview (which surprise surprise, they all passed). What is good enough for them should be good enough for pilots, particularly since they have been flying BA’s aircraft since 2001. They didn’t apply for the post, they were bought by BA.
If I was a CF pilot, I would be finding myself a good employment lawyer right now and demanding that WW now states exactly what he plans for CF staff in two years time. If there is no firm plan (in writing) to delver appropriate airframes then I would be demanding my place on the BA list right now, ahead of anyone recruited into OS. I would also expect full support from BACC and BALPA HQ.
So BA, if as you appear to be insisting there is no need to rework the agreements, what exactly do you intend to do with CF and its staff? Perhaps this should be sorted out first, before charging off on another subsidiary frolic.
Under current agreements, unless the company replaces the RJ 100’s with RJ85’s (or similar), their work transfers back to Mainline two years from now. So, what will happen to those affected by this transfer of work? BACC seem quite happy to have them on the BA list, and yet the company refuses. The assumption therefore must be that in BA’s eyes, their positions will become redundant in 2010.
BA might find itself in a bit of a pickle if it tries all the usual tricks to wriggle out of its obligations to offer suitable alternative employment to these people within the group. Through various TUPE arrangements, many have 15 years or more service with their ultimate employer BA. Like it or not, BA pull the strings at CF and are ultimately responsible. The courts are likely to take a dim view if BA tries to hide behind its corporate structure and play the subsidiary game in attempt to dump workers in one part of the group at the same time as recruiting in another.
Using the selection process to avoid its responsibilities is not likely to impress either. Precedents were set when BACX cabin crew were made redundant and were offered positions in Mainline. No selection tests for them, just a token “motivational” interview (which surprise surprise, they all passed). What is good enough for them should be good enough for pilots, particularly since they have been flying BA’s aircraft since 2001. They didn’t apply for the post, they were bought by BA.
If I was a CF pilot, I would be finding myself a good employment lawyer right now and demanding that WW now states exactly what he plans for CF staff in two years time. If there is no firm plan (in writing) to delver appropriate airframes then I would be demanding my place on the BA list right now, ahead of anyone recruited into OS. I would also expect full support from BACC and BALPA HQ.
So BA, if as you appear to be insisting there is no need to rework the agreements, what exactly do you intend to do with CF and its staff? Perhaps this should be sorted out first, before charging off on another subsidiary frolic.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't realise I was masquerading? I was always under the impression that anyone who really gave a stuff knew who I was..... 
Could be worse though. I've never failed to notice and take heed of the following which is written at the bottom of the homepage:
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
Well LHR747, as we know you're not the press......
Could be worse though. I've never failed to notice and take heed of the following which is written at the bottom of the homepage:
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
Well LHR747, as we know you're not the press......
Mistrust in Management
courtney
What an arrogant bunch of clowns you Nigels are.
there are more than a few cock ups in your cupboards.
It would seem that you believe the Daily Mail and all aclaiming your 'heroes' for saving 150 pax from certain death
People have got to be crazy to book flights with BA, one can never be sure that you prima donnas will bother to turn up for work.
Now to get away from Courtney (whoever he is), I understand (I think!) the reason why you are worried about 'open skies', but I would like to try and understand what will be achieved by industrial action to prevent it?
This question was asked by a BA F/O mate of mine a few days ago, and despite being a far brighter fellow I was a little perplexed.
The discussion went along the lines of 'no more expansion possible at LHR so BA need to find it elsewhere'.
My F/O mate was worried that his going on strike could be for 'nought' because there would always be a 100% presence at LHR and therefore there would never be a threat to current pilots T & C's.
I asked him to contact his BACC rep soonest.
Forgive my ignorance, but could somebody clearly state here what BALPA's objective's are and what the objection is. My only concern is to make sure my friend puts the right tick in the box.
Over to you Mr Judkins.
The BACC would like to discuss changing Schedule K to reflect the new regulatory environment - specifically the introduction of the Openskies Pt1 agreement. Part of Schedule K is designed to promote job security and career progression for BA pilots but, as it was written prior to Openskies agreements being considered, only applies to the UK. BA have refused (and continue to refuse) to discuss any amendment to Schedule K and therefore the BACC and BA are in dispute.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Exeng read Mick Stability's post plus a few others on this thread and you may see why so many of us in this industry think of BA as we do. As for what any of us would do to 'save a 150 lives' same as they did, flare a bit and wait. So the pilots haven't been on strike for a while, unfortunately just about everyone else has or are threatening to, the other problem is that the BA staff always give the impression thet they are doing you a big favour letting you on the aircraft. For longhaul, always use the far eastern carriers, they provide a service.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Courtney, you epitomise the reason reading pprune has become such a stale and unrewarding exercise - bitterness personified. Why not take the blinkers off marked "hate BA" for a change.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the green-eyed monster again in a different form. Once again, no-one in this dispute is forcing anyone outside to comment and nor do we care what you think, as we have the support from the people we need, thanks.
We'll just get on with it in our own time.
We'll just get on with it in our own time.
Last edited by overstress; 6th Feb 2008 at 08:23. Reason: apostrophe
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has developed into a classic Pprune thread when the moment someone disagrees, out come the flamethrowers, which become more thunderous with each individual who has the audacity to express a different opinion.
This thread clearly demonstrates the arrogance, selflessness and hypocrisy of those BA pilots who consider themselves above all others.
By all means fight your corner at fortress Heathrow and mount a strong defence of the T & Cs of BA mainline and any agreements in place should they be threatened. I suspect the T & Cs can only be changed/reduced/improved by negotiation between the company and the BA line pilots association.
Is it not hypocritical to ask for an IALPA recruitment ban unless BA capitulates and those who join do so at the bottom of the BA seniority list? The blatant perception and selfish expectation seems to be that those joining the new airline will guarantee that current pilots remain in their comfort zone and retain their T & Cs. It was only a few short years ago BA pilots (when their T & Cs were not deemed to be under threat), along with BALPA and the support of BA management connived to trample all over the Dan Air seniority list and allow those individuals who were employed to be on inferior contracts. They also gave authority to BA to employ US Air pilots during the summer that followed. Something that only the IPA was prepared to object too, and which resulted in the D of T withdrawing their support for the arrangement. The subsequent out of court settlement was in favour of the Dan Air pilots. It also enabled some individuals discarded at the time Dan was bought to be employed.
Some BA pilots may not have noticed the aviation industry throughout the world is undergoing substantial change and all companies are endeavouring to adjust and modify their business model. The new rules relating to open skies in Europe have forced every airline to review its income stream and costs by offering different products to the travelling public. In this day and age the passengers seem to be demanding both low cost short and long haul flights, while another substantial segment are still prepared to pay a premium for the full monty. Consequently we are seeing the start of the more established companies effectively running 2 airlines, using different business models and cost bases as they attempt to compete with, in the eyes of some BA pilots, the “upstarts” who have had the cheek to enter the fray and threaten their existence.
I just wonder what right BA pilots think they have to threaten industrial action that will not only affect all the other employees and passengers booked on the proposed strike days as well as the shareholders and possibly the future of their airline. It is not their decision as to the future business plans their management may wish to attempt to exploit. If the new airline’s T & Cs do not meet the aspirations then few will join and those that do will probably leave, whether they are on the BA seniority list or not and BA will have shot itself in the foot if it cannot recruit and retain good quality employees.
By all means try and persuade BA management why the pilots for the new airline should be on your seniority list but if you walk out the door over the issue do not expect any substantial support from any other quarter or the travelling public or the media. It would be extremely naďve and conceited to believe that any support could be ignored.
No airline has a God given right to exist, and there have been numerous examples of companies, both in aviation and outside, that have failed because they have not adapted to a changing world. BA pilots may disagree, but unless the airline they work for moves with the times the profits they are currently enjoying may disappear.
This thread clearly demonstrates the arrogance, selflessness and hypocrisy of those BA pilots who consider themselves above all others.
By all means fight your corner at fortress Heathrow and mount a strong defence of the T & Cs of BA mainline and any agreements in place should they be threatened. I suspect the T & Cs can only be changed/reduced/improved by negotiation between the company and the BA line pilots association.
Is it not hypocritical to ask for an IALPA recruitment ban unless BA capitulates and those who join do so at the bottom of the BA seniority list? The blatant perception and selfish expectation seems to be that those joining the new airline will guarantee that current pilots remain in their comfort zone and retain their T & Cs. It was only a few short years ago BA pilots (when their T & Cs were not deemed to be under threat), along with BALPA and the support of BA management connived to trample all over the Dan Air seniority list and allow those individuals who were employed to be on inferior contracts. They also gave authority to BA to employ US Air pilots during the summer that followed. Something that only the IPA was prepared to object too, and which resulted in the D of T withdrawing their support for the arrangement. The subsequent out of court settlement was in favour of the Dan Air pilots. It also enabled some individuals discarded at the time Dan was bought to be employed.
Some BA pilots may not have noticed the aviation industry throughout the world is undergoing substantial change and all companies are endeavouring to adjust and modify their business model. The new rules relating to open skies in Europe have forced every airline to review its income stream and costs by offering different products to the travelling public. In this day and age the passengers seem to be demanding both low cost short and long haul flights, while another substantial segment are still prepared to pay a premium for the full monty. Consequently we are seeing the start of the more established companies effectively running 2 airlines, using different business models and cost bases as they attempt to compete with, in the eyes of some BA pilots, the “upstarts” who have had the cheek to enter the fray and threaten their existence.
I just wonder what right BA pilots think they have to threaten industrial action that will not only affect all the other employees and passengers booked on the proposed strike days as well as the shareholders and possibly the future of their airline. It is not their decision as to the future business plans their management may wish to attempt to exploit. If the new airline’s T & Cs do not meet the aspirations then few will join and those that do will probably leave, whether they are on the BA seniority list or not and BA will have shot itself in the foot if it cannot recruit and retain good quality employees.
By all means try and persuade BA management why the pilots for the new airline should be on your seniority list but if you walk out the door over the issue do not expect any substantial support from any other quarter or the travelling public or the media. It would be extremely naďve and conceited to believe that any support could be ignored.
No airline has a God given right to exist, and there have been numerous examples of companies, both in aviation and outside, that have failed because they have not adapted to a changing world. BA pilots may disagree, but unless the airline they work for moves with the times the profits they are currently enjoying may disappear.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting that several posters on here believe they don't need public support. Whilst it may not necessarily be the at the top of the strike actions list it is nonetheless significant. I'd be surprised if the BACC thought differently. Be under no illusion that the BA PR machine will demonise you as soon as you step up to the brink so ignore the public at your peril.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NACUD thanks for your rhetoric there but you clearly have no valuable insight into the issues at stake here. BA pilots like many other airlines pay subscription to BALPA the union. BALPA as a result work hard to protect our job security and terms and conditions. These wiser men than myself have decreed there is a clear and present threat to those aforementioned conditions and have spent a great deal of time to illustrate that threat in newsletters and emails etc. It is now upto the BA pilots to vote on what action to take.
Of course we will fight to protect our terms and conditons -it does not make BA pilots arrogant or selfish - just normal!!! And whilst you wax lyrical about the changing environment and other airlines adjusting their business models and us BA lot being inflexible and holding paying joe public to ransom - why not ask yourself why all other airlines taking advantage of openskies -i.e. Air France from LHR to US, are not also trying this 'secondary pilot workforce manoeuvre that BA are? Why they are content to just use their mainline pilots? We smell a rat and will fight for it. Just because you are too weak to do so - return to your cupboard and cower whilst we take a stand!
Of course we will fight to protect our terms and conditons -it does not make BA pilots arrogant or selfish - just normal!!! And whilst you wax lyrical about the changing environment and other airlines adjusting their business models and us BA lot being inflexible and holding paying joe public to ransom - why not ask yourself why all other airlines taking advantage of openskies -i.e. Air France from LHR to US, are not also trying this 'secondary pilot workforce manoeuvre that BA are? Why they are content to just use their mainline pilots? We smell a rat and will fight for it. Just because you are too weak to do so - return to your cupboard and cower whilst we take a stand!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NACUD = BA management. Or, just another BA hater. Classic stuff. Blame BALPA for the Danair debacle then say "management must have the right to manage", and screw every BA pilot from here to kingdom come. And if you think it wont affect the Independants then think on. Once Open Lies becomes the Trojan Horse BA plan it to be, every UK airline will adopt a similar tactic and away go your T and C's too.
This is not quite yet a Fascist Country. The right to strike is just that, a right in a free society, rightly governed by rules to see that it is the view of the majority of a work group. BA pilots have that right and have shown great reluctance to exercise it. Of course John Torrode and other Journalists at the Daily Mail with an agenda to run will demonise pilots. Ignoring their political agenda is the best tactic.
BALPA does not have a track record of militancy and has, in the view of many, acted with restraint and diffidence for years. This is the BA, after all, who blew ALL staff bonuses on an $850 million fine for price fixing, or so it is alleged. How do you deal in good faith with that? The answer is now that it is quite clear that you can not. WW wants a fight with his most loyal staff group and now he has got one. I believe he will lose, just as he did at Aer Lingus over the Belfast basing argument, another piece of classic attempted "union-busting".
This is not quite yet a Fascist Country. The right to strike is just that, a right in a free society, rightly governed by rules to see that it is the view of the majority of a work group. BA pilots have that right and have shown great reluctance to exercise it. Of course John Torrode and other Journalists at the Daily Mail with an agenda to run will demonise pilots. Ignoring their political agenda is the best tactic.
BALPA does not have a track record of militancy and has, in the view of many, acted with restraint and diffidence for years. This is the BA, after all, who blew ALL staff bonuses on an $850 million fine for price fixing, or so it is alleged. How do you deal in good faith with that? The answer is now that it is quite clear that you can not. WW wants a fight with his most loyal staff group and now he has got one. I believe he will lose, just as he did at Aer Lingus over the Belfast basing argument, another piece of classic attempted "union-busting".
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel truly saddened reading this thread now.
It was one of useful debate until people can't be bothered to read and get to the nub of the problem before posting a reaction.
The in-fighting in this industry is 2nd to none and also the amount of hostility from both sides is staggering.
Having been on the other side of the fence for a number of years flying with the big Orange company, I KNOW how important the role has been of the BALPA Company Council in the airline.
And to be honest guys, if I wanted to fly shorthaul for the rest of my life, I would have stayed at EZY. The money was way better for a good number of years (when you need it most) and not flying out of LHR is an absolute breath of fresh air.
It was just time to move on and look for a different challenge as opportunity came up.
Jealousy plays NO part in this. And anybody that feels the need to attack us just for the sake of T&C's has to grow up and smell the roses.
For anyone to think that their T&C's will not be affected (in the short/medium/long run) is clearly short sighted and has no understanding of simple economics.
Someone has to tow the line (and in Europe that tends to be the legacy carriers). Our salaries are benchmarked and knowing several people (captains/fo's in Lufthansa/KLM/Iberia), I also know that our salaries are NOT the nub of the problem.
It's simple corporate greed.
Our issue is not with lower start up T&C's and the flexibility OpenSkies need to fight in this tight margined world (and be assured, margins will get less and less the more aviation skies get de-regulated).
Our issue is Schedule K and has to do with our aircraft/our bottom line/our managers and ultimately our bread and butter.
For someone to say, what has it got to do with you I can only say one thing....
You really do need to pay more attention to the world we live in!!!!!
Schedule K is NOT fit for the new regulatory environment we live in.
How can cost or flexibility be an issue if the mechanisms that BALPA have offered clearly
are aimed at being helpful.
My apologies for leaving you to it, my fight is with BA over this.
Support is not directly required. We'll brief the City appropriately of that I'm sure. Just as we did over the pension issue. (I have bones to pick about NAPS and BARP, since I'm on BARP, but the BACC has done very well of late in making it an acceptable pension scheme)
Leave the old toys in the pram
It was one of useful debate until people can't be bothered to read and get to the nub of the problem before posting a reaction.
The in-fighting in this industry is 2nd to none and also the amount of hostility from both sides is staggering.
Having been on the other side of the fence for a number of years flying with the big Orange company, I KNOW how important the role has been of the BALPA Company Council in the airline.
And to be honest guys, if I wanted to fly shorthaul for the rest of my life, I would have stayed at EZY. The money was way better for a good number of years (when you need it most) and not flying out of LHR is an absolute breath of fresh air.
It was just time to move on and look for a different challenge as opportunity came up.
Jealousy plays NO part in this. And anybody that feels the need to attack us just for the sake of T&C's has to grow up and smell the roses.
For anyone to think that their T&C's will not be affected (in the short/medium/long run) is clearly short sighted and has no understanding of simple economics.
Someone has to tow the line (and in Europe that tends to be the legacy carriers). Our salaries are benchmarked and knowing several people (captains/fo's in Lufthansa/KLM/Iberia), I also know that our salaries are NOT the nub of the problem.
It's simple corporate greed.
Our issue is not with lower start up T&C's and the flexibility OpenSkies need to fight in this tight margined world (and be assured, margins will get less and less the more aviation skies get de-regulated).
Our issue is Schedule K and has to do with our aircraft/our bottom line/our managers and ultimately our bread and butter.
For someone to say, what has it got to do with you I can only say one thing....
You really do need to pay more attention to the world we live in!!!!!
Schedule K is NOT fit for the new regulatory environment we live in.
How can cost or flexibility be an issue if the mechanisms that BALPA have offered clearly
are aimed at being helpful.
My apologies for leaving you to it, my fight is with BA over this.
Support is not directly required. We'll brief the City appropriately of that I'm sure. Just as we did over the pension issue. (I have bones to pick about NAPS and BARP, since I'm on BARP, but the BACC has done very well of late in making it an acceptable pension scheme)
Leave the old toys in the pram
Controversial, moi?
NACUD
Like many posters you are plainly missing the point, which has been repeatedly made.
BA pilots are not trying to scupper whatever business plans BA mis-management wish to try. BA pilots are not asking for Ts & Cs comparable to mainline. BA pilots are asking that any pilot employed to fly a BA aeroplane, using BA resources, run by BA management, on a BA AOC is flown by a pilot, whether a new recruit directly into Open Lies or an existing BA pilot, who is placed on the BA pilot seniority list.
It would cost ZILCH. It has to be asked why BA is impacably opposed to a nil cost item. Nothing to do with having a hidden agenda to screw us in the future I do not suppose.
It grieves me to damage our already tattered reputation. It grieves me to inconvenience our long suffering passengers. On the other hand I am working to the legal maximum that I can physically work, I have accepted massive changes to my current working agreements, I have accepted massive changes to my pension arrangements but I have reached the point where I will NOT accept an underhand, unnecessary, divisive change promoted by a greedy, here today gone tomorrow, short termist management who will ride off into the sunset in a year or two with obscene amounts of money having just screwed my future.
The line has been reached. Whether we have public support or not, whether the unpleasant anti-BA rhetoric and insults from others with an axe to grind continues here or not. I will strike (for the first time ever in my life) over this issue.
A common seniority list is A NIL COST ISSUE but it does give me a small chance of preventing BA mainline being unnecessarily decimated in the ever faster race to the bottom of the heap. Is that so hard to understand?
Like many posters you are plainly missing the point, which has been repeatedly made.
BA pilots are not trying to scupper whatever business plans BA mis-management wish to try. BA pilots are not asking for Ts & Cs comparable to mainline. BA pilots are asking that any pilot employed to fly a BA aeroplane, using BA resources, run by BA management, on a BA AOC is flown by a pilot, whether a new recruit directly into Open Lies or an existing BA pilot, who is placed on the BA pilot seniority list.
It would cost ZILCH. It has to be asked why BA is impacably opposed to a nil cost item. Nothing to do with having a hidden agenda to screw us in the future I do not suppose.
It grieves me to damage our already tattered reputation. It grieves me to inconvenience our long suffering passengers. On the other hand I am working to the legal maximum that I can physically work, I have accepted massive changes to my current working agreements, I have accepted massive changes to my pension arrangements but I have reached the point where I will NOT accept an underhand, unnecessary, divisive change promoted by a greedy, here today gone tomorrow, short termist management who will ride off into the sunset in a year or two with obscene amounts of money having just screwed my future.
The line has been reached. Whether we have public support or not, whether the unpleasant anti-BA rhetoric and insults from others with an axe to grind continues here or not. I will strike (for the first time ever in my life) over this issue.
A common seniority list is A NIL COST ISSUE but it does give me a small chance of preventing BA mainline being unnecessarily decimated in the ever faster race to the bottom of the heap. Is that so hard to understand?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is inherently not a nil-cost issue, as the ability of OpenSkies recruits to then "move up" to mainline would create new hiring requirements and training costs that would not otherwise be the case: furthermore, those recruits would join the business in London at a higher pay point than new recruits who are currently recruited directly into the London business, raising the cost for both businesses as a result.
You and I both know that BA want it separate to create a lower-cost business away from London - your negotiations with management could create the protection to prevent it operating from London airports at any time in the future - the danger to the current pilot workforce is that the London business becomes the stale rump of BA if OpenSkies is truly successful and expands greatly.
The business of BA pilots flying BA planes on a BA AOC is irrelevant - (a) as they intend to run a new AOC, and (b) as the precedents in the past of other fully-owned or outsourced operations both past and present.
Don't skirt around the issue M.Mouse / Hand Solo - the real danger to BA pilots is the new operation being a success, with no mainline pilot access.
You and I both know that BA want it separate to create a lower-cost business away from London - your negotiations with management could create the protection to prevent it operating from London airports at any time in the future - the danger to the current pilot workforce is that the London business becomes the stale rump of BA if OpenSkies is truly successful and expands greatly.
The business of BA pilots flying BA planes on a BA AOC is irrelevant - (a) as they intend to run a new AOC, and (b) as the precedents in the past of other fully-owned or outsourced operations both past and present.
Don't skirt around the issue M.Mouse / Hand Solo - the real danger to BA pilots is the new operation being a success, with no mainline pilot access.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, I forgot to mention, but the whole attitude of BA management to the development of this plan is highly typical of poor management. Whereas a good manager would consult his workforce before plans are made, to get them onboard with the development of the operation, in this case they appear to simply have presented it as a fait accompli.
The problem of a workforce and management at loggerheads is simply unforgivable in an age of huge amounts of management training - MBA courses and the like - none of which would advocate this course of action. Perhaps BA are not recruiting enough fresh, young MBAs, and still have too many old codgers from the times of the nationalised business.
Another round of management cuts seem in order...
The problem of a workforce and management at loggerheads is simply unforgivable in an age of huge amounts of management training - MBA courses and the like - none of which would advocate this course of action. Perhaps BA are not recruiting enough fresh, young MBAs, and still have too many old codgers from the times of the nationalised business.
Another round of management cuts seem in order...