BA Pilots to ballot for strike over OpenSkies

[Hand Solo]

There are two d's in luddite.

[Flap 80]

Phil.C Nice to hear from you again...How is retirement? I hardly think that the OS situation and the 1992 situation attract any comparisons. I will never forget Ms L T raising her hand at the ADC in Swindon 1993 (?) to be one of the few people voting AGAINST the DA pilots being allowed to have reinstatement within BA. I do not recall BALPA offering one iota of assistance to those redundant and being left with much embarrassing "egg on the face" when the Croydon IT result was known!! The M&S vouchers from the BA members were much appreciated however. You need to realise that PTSD is not only a result of combat in Iraq.

[courtney]

Thank you Hand Solo, I would expect you to know!

[SR71]

I've never believed that everyone aspires to BA, but for as long as somebody else pays more people will leave and employers feel the upward pressure on T&Cs. Once the top tier starts to come down that pressure on employers eases and it's not good for pilots.

BA pilots protecting their own turf is emminently reasonable. We'd all do the same. I would.

But the belief that OpenLies T&C's will exert downward pressure on T&C's outside the organization is a little deluded IMHO.

The only UK organization that benchmarks against BA is probably VS, and BA certainly don't benchmark against RYR.

Have you seen what those guys work for (inspite of their ridiculous claims at the top of this WWW site)?

It couldn't get any worse...

OpenLies will, however, exert catastrophic downward pressure on your T&C's if you don't secure the critical point you are contesting.

So while your altruism on behalf of the "rest of us" is appreciated, bearing in mind your vanguard status, honestly, this isn't about "us" is it?

But then, as has been mentioned on this thread numerous times, you already know that.

Best of luck.

[Phil.Capron]

Hi Flap 80!
My comparison with '92 was along the lines of a vote for industrial action to ensure that those DA pilots that were "joining BA" were on a BA contract.You're right though in the sense that it was not possible to sort out the whole mess but there definitely was a victory in there somewhere.
ATB.

[M.Mouse]

Arthur Scargill would be proud, so reminiscent of the Miners, Dockers, Fleet St printers, car workers, ludites…….

If that is the level of your ability to present a reasoned argument explaining why we are wrong or mis-guided then I despair.

[Human Factor]

bluepilot,

Thanks for your support. It is much appreciated.

.... but BALPA as a UNION .... needs to support not just you guys but the minority as well....

BA guys are the minority (less than half the BALPA membership).

In this case though, BALPA (and more specifically the BACC) are supporting the non-BA guys as well. Anyone who joins OS after a successful action will, if they choose to bid across to BA mainline, benefit from the higher terms and conditions that we are so keen to protect.

[PC767]

American Eagle sale.

BA cabin crew here and as my uion has total missed the ball on this my involvement is now supportive of my flight deck colleagues and general interest.

It seems that AMR has decided to off load American Eagle. Wonder what happens to the crew? Under the Balpa proposals, should this occur with OpenSkies then the crew would be protected. And lets be honest BA does not have a good track record managing subsidarys. And then flogging them.

http://news.briefing.com/GeneralCont...39HeadlineHits

Good Luck.

[bluepilot]

what i meant by supporting the minority is for example;

Instead of just allocating commands in GSS cargo operation why dont you work with the pilots already there to get them onto the BA list so you work together?

Why didnt you support the BACON cc drive in getting a mainline seniority number (pilot merger)?

do you really give a flying stuff about the pilots already recruited by openskys? A friend of mine has been recruited (and it was before a ban!) and has sent me details of a Q and A document from openskys... i quote:

OpenSkies have made an offer to BALPA to represent Openskies pilots and establish an OpenSkies Company Council. BALPA have not yet responded to our offer.
It is our intention to review salary on an annual basis.

therefore BALPA are once again on a one way street here!! have the openskys pilots ( very few maybe) been consulted??? i think not!

[Hand Solo]

Originally Posted by bluepilot

Instead of just allocating commands in GSS cargo operation why dont you work with the pilots already there to get them onto the BA list so you work together?

We'd like the work in house, but BA don't want it, GSS management don't want it and the GSS pilots do not have BALPA representation. It's a bit difficult trying to force people on to our seniority list if nobody else wants it. GSS is a limited exception, only allowed 4 aircraft. Going all out on strike to force GSS to be amalgamated would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The existing arrangement gave BA, us and GSS something. It was a compromise solution.

Why didnt you support the BACON cc drive in getting a mainline seniority number (pilot merger)?

We did. We used the leverage we had in the RJ100 fleet handover to force BA to agree to put the CX RJ pilots on our seniority list. It was the CX company council how turned the offer down.

do you really give a flying stuff about the pilots already recruited by openskys?

Yes, but if it comes down to them or me then I choose me. Tell me you'd do otherwise.

OpenSkies have made an offer to BALPA to represent Openskies pilots and establish an OpenSkies Company Council. BALPA have not yet responded to our offer.

That is a non-issue. BALPA were invited to represent OS pilots from the word go and there has never been any debate that BALPA would be recognisd there. That sounds like some BA management spin as OS is not being stonewalled by BALPA. However it is hard to have representation in an airline that does not yet exist and has no pilots, aircraft or routes to speak of.

therefore BALPA are once again on a one way street here!! have the openskys pilots ( very few maybe) been consulted??? i think not!

Caveat emptor. If you sign up to a company in the middle of a large industrial dispute then you can expect life to be complicated. Whether or not the OS pilots have BALPA representation is irrelevant to the ongoing dispute between BA and the BA Company Council.

[bluepilot]

Dear mr solo, as others have said here you seem to have an answer to everything. I must point out..... the BACON pilot issue was a non starter, if BA offered a settlement to BA 757/767 pilots only in any dispute you would probably be the first to cry that we must stick together, this is exactly what happened at BACON. you made an offer to only a part of the workforce (RJ100 Pilots only), the BACON cc had no choice but to reject the offer as the pilot force must stick together. The offer you made was near as damn it worthless. BUT did you realise the concequences of these actions? the ex Airuk / KLMuk pilots were involved in a bitter dispute with KLM over discrimination etc. The managment there simple said "look in your own back yard at BA and BACON", made our fight even harder!!!

As I have said I really do support you guys , but please stop this fortress BA. As many of you have said BA lead the T and C for the UK. Now if you were to insist that the BA Cityflyer pilots should be bought into the BA fold as well as the OS pilots THEN you would be shouting a far more credible cry. As it is you look as if you are cherry picking which will damage you in the future.

[747-436]

Although I am not a BA pilot or a pilot I have been following this thread with interest and listening to the Podcasts over at BA Plane BA Pilot to get an idea of BALPA's side of things.

On a side issue but perhaps relevant to this dispute, a guy from American Airlines on the podcasts said that the American Unions got their fingers burnt by letting AA hive off some work to a smaller carrier which has now grown to about 300 aircraft across the USA. He made the point that open skies could do the same thing. A point that I think he didn't mention was that AA would not be able to do these routes effectivly and compete with the Southwests of this world as their costbase is too high. Is BA trying to do the same to pre empt a low cost long haul carrier from doing this out of Europe??

[Human Factor]

Is BA trying to do the same to pre empt a low cost long haul carrier from doing this out of Europe??

Perhaps. It would make a certain element of business sense. Both sides acknowledge that this would be unworkable using Bidline Rules as costs could become prohibitive. Similar to the LGW shorthaul operation. In fact, BALPA have effectively conceded to any T&Cs that BA want in exchange for OS pilots to be on the seniority list. This would negate any cost disadvantage immediately.

The question you need to ask though is this one.

If BALPA is prepared to concede to any terms and conditions desired by BA to allow Open Skies to operate at the initial cost base planned by BA, why will BA not permit OS pilots to join the mainline seniority list?

No-one in BA, not even WW, is prepared to give an answer.

[Hand Solo]

Originally Posted by bluepilot

the BACON pilot issue was a non starter-----this is exactly what happened at BACON. you made an offer to only a part of the workforce (RJ100 Pilots only), the BACON cc had no choice but to reject the offer as the pilot force must stick together. The offer you made was near as damn it worthless.

Thats a rather naive viewpoint. Full access to the BA seniority list from BACX pilots would never have been tolerated by BA. The BACCs mandate was to protect the interests of BA pilots, nobody else. The transfer of the RJs broke our Scope agreement and as such the BACC had some bargaining power with BA, firstly to secure secondee positions for us, secondly to secure access to the BA list for the RJ pilots. If you think they ever had it within their gift to gain access to all BACX pilots then you are dreaming. It was a quid pro quo - the RJ was the only fleet with secondees so only the RJ fleet got the mainline seniority. The rather naive BACX CC thought that if they stamped their feet and refused to accept seniority for the RJ pilots then the secondments wouldn't happen. I think history is the best judge of how successful they were.

BUT did you realise the concequences of these actions? the ex Airuk / KLMuk pilots were involved in a bitter dispute with KLM over discrimination etc. The managment there simple said "look in your own back yard at BA and BACON", made our fight even harder!!!

Sorry but you can't pin the blame for KLMs actions on BA.

Now if you were to insist that the BA Cityflyer pilots should be bought into the BA fold as well as the OS pilots THEN you would be shouting a far more credible cry.

The strike is not about Open Skies, it is about Schedule K, our Scope agreement. Open Skies breaks it, Cityflyer does not. You cannot take action against a broken agreement if the agreement hasn't been broken. The RJ100 issue was done and dusted with the last scope rewrite.

[pacamack]

Hand Solo, which part of Schedule K does Open Skies break?

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Hand job

Sorry for thread drift, but do I understamd correctly that BA CityFlyers' 'Scope' clause exemption is just til 2010?

And if so- what then?

And how does that all fit in with the new 318 operation as well as Open Skies?

Oh pleeeeeease let me stay in Scotland!

Ta.

[bluepilot]

Dear Mr Solo,

Sorry you cannot see the wood for the trees, from the tone and the structure of your responses i would hazard a guess you are on the BA CC, as a former CC member of another airline I can understand your line, however intead of just defending every statement verbatum , perhaps you may conceed that others may have a point.

Quote: Sorry but you can't pin the blame for KLMs actions on BA.

Sorry but you really did miss the point!!! It would appear from your response that you really dont give a stuff about ANY pilot force outside BA.



Good luck with your battle.

[Hand Solo]

Pacamack - Open Skies breaks the intent of Schedule K

The intent of this agreement is to promote employment security and
career opportunities for Flight Crew on the British Airways Master
Seniority List (BA Mainline Flight Crew)

BA do not wish to review Schedule K and we are balloting for a strike to force them to.

BB- yes, 2010 is the limit on the RJ100. What happens next is up to BA. They can change the aircraft to sub-100 seats or incorporate the whole operation into Mainline but the current arrangement cannot continue. The new 318 operation falls under Scope and will be flown by mainline pilots.

[Walnut]

People keep posing the question "why is WW so determined not to conceed OS pilots the right to join the mainline seniority list"?

I feel it is quite simple, BA pilots are highly organised with a rostering system "Bidline" which takes roster control away from the management.

For years management (LCG springs to mind) have been trying to disemble Bidline, claiming its costly, in fact it is not, but "They" feel it takes away their right to manage. Macho management hate this.

[pacamack]

So if I understand this correctly BA are not actually breaking Schedule K as it is currently written.

BA pilots are proposing to strike because BA management won't alter an agreement that the Pilot's union had previously negotiated with them?