BA Pilots to ballot for strike over OpenSkies
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pilots are striking because BA has broken the intent of the agreement. Intent is all important. BA took BALPA to a tribunal last year in order to change our holiday arrangements because they claimed the intent of the agreement allowed them to do so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The intent of Schedule K is to ensure BA flying is done by BA pilots. The current agreement only states the UK because that was the only place we could fly from. Now we can fly from the EEA and we want the agreement changed to reflect that.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pacamack (7*1***?)
Yes, things move on, and previous negotiations are rendered irrelevant.
BA pilots are proposing to strike because BA management won't alter an agreement that the Pilot's union had previously negotiated with them?
Last edited by blimey; 8th Feb 2008 at 22:52.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluepilot - Never been on the BACC, have no desire to do so, and I certainly can see the wood for the trees. Your claim thus:
is untrue, but if it comes to a choice of them or me then tell me, would you honestly choose others over yourself? All the arguments put forward against BA boil down to "Come on, give them a bit of your work, you've got loads". Whether it's flying 744Fs from STN, RJ100s from BHX and MAN, or 757s from BRU or CDG, this is all work that is generated solely by BA and should be flown by BA pilots. If you give a little bit, give a little bit, give a little bit more, you suddenly find you've got nothing left. So, excuse me if I appear unsympathetic to causes occasionally but if those causes are attempts to move work away from mainline to another operator then they'll get short shrift from me. Charity begins at home.
It would appear from your response that you really dont give a stuff about ANY pilot force outside BA.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you bring those pilots into your fold you become stronger and you would not have this problem with openskys.
"charity begins at home"
my god...... i was a supporter of your cause, your selfish arrogant attitude is quickly pushing me the other way!!
Simply unbelievable
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatively we could have taken a harder line. We could have strangled GSS at birth but what purpose would that have served? Lost money for BA Cargo and no jobs at all for the current GSS pilots. Of course will you ever hear the BACC praised by GSS pilots for the pragmatism which means that they have jobs? Of course not, they'll just whinge about secondees taking their commands.
What about the BACX RJ issue? Had BALPA been minded they could have refused point blank to allow the transfer of 160 jobs out of mainline, but a strike in the difficult economic climate after 9/11 could have sent BA under so a compromise was reached and BACX got another 130 jobs. Did you ever hear a good word said about that? Of course not, you just got a load of whinging from BACX pilots claiming secondees had stolen 'their' commands. They never seemed to mention the 130 guys at the bottom of their seniority list who were only in continued employment because of the RJ lifeline.
You want us to bring other pilots into the fold, like Cityflyer Do you accept that there has to be a line drawn somewhere with regard to aircraft size and scope? For whatever reasons that line was drawn at 100 seats. Anything above that is BA mainline work and if BA want to set up a parallel operation then they have to bring that into the fold too. Anything below 100 seats and BA can do with it as they will. That is where the line was drawn, or do you think we should go back to BA and say sorry we want everything down to 50 seats now? If you were a CC member then you will know that you can't simply go around levelling demands at the management and hoping they give in. Even if they were minded to change the agreement, which BA most certainly are not, they'd want a big give from us. Do we demand BA move now, with sacrifices from us, or do we wait two years until BA are compelled to move? If you were a union rep what would you do?
What about the BACX RJ issue? Had BALPA been minded they could have refused point blank to allow the transfer of 160 jobs out of mainline, but a strike in the difficult economic climate after 9/11 could have sent BA under so a compromise was reached and BACX got another 130 jobs. Did you ever hear a good word said about that? Of course not, you just got a load of whinging from BACX pilots claiming secondees had stolen 'their' commands. They never seemed to mention the 130 guys at the bottom of their seniority list who were only in continued employment because of the RJ lifeline.
You want us to bring other pilots into the fold, like Cityflyer Do you accept that there has to be a line drawn somewhere with regard to aircraft size and scope? For whatever reasons that line was drawn at 100 seats. Anything above that is BA mainline work and if BA want to set up a parallel operation then they have to bring that into the fold too. Anything below 100 seats and BA can do with it as they will. That is where the line was drawn, or do you think we should go back to BA and say sorry we want everything down to 50 seats now? If you were a CC member then you will know that you can't simply go around levelling demands at the management and hoping they give in. Even if they were minded to change the agreement, which BA most certainly are not, they'd want a big give from us. Do we demand BA move now, with sacrifices from us, or do we wait two years until BA are compelled to move? If you were a union rep what would you do?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS not true.
BACX did not hire 130 pilots, they just did'nt have to fire 130 pilots.
BACX scaled down the Dash 8 fleet and got rid of the J 41 and ATP fleets and thats essentially where the pilots for the RJ came from.
All imposed by our masters at BA, they knew best-Right!
Anyway back to the thread, its simple to me; BA want to hire cheaper pilots to fly the pond and Nigel and Rodney are not best pleased.
I for one cant say that I blame them.
BTW, are any of the losers who ran BACX involved with OS? If so dont worry, they'll soon stuff it up!
BACX did not hire 130 pilots, they just did'nt have to fire 130 pilots.
BACX scaled down the Dash 8 fleet and got rid of the J 41 and ATP fleets and thats essentially where the pilots for the RJ came from.
All imposed by our masters at BA, they knew best-Right!
Anyway back to the thread, its simple to me; BA want to hire cheaper pilots to fly the pond and Nigel and Rodney are not best pleased.
I for one cant say that I blame them.
BTW, are any of the losers who ran BACX involved with OS? If so dont worry, they'll soon stuff it up!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 49
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the BA pilots union didn't have the foresight to negotiate an agreement that would cover all BA operations any where in the world. BA pilots are now threatening to go on strike because this agreement no longer suits them and the BA management wont go back and correct the union's original mistake?
Sounds like a worthy cause.
If OS is like any venture I've ever known then it will have been set up with venture capital supplied by BA. The cost of this capital to OS will probably be around 12%. The aircraft will be leased by OS at market rates, seconded staff will be paid for by OS at market rates, services provided by BA will be contracted at market rates etc.
BA are investing their money to make a return, as all companies do. How do you think the BA pension fund is able to support its members? You don't see BA accountants demanding jobs in FS providers that BA has invested in?
Sounds like a worthy cause.
If OS is like any venture I've ever known then it will have been set up with venture capital supplied by BA. The cost of this capital to OS will probably be around 12%. The aircraft will be leased by OS at market rates, seconded staff will be paid for by OS at market rates, services provided by BA will be contracted at market rates etc.
BA are investing their money to make a return, as all companies do. How do you think the BA pension fund is able to support its members? You don't see BA accountants demanding jobs in FS providers that BA has invested in?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have some respect for the Hand Solo & Chums position if they insisted that Openskies is part of BA & therefore only BA pilots should operate it - on current BA terms & conditions. All Openskies pilots would thus belong to BA entirely and would in no way be poor relations.
But it is not like that is it? What you guys want is access to Openskies Commands which would benefit some of you - the minority - but you are quite prepared to make the 'compromise' that the poor old Openskies F/O's will be joining on inferior T&C's. But 'allowing' them a position on the BA seniority list will be recompensation for inferior T&C's to you! BFD!!
I find your 'I'm allright Jack' attitude despicable and I resent you using my association for such a selfish enterprise. You do not have my support.
But it is not like that is it? What you guys want is access to Openskies Commands which would benefit some of you - the minority - but you are quite prepared to make the 'compromise' that the poor old Openskies F/O's will be joining on inferior T&C's. But 'allowing' them a position on the BA seniority list will be recompensation for inferior T&C's to you! BFD!!
I find your 'I'm allright Jack' attitude despicable and I resent you using my association for such a selfish enterprise. You do not have my support.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Living & Working in Europe
Age: 16
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The demand for OS pilots being on the MSL is not intended as a compensation for their lower Ts&Cs, those Ts&Cs would be applied regardless of being on or off the BA MSL.
The demand for the joint seniority is intended to stop those Pilots in OS from being used as a lever to undermine the Ts&Cs of mainline BA Pilots (and effectively all other Pilots in the UK) - it is demanded as it already is an integral part of the intent of our agreements with BA.
"So the BA pilots union didn't have the foresight to negotiate an agreement that would cover all BA operations any where in the world. BA pilots are now threatening to go on strike because this agreement no longer suits them and the BA management wont go back and correct the union's original mistake?"
The opening line of the agreement states that the intent is that BA pilots will fly BA aircraft - does that not cover OS?
".. seconded staff will be paid for by OS at market rates, "
actually, the seconded managers are not taking pay cuts to set up OS.
The demand for the joint seniority is intended to stop those Pilots in OS from being used as a lever to undermine the Ts&Cs of mainline BA Pilots (and effectively all other Pilots in the UK) - it is demanded as it already is an integral part of the intent of our agreements with BA.
"So the BA pilots union didn't have the foresight to negotiate an agreement that would cover all BA operations any where in the world. BA pilots are now threatening to go on strike because this agreement no longer suits them and the BA management wont go back and correct the union's original mistake?"
The opening line of the agreement states that the intent is that BA pilots will fly BA aircraft - does that not cover OS?
".. seconded staff will be paid for by OS at market rates, "
actually, the seconded managers are not taking pay cuts to set up OS.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Living & Working in Europe
Age: 16
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sched K
"BA pilots have the right to fly any aircraft that was ever part of the BA fleet" That is not what is being said. Nobody is refering to a/c which were once owned by BA. OS is a wholey [?] owned subsidiary which will be flying BA owned a/c.
2 quotes from schedule K - our agreement with BA.
"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). This agreement seeks to
take account of the concerns that the Association has in respect of
employment security and career development whilst not impeding
the commercial development of British Airways plc."
" This is irrespective of whether operating under the mainline BA AOC or that
of any of it’s subsidiaries."
That is the intent to which BA signed agreement. BA has since fought hard to insist that the "intent" of agreements" supersedes any subsequent specific text.
So if BA own the a/c - which they do in OS, or are operating them under a subsidiaries AOC - which I believe they will be doing in OS - then the pilots should be on the MSL - that was BA's agreement & intent then and should be now.
There are some specific exemptions for a/c which are certified under 100 seats - but they are not relevant to OS.
I hope that sounds right, cos it is what BA agreed.
2 quotes from schedule K - our agreement with BA.
"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). This agreement seeks to
take account of the concerns that the Association has in respect of
employment security and career development whilst not impeding
the commercial development of British Airways plc."
" This is irrespective of whether operating under the mainline BA AOC or that
of any of it’s subsidiaries."
That is the intent to which BA signed agreement. BA has since fought hard to insist that the "intent" of agreements" supersedes any subsequent specific text.
So if BA own the a/c - which they do in OS, or are operating them under a subsidiaries AOC - which I believe they will be doing in OS - then the pilots should be on the MSL - that was BA's agreement & intent then and should be now.
There are some specific exemptions for a/c which are certified under 100 seats - but they are not relevant to OS.
I hope that sounds right, cos it is what BA agreed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA and its General Secretary
Dear Pprune members,
A number of interesting points have been raised over the past three weeks on this forum regarding the BALPA initiated strike ballot in British Airways. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of members appear to be at odds with the stated intention of their trade union. BALPA’s General Secretary has stated quite unequivocally that the strike ballot is “not about money; and it is not about safety”. This is quite clearly not the opinion of the vast majority of the Union’s own members. How might you ask has this disconnect between the Trade union and its members arisen?
The answer is simple. BALPA’s General Secretary issued the following two statements. The first on 9th January where he stated that BA’s “pilots do not want to see its brand or its safety record put at risk” and then on 21 January “BA’s real aim…will eventually force down BA pilot conditions”. So there you have it, the problem is solved. The General Secretary’s muddle headed response to his own statements. This does however leave BALPA’s members in a rather invidious position. Each of BA’s pilots pays between £400 and £1000 per year in union dues. For this they clearly deserve better from their leadership if they are to confront their employer in the crudest manner possible, namely, by withdrawing their labour.
Regards
LHR747
A number of interesting points have been raised over the past three weeks on this forum regarding the BALPA initiated strike ballot in British Airways. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of members appear to be at odds with the stated intention of their trade union. BALPA’s General Secretary has stated quite unequivocally that the strike ballot is “not about money; and it is not about safety”. This is quite clearly not the opinion of the vast majority of the Union’s own members. How might you ask has this disconnect between the Trade union and its members arisen?
The answer is simple. BALPA’s General Secretary issued the following two statements. The first on 9th January where he stated that BA’s “pilots do not want to see its brand or its safety record put at risk” and then on 21 January “BA’s real aim…will eventually force down BA pilot conditions”. So there you have it, the problem is solved. The General Secretary’s muddle headed response to his own statements. This does however leave BALPA’s members in a rather invidious position. Each of BA’s pilots pays between £400 and £1000 per year in union dues. For this they clearly deserve better from their leadership if they are to confront their employer in the crudest manner possible, namely, by withdrawing their labour.
Regards
LHR747
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good,
The mis-manager's back on the forum.
For what it's worth I'm more than happy with BALPA's leadership on this matter and am happy to heed their warnings. No-one wins if BA gets OS through in this form and with Schedule K intact.
The mis-manager's back on the forum.
For what it's worth I'm more than happy with BALPA's leadership on this matter and am happy to heed their warnings. No-one wins if BA gets OS through in this form and with Schedule K intact.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Living & Working in Europe
Age: 16
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Compass manager
BA "initiated" the move towards a strike ballot by withdrawing from negotiations, BA can halt the progress towards a stoppage by re-opening meaningful negotiations and being willing to actually negotiate rather than dictate terms, and by being willing to abide by the intent of its own agreements.
Sadly you are believing too much of your own "crapoganda" if you think BA pilots do not understand what this is about.
ps havent you got some admin to catch up on...
Sir, you are a "busted flush"
Sadly you are believing too much of your own "crapoganda" if you think BA pilots do not understand what this is about.
ps havent you got some admin to catch up on...
Sir, you are a "busted flush"
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to remind everyone that LHR747 is the BA manager who tried to run 3 accounts all agreeing with himself earlier in the thread and got deleted for his trouble.
Remind me which side called off the standing conference making the withdrawal of labour inevitable?
Remind me which side called off the standing conference making the withdrawal of labour inevitable?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: everywhere but home :-(
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is quite clearly not the opinion of the vast majority of the Union’s own members. How might you ask has this disconnect between the Trade union and its members arisen?
The only muddle headed thinking is from BA management who think that they can spin/lie/pull the wool over our eyes in to believing that this is a small, unthreatening niche operation.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Living & Working in Europe
Age: 16
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to point out that even tho Hotel Mode & I may agree with each other, we are not BA managers and are not the same person... 
It does worry me that a BA manager can be so stupid as to try to fool us with 3 different persona's on this forum - I am truly disappointed in you and can only hope that the people who really run our airline are a lot smarter and more honest, but I have my doubts...
It does worry me that a BA manager can be so stupid as to try to fool us with 3 different persona's on this forum - I am truly disappointed in you and can only hope that the people who really run our airline are a lot smarter and more honest, but I have my doubts...
Last edited by stroppy jock; 9th Feb 2008 at 19:29.
Hand solo,
After 5 years under BA mismanagement, no one from BACON would now fail to understand why you are going down this road, but calling the BACON reps naïve is rather patronising. What some BA reps and in particular RH didn’t seem to understand or acknowledge at the time was that BACON was a collection of smaller companies from all sorts of backgrounds, some unionised and others just crawling out of the benevolent mill owner culture. We had only just gained recognition, membership levels weren’t high and we had a bunch of BA Managers parachuted in spinning for England with one major aim, to destroy BALPA within BACON.
The offer of seats on the RJ from the BACC with promises that this was just a foot in the door appealed to some (RJ FO’s mainly), but the vast majority of RJ Captains had little interest in going into Mainline. The CC would have been slaughtered if they had gone for a deal which only benefited a small proportion of the workforce. Clearly, the foot in the door and promises of more jam tomorrow would have come to nothing. It would have been a bit like BA saying we will open up the pension scheme again, but only for ex Concorde and Tristar pilots. Can’t imagine the rest of the BA pilots being impressed by that sort of deal. The CC received very little criticism from within apart from one or two FO’s who were probably more interested in their own desire to get into BA than for the collective good. Membership levels increased from that point onwards.
As for the creation of 130 jobs, not strictly true. The original plan was for 60 secondees LHS RJ and only a few commands for BACON. With pilot turnover in BACON so high 20%+, and with 30 BA cadets on our books ready for return, there were ways of reducing the impact of Beeching-Evan’s rapidly expanding base closing program. If we had actually got to the point where BACON had to announce pilot redundancies rather than just fudging the issue, then the Seconded would have gone back anyway and it would have been interesting seeing how BA dealt with making redundancies in one part of the group whilst recruiting into another. Need to consider suitable alternatives etc….
Although many in BACON gradually began to understand the BA management tactics and accepted the point about seconded hanging onto what was originally theirs, like some of the Cabin Crew Unions, BACC and big BALPA could have been a little more proactive in helping deal with Bacon’s base closures by encouraging BA to accept the transfer of pilots into Mainline. All the cabin crew from the closure of GLA, PLH and SOU were offered LHR ahead of external applicants. Why not the pilots?
The biggest issue was dealing with so many demoted Captains due to base closures. Even if the former BAR pilot’s arguments about our work our aircraft had merit, flying former BACON training captains as FO’s in the RHS alongside was far form ideal and shame on BA for setting up such a situation and in particular for constantly using 9/11 as an excuse for absolutely everything.
The fact was that with the exception of a few routes, the loads on the BAR 737’were generally dreadful. We know, we positioned on them. Something had to change and having bought BACON a year earlier, presumably for some logical reason, then BA should have invested in it just like the competition were investing in their own fleets. It turns out that the only form of investment was to bring in 12 RJ’s. Meanwhile, the rest of the fleets were being priced out of the markets through having to pay BA internal rates for mediocre handling and Mainline rates for redeployed Cabin crew. What a disaster.
SO going bck to Citi Flyer MK 2. It is ultimately BA’s responsbility, but through no fault of thier own, these people have an agreement hanging over their heads which in theory could see them out of work in two years. It’s all very well saying that BA will jus have to absorb it into mainline if it doesn’t invest in new equipment, but I think they may need some encouragement in doing this before they cobble together another half baked idea about spinning in off into yet another subsidiary just to get round scope. These people need answers now and it should be sorted out now, alongside OS.
After 5 years under BA mismanagement, no one from BACON would now fail to understand why you are going down this road, but calling the BACON reps naïve is rather patronising. What some BA reps and in particular RH didn’t seem to understand or acknowledge at the time was that BACON was a collection of smaller companies from all sorts of backgrounds, some unionised and others just crawling out of the benevolent mill owner culture. We had only just gained recognition, membership levels weren’t high and we had a bunch of BA Managers parachuted in spinning for England with one major aim, to destroy BALPA within BACON.
The offer of seats on the RJ from the BACC with promises that this was just a foot in the door appealed to some (RJ FO’s mainly), but the vast majority of RJ Captains had little interest in going into Mainline. The CC would have been slaughtered if they had gone for a deal which only benefited a small proportion of the workforce. Clearly, the foot in the door and promises of more jam tomorrow would have come to nothing. It would have been a bit like BA saying we will open up the pension scheme again, but only for ex Concorde and Tristar pilots. Can’t imagine the rest of the BA pilots being impressed by that sort of deal. The CC received very little criticism from within apart from one or two FO’s who were probably more interested in their own desire to get into BA than for the collective good. Membership levels increased from that point onwards.
As for the creation of 130 jobs, not strictly true. The original plan was for 60 secondees LHS RJ and only a few commands for BACON. With pilot turnover in BACON so high 20%+, and with 30 BA cadets on our books ready for return, there were ways of reducing the impact of Beeching-Evan’s rapidly expanding base closing program. If we had actually got to the point where BACON had to announce pilot redundancies rather than just fudging the issue, then the Seconded would have gone back anyway and it would have been interesting seeing how BA dealt with making redundancies in one part of the group whilst recruiting into another. Need to consider suitable alternatives etc….
Although many in BACON gradually began to understand the BA management tactics and accepted the point about seconded hanging onto what was originally theirs, like some of the Cabin Crew Unions, BACC and big BALPA could have been a little more proactive in helping deal with Bacon’s base closures by encouraging BA to accept the transfer of pilots into Mainline. All the cabin crew from the closure of GLA, PLH and SOU were offered LHR ahead of external applicants. Why not the pilots?
The biggest issue was dealing with so many demoted Captains due to base closures. Even if the former BAR pilot’s arguments about our work our aircraft had merit, flying former BACON training captains as FO’s in the RHS alongside was far form ideal and shame on BA for setting up such a situation and in particular for constantly using 9/11 as an excuse for absolutely everything.
The fact was that with the exception of a few routes, the loads on the BAR 737’were generally dreadful. We know, we positioned on them. Something had to change and having bought BACON a year earlier, presumably for some logical reason, then BA should have invested in it just like the competition were investing in their own fleets. It turns out that the only form of investment was to bring in 12 RJ’s. Meanwhile, the rest of the fleets were being priced out of the markets through having to pay BA internal rates for mediocre handling and Mainline rates for redeployed Cabin crew. What a disaster.
SO going bck to Citi Flyer MK 2. It is ultimately BA’s responsbility, but through no fault of thier own, these people have an agreement hanging over their heads which in theory could see them out of work in two years. It’s all very well saying that BA will jus have to absorb it into mainline if it doesn’t invest in new equipment, but I think they may need some encouragement in doing this before they cobble together another half baked idea about spinning in off into yet another subsidiary just to get round scope. These people need answers now and it should be sorted out now, alongside OS.
Last edited by biddedout; 9th Feb 2008 at 10:00.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning LHR747,
Which manager are you today? We've narrowed it down to two.
Would you care to answer the question I posed earlier?
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 bidline and any scheduling agreement BA want.
** BALPA appreciate there may be additional costs associated with pilots on the MSL flying for OS and have agreed to negate those costs. In fact, WW himself has said that he is prepared to allow us full access to OS provided we renegotiate all T&Cs at LHR. I bet he's not intending for those to be improved.
So you see, the highlighted sentence indicates entirely what this is about and you wonder why we need to protect ourselves!
Stop being so disingenuous. I look forward to seeing you back on the line in the summer.
Which manager are you today? We've narrowed it down to two.
Would you care to answer the question I posed earlier?
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 bidline and any scheduling agreement BA want.
** BALPA appreciate there may be additional costs associated with pilots on the MSL flying for OS and have agreed to negate those costs. In fact, WW himself has said that he is prepared to allow us full access to OS provided we renegotiate all T&Cs at LHR. I bet he's not intending for those to be improved.
So you see, the highlighted sentence indicates entirely what this is about and you wonder why we need to protect ourselves!
Stop being so disingenuous. I look forward to seeing you back on the line in the summer.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the other side of the coin for a second....sacrilege I know.
I have to say that BA are between a rock and a hard place.
Lets say OS gets off the ground with all the pilots on the MSL.
There comes a point where they can neither get new recruits (far-fetched perhaps?), nor does anyone from Mainline wish to fly their a/c....for obvious reasons. (I presume initial recruits will be "OS frozen" for a certain period?)
Will they be able to compel Mainline pilots to fly the a/c?
Yes? No? Not on OS T&C's? On their original T&C's?
So what does this mean for the cost-base of OS?
Fairly obvious why they don't want inclusion on the MSL surely?
Am I missing something?
I have to say that BA are between a rock and a hard place.
Lets say OS gets off the ground with all the pilots on the MSL.
There comes a point where they can neither get new recruits (far-fetched perhaps?), nor does anyone from Mainline wish to fly their a/c....for obvious reasons. (I presume initial recruits will be "OS frozen" for a certain period?)
Will they be able to compel Mainline pilots to fly the a/c?
Yes? No? Not on OS T&C's? On their original T&C's?
So what does this mean for the cost-base of OS?
Fairly obvious why they don't want inclusion on the MSL surely?
Am I missing something?