Balpa membership and BA
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully paid up balpa member and will happily strike.
Pretty obvious which drop file I went in!
Didn't have tfr
Good to see nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions. Off course the self sponsored tre/ line trained pilot had in no way encouraged managers to degrade t&c's for all. Just like drunk drivers are really just let down by the barman that serve them. For the benefit if doubt my 'contempt' is for the small number of pilots who are paying airlines to train them. If paying for line training isn't as good as bribing ur way to a job what us? I'm sure that selection is done on merit.
I wholly agree about the sentiments of ba trg dept. My fleet has lost great ex managers, ex Raf and civvies, to be replaced by company men and an ethos exactly as descibed.
I wholly agree that as pilots unity within companys is essential. In my short time with BA I've been shocked at the level of envy and hate that the rest of the civil world has for us. No doubt you will say its because of opinions like mine. I've got mates in every major airline in the uk and have never felt superior to any of them because of where I worked. Then again none of them paid for their line trg. So I tend only to post on pp when somebody outwith ba Slags us off. This thread started because of the usual ba/balpa whining. I apologise for taking it off thread.
Finally I wish you all good luck in driving up your t&c's. Hate me and my type or not but if we lose this fight we will all pay.
Pretty obvious which drop file I went in!
Didn't have tfr
Good to see nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions. Off course the self sponsored tre/ line trained pilot had in no way encouraged managers to degrade t&c's for all. Just like drunk drivers are really just let down by the barman that serve them. For the benefit if doubt my 'contempt' is for the small number of pilots who are paying airlines to train them. If paying for line training isn't as good as bribing ur way to a job what us? I'm sure that selection is done on merit.
I wholly agree about the sentiments of ba trg dept. My fleet has lost great ex managers, ex Raf and civvies, to be replaced by company men and an ethos exactly as descibed.
I wholly agree that as pilots unity within companys is essential. In my short time with BA I've been shocked at the level of envy and hate that the rest of the civil world has for us. No doubt you will say its because of opinions like mine. I've got mates in every major airline in the uk and have never felt superior to any of them because of where I worked. Then again none of them paid for their line trg. So I tend only to post on pp when somebody outwith ba Slags us off. This thread started because of the usual ba/balpa whining. I apologise for taking it off thread.
Finally I wish you all good luck in driving up your t&c's. Hate me and my type or not but if we lose this fight we will all pay.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wouldn't you like to know !
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be a pity if the thread degenerated into a Mil / Civ argument again - although the refrain that starts:
"I don't know but I've been told.....Navy wings are made of gold..."
has always worked for me!
However, the point remains that different people make their choices and achieve a level of competence adequate for the job, and depending on the employer's training department, far more than that.
I think that the BALPA stance is in many ways accurate, and the comparison to the British Merchant Marine is accurate in very many respects. The problem is presentational. 'Pickets with Porsches', rightly or wrongly, is never going to win support. Personnel from a wide range of companies who have been shafted by BA management, (Dan, GSS, BACX etc etc) are unlikely to ever feel warm fuzzy feelings towards BA, particularly if they have met an arrogant 'me-first' Nigel who has apparently pinched their seat! Equally, people using emotive and rabblerousing generalisations about BA pilots cannot be too surprised if they get back similar in return.
The bottom line is that the Industry does not really permit a collective of pilots, and pilots by their nature are mainly 'me first' individuals. Humans are too, when you get right down to it. A normal human emotion is envy, be it of better Ts & Cs or whatever. BA pilots are no better, no worse, statistically than other group of pilots There, I've said it.
They do the same checks, they achieve the same standard, so it's a sine qua non that any extra money they get is because they have a strong union, not because they're better polers! (And I was a trainer with BACX, and I used to do their L/OPCs. Perfectly adequate, some dunces, no more stars than anyone else.)
Flying is pretty much a humdrum game, the systems are so reliable that there is a whole generation of "The children of the magenta line" out there - fortunately the kit works more often than not. It's no surprise that most disasters are Eastern or Third world outfits, because no civil airline training takes you to the corners of the envelope explored by military training. Hence, when the going gets really really rough, the aircraft usually crashes and everyone dies. Exceptions being the BA 744 where the PF was ex mil and the DHL Bus that got totalled by the SAM.
Anyway, back to the point - unless UK pilots, and eventually all Western pilots stick together, the Western managements will stick it to the pilots. It's as reall as fish 'n chips.
The pilots will NOT stick together, hence Ts and Cs will slide UNTIL the inevitable major accident in Western Europe.
Face facts boys. Willie may get the push, but a version of OS will happen, absolutely no doubt about it. Eastern European pilots will continue to happen, wasn't that JAR licence SUCH a good idea......
"I don't know but it's been said - Air Force Wings are made of lead...."
"I don't know but I've been told.....Navy wings are made of gold..."
has always worked for me!
However, the point remains that different people make their choices and achieve a level of competence adequate for the job, and depending on the employer's training department, far more than that.
I think that the BALPA stance is in many ways accurate, and the comparison to the British Merchant Marine is accurate in very many respects. The problem is presentational. 'Pickets with Porsches', rightly or wrongly, is never going to win support. Personnel from a wide range of companies who have been shafted by BA management, (Dan, GSS, BACX etc etc) are unlikely to ever feel warm fuzzy feelings towards BA, particularly if they have met an arrogant 'me-first' Nigel who has apparently pinched their seat! Equally, people using emotive and rabblerousing generalisations about BA pilots cannot be too surprised if they get back similar in return.
The bottom line is that the Industry does not really permit a collective of pilots, and pilots by their nature are mainly 'me first' individuals. Humans are too, when you get right down to it. A normal human emotion is envy, be it of better Ts & Cs or whatever. BA pilots are no better, no worse, statistically than other group of pilots There, I've said it.
They do the same checks, they achieve the same standard, so it's a sine qua non that any extra money they get is because they have a strong union, not because they're better polers! (And I was a trainer with BACX, and I used to do their L/OPCs. Perfectly adequate, some dunces, no more stars than anyone else.)Flying is pretty much a humdrum game, the systems are so reliable that there is a whole generation of "The children of the magenta line" out there - fortunately the kit works more often than not. It's no surprise that most disasters are Eastern or Third world outfits, because no civil airline training takes you to the corners of the envelope explored by military training. Hence, when the going gets really really rough, the aircraft usually crashes and everyone dies. Exceptions being the BA 744 where the PF was ex mil and the DHL Bus that got totalled by the SAM.
Anyway, back to the point - unless UK pilots, and eventually all Western pilots stick together, the Western managements will stick it to the pilots. It's as reall as fish 'n chips.
The pilots will NOT stick together, hence Ts and Cs will slide UNTIL the inevitable major accident in Western Europe.
Face facts boys. Willie may get the push, but a version of OS will happen, absolutely no doubt about it. Eastern European pilots will continue to happen, wasn't that JAR licence SUCH a good idea......
"I don't know but it's been said - Air Force Wings are made of lead...."
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thread drift
Seems to have drifted off topic a bit. BA has such a big presence within Balpa that it is hardly surprising that they are fairly high profile especially when something like this comes up. Others will feel agrieved because they only see the ivory tower aspect of it all and actually wouldn't mind if those rich chaps (no gender bias to be implied!) living the high life as described in the Daily Mail were brought down to earth. I actually support the BA members in their current predicament but it did grate somewhat when such a big thing was made of the limits on pension accrual and the campaign run by Balpa on this. This was made a little harder to take in when the BA members had quite happily sold new entrants down the line with regards pension membership.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignoring all the usual cul-de-sacs which crop up when the terms BA and BALPA are mentioned in the same breath!
It seems to me to be glaringly obvious that the reason BA pilots enjoy such (relatively) good T&Cs, is NOT because we ever claim to be better pilots than anyone else, (We aren't - though others have said to me we occupy a narrower 'spread' of ability) but purely because union representation is extraordinarily strong within the company. I don't know the figures, but I would be very surprised if membership didn't run to around 96%?
This level of representation enables those that negotiate on our behalf to negotiate from a position of strength. Another company that I believe have traditionally enjoyed high levels of BALPA membership is Britannia, and it's newer incarnation. Also a company with very good levels of remuneration!
Coincidence???
It always saddens me when people working for companies with low levels of membership, or inadequate 'Company Councils', feel pilots from other companies should take up the 'cudgels' on their behalf! Normally when, for a variety of reasons, they are simply incapable of taking responsibility for their own situations.
Since BA pilots contribute well over half the total contributions to BALPA, the question that should be asked here, is not: 'What have BA pilots ever done for us? - I'm going to leave!'
The question for BA pilots should be, what does BALPA, and it's association with other Airline CCs do for us!!
Why don't BA pilots do, as has been suggested, simply set up the British Airways Airline Pilots Association! What would we lose?
Be careful what you wish for guys, there are many possible outcomes here that could break this union. Amongst these is, animosity from the pilots of other airlines.
BA pilots can easily form a union of their own. It may even be better for us. Is that really what you want?
It seems to me to be glaringly obvious that the reason BA pilots enjoy such (relatively) good T&Cs, is NOT because we ever claim to be better pilots than anyone else, (We aren't - though others have said to me we occupy a narrower 'spread' of ability) but purely because union representation is extraordinarily strong within the company. I don't know the figures, but I would be very surprised if membership didn't run to around 96%?
This level of representation enables those that negotiate on our behalf to negotiate from a position of strength. Another company that I believe have traditionally enjoyed high levels of BALPA membership is Britannia, and it's newer incarnation. Also a company with very good levels of remuneration!
Coincidence???
It always saddens me when people working for companies with low levels of membership, or inadequate 'Company Councils', feel pilots from other companies should take up the 'cudgels' on their behalf! Normally when, for a variety of reasons, they are simply incapable of taking responsibility for their own situations.
Since BA pilots contribute well over half the total contributions to BALPA, the question that should be asked here, is not: 'What have BA pilots ever done for us? - I'm going to leave!'
The question for BA pilots should be, what does BALPA, and it's association with other Airline CCs do for us!!
Why don't BA pilots do, as has been suggested, simply set up the British Airways Airline Pilots Association! What would we lose?
Be careful what you wish for guys, there are many possible outcomes here that could break this union. Amongst these is, animosity from the pilots of other airlines.
BA pilots can easily form a union of their own. It may even be better for us. Is that really what you want?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Age: 18
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see HH is a fully paid up member of BALPA and from his more recent postings not the narcissist he at first appeared.
Narcissism is a prerequisite for climbing to the top of any greasy pole so no need to psychoanalyse Willie, Broughton et al. A touch of sadism also does not go amiss, but inflicting pain on others is one thing, these people are seldom massachists and in fact abhor any pain being inflicted on them because they "just don't deserve it". ( There is of course always the exception to the rule e.g "Bad Mad Max " Moseley!)
Willie, Broughton et al have put on a brave face upto now over T5 and other failings but inside they will be hurting because of the humiliation, even if of course it "is due to the shortcomings of other lesser mortals".
A downgrading by Standard and Poors won't help their mood and self esteem because it lessens them in the eyes of the only ones they "care" about, the suits in the city.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...19/cnba119.xml
In this situation it is almost inconceivable that Willie/ The Board will countenance a strike by the pilots and suffer added humiliation, but whether or not a strike takes place, when the management have "lost" it will be important that BALPA trumpet their success so that pilots in other organisations see the benefit of BALPA membership and of standing together for the mutual benefit of all.
Narcissism is a prerequisite for climbing to the top of any greasy pole so no need to psychoanalyse Willie, Broughton et al. A touch of sadism also does not go amiss, but inflicting pain on others is one thing, these people are seldom massachists and in fact abhor any pain being inflicted on them because they "just don't deserve it". ( There is of course always the exception to the rule e.g "Bad Mad Max " Moseley!)
Willie, Broughton et al have put on a brave face upto now over T5 and other failings but inside they will be hurting because of the humiliation, even if of course it "is due to the shortcomings of other lesser mortals".
A downgrading by Standard and Poors won't help their mood and self esteem because it lessens them in the eyes of the only ones they "care" about, the suits in the city.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...19/cnba119.xml
In this situation it is almost inconceivable that Willie/ The Board will countenance a strike by the pilots and suffer added humiliation, but whether or not a strike takes place, when the management have "lost" it will be important that BALPA trumpet their success so that pilots in other organisations see the benefit of BALPA membership and of standing together for the mutual benefit of all.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whinging wimps
At last!
Thank you TR for stating the blindingly obvious to those who don't want to hear it!
Spot on!
Spot on!
Entirely in keeping with the general outlook on life some of these pilots have.
Nothing is their responsibility, everyone else should be looking after their interests, whilst they keep their heads down and whinge from the safety of anonymous aviation forums.
Too lily-livered in many cases, too afraid they might upset someone important and damage their career prospects in their airline. Much easier to blame those nasty BA pilots for all their troubles!
That was my fervent wish, during most of my time in BA.
Guys, in case you don't get it, if your T & Cs aren't as good as you want, YOU need to do something about it, other than whinging on about BALPA and BA pilots. Yes, you are entitled to help and support from BALPA, but any improvement must start with you!
The plain fact is that those of you who work under substandard conditions are too disorganised, and in some cases too nervous, to do anything about it.
Sorry if the truth hurts!
Thank you TR for stating the blindingly obvious to those who don't want to hear it!
glaringly obvious that the reason BA pilots enjoy such (relatively) good T&Cs, is - purely because union representation is extraordinarily strong within the company
This level of representation enables those that negotiate on our behalf to negotiate from a position of strength.
It always saddens me when people working for companies with low levels of membership, or inadequate 'Company Councils', feel pilots from other companies should take up the 'cudgels' on their behalf!
Nothing is their responsibility, everyone else should be looking after their interests, whilst they keep their heads down and whinge from the safety of anonymous aviation forums.
Normally when, for a variety of reasons, they are simply incapable of taking responsibility for their own situations.
Why don't BA pilots do, as has been suggested, simply set up the British Airways Airline Pilots Association!
Guys, in case you don't get it, if your T & Cs aren't as good as you want, YOU need to do something about it, other than whinging on about BALPA and BA pilots. Yes, you are entitled to help and support from BALPA, but any improvement must start with you!
The plain fact is that those of you who work under substandard conditions are too disorganised, and in some cases too nervous, to do anything about it.
Sorry if the truth hurts!
Pilot qualifications
Slightly off thread, but as a comment on The H.H. ,,,,,,,,
Cor Blimey ! If H.H. was trying to wind you all up he certainly succeeded ! But if he was serious I’m sad that members of my erstwhile profession are so bitchy and back-stabbing, and I thought pilots like H.H. had long gone with the retiring of the old style North Atlantic Baron, W.W. II bomber pilots, of the early BOAC. But they had at least survived flying a war, so even if unjustifiable, their autocratic behaviour could be understood – a bit.
The Hamble cadets and Oxford graduates that followed my generation (we were largely Nat. Service and Short Service Commission ex-RAF / RN pilots ) were trained for the task that they are now called upon to do, and if they meet the constraints of their final check ride, and subsequent 6 monthly checks, what’s the gripe ? If they don’t, whose at fault in continuing to employ them? Flying a high speed pursuit ship at Mach 2.0 and low level against a ground target has no relevance to being in command of a large 4 eng. passenger jet and meeting the demands of ATC whilst completing a Cat. II ILS ( WAAS / GPS maybe now ? ) approach to O’Hare in a snowstorm.
During my Flt. Nav. training an old style Nav. instructor told me that I would never make a real Navigator until I had achieved a three-wind drift sight reading with the shells coming through the cockpit over the target - I never had to. Every generation has it’s own problems to tackle and must move with the times, and I had to get to grips with INS, something my old Nav. Instr. could never have dreamed of in his wildest moments, but we were aces at crossing the North Atlantic with a sextant - in a 707.
I wouldn’t have the faintest idea what FADEC, or EICAS or other acronyms associated with a Glass Cockpit mean, but I don’t need, and never had, to, present day pilots don’t even know what a GCA, or Radio Range let-down means – but they don’t have to. It’s Horses for Courses, H.H.
Cor Blimey ! If H.H. was trying to wind you all up he certainly succeeded ! But if he was serious I’m sad that members of my erstwhile profession are so bitchy and back-stabbing, and I thought pilots like H.H. had long gone with the retiring of the old style North Atlantic Baron, W.W. II bomber pilots, of the early BOAC. But they had at least survived flying a war, so even if unjustifiable, their autocratic behaviour could be understood – a bit.
The Hamble cadets and Oxford graduates that followed my generation (we were largely Nat. Service and Short Service Commission ex-RAF / RN pilots ) were trained for the task that they are now called upon to do, and if they meet the constraints of their final check ride, and subsequent 6 monthly checks, what’s the gripe ? If they don’t, whose at fault in continuing to employ them? Flying a high speed pursuit ship at Mach 2.0 and low level against a ground target has no relevance to being in command of a large 4 eng. passenger jet and meeting the demands of ATC whilst completing a Cat. II ILS ( WAAS / GPS maybe now ? ) approach to O’Hare in a snowstorm.
During my Flt. Nav. training an old style Nav. instructor told me that I would never make a real Navigator until I had achieved a three-wind drift sight reading with the shells coming through the cockpit over the target - I never had to. Every generation has it’s own problems to tackle and must move with the times, and I had to get to grips with INS, something my old Nav. Instr. could never have dreamed of in his wildest moments, but we were aces at crossing the North Atlantic with a sextant - in a 707.
I wouldn’t have the faintest idea what FADEC, or EICAS or other acronyms associated with a Glass Cockpit mean, but I don’t need, and never had, to, present day pilots don’t even know what a GCA, or Radio Range let-down means – but they don’t have to. It’s Horses for Courses, H.H.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wound up by HH - yes.
Unbelievble spoutings from one who, I suspect, still stands in front of the mirror in his grow-bag and gloves and then comes to work to spend the entire of the cruise starting every conversation 'WIWO blah SQN; WIWO blah detachment etc' in case anyone hasn't clocked that he used to do some different flying.
Get over yourself mate. I know and fly with many folk with much more impressive military CVs than you who can accept the industry for what it is and just get on with it.
You're not special - you're one of us. An homogenous mass of bums on seats who perform to the highest of our abilities every day we come to work.
Unbelievble spoutings from one who, I suspect, still stands in front of the mirror in his grow-bag and gloves and then comes to work to spend the entire of the cruise starting every conversation 'WIWO blah SQN; WIWO blah detachment etc' in case anyone hasn't clocked that he used to do some different flying.
Get over yourself mate. I know and fly with many folk with much more impressive military CVs than you who can accept the industry for what it is and just get on with it.
You're not special - you're one of us. An homogenous mass of bums on seats who perform to the highest of our abilities every day we come to work.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear HH
Just a quick question.
I know of at least two ex-Ryanair pilots who used daddy's money to pay for their course, type rating, and line training. They are now working for BA having got through the DEP selection.
What are your thoughts on those sub standard, T&C eroding bar stewards?
Just a quick question.
I know of at least two ex-Ryanair pilots who used daddy's money to pay for their course, type rating, and line training. They are now working for BA having got through the DEP selection.
What are your thoughts on those sub standard, T&C eroding bar stewards?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dead Dickeye, and Wobblehead!
Those would have been very accurate posts, and rather relevant were it not for the usual fact that BA pilots, with their selfish, inward turned view of the world fail to recognise the blindingly bleeding factual historical obvious!
In your obsession with your own Ts and Cs - which is undeniably your right - you have directly shafted a number of groups of pilots who have had the misfortune to be brought within or associated with your group. I name Dan Air, GSS, BACX BA Connect, Cityflyer Mk2 as examples. The reason so many of us despise you all as a group is that you fail to embrace any form of broad church theory even when it involves pilots WITHIN YOUR OWN COMPANY, owned by the same shareholders. Worse, you have twisted rules in order to deliberately disadvantage pilots from those groups in order to elevate 'mainline' products.
That is why, although I accept OS is a crude management ploy to reduce pilot costs per se across the Western Industry, you are sneered at for your hypocrisy and the disingenuity of your specious statements about requesting support and trying to pretend this is an "all for one" exercise. I don't recall you making this fuss about Go - presumably that was different?
You condescendingly refer to people being whinging wimps, or being lily livered - yet when you have people flying on the SAME AEROPLANES (at your own insistence), with a start-up, brand new internal company council trying to feel their way, you block and object the slightest thing that might affect your mainline prospects. I wonder what would be said if an experienced skipper behaved like that to a brand new FO? Hardly CRM is it? Hardly united union activity is it? Hardly a united 'broad church' approach from BritishAirwaysLinePilotsAssociation is it?
It is quite quite nauseating to read those two posts, but they exemplify what the rest of UK aviation dislike most about BA.
Quite quite unbelievable. I suggest you DO kn0b off and form your own union, at least then no-one could object to the slanted and biaised view of the world you project. You exemplify all the shortcomings for which you berate Walsh, with those bullying and patronising words.
BACX were owned by BA, they were not nervous, or disorganised before they became a fully owned subsidiary - it was the treatment by the BACC (or more accurately the complete lack of advice and assistance, in fact downright opposition) which was responsible for any lack of morale therein, not to mention the subsequent operational and financial mismanagement which terminated the company subsequent to its asset stripping. It might be reasonable not to expect BA pilots and BACC to support, say Easyjet pilots, or Monarch pilots - but to actively oppose and denigrate pilots who FLY BA AEROPLANES ALONGSIDE BA CREWS???????? Incredible! You couldn't make this stuff up.
Perhaps D1ckhead has a point, perhaps no-one should expect help, advice or assistance from BACC and BA pilots, but even accepting that as an argument, it would be helpful if they didn't actively oppose and fight other pilots' aspirations!! It's bad enough having to fight your management, particularly when you are a smaller operator, one does not expect to have to fight one's so called colleagues as well!
The BA treatment of Dan is well recorded. The BA treatment and again, deliberate disadvantagement of GSS pilots "because of our industrial muscle", ie because we can, says all one needs to know.
Fortunately, I know a lot of BA pilots, and the D1ckhead Deadeye and the Wobblehead are not representative of most.
It would be useful to see the IPA come to prominence - perhaps about time we had a union which did NOT include the arrogant, egotistical, bullying, posturing windbags currently represented by BACC.
Wobblehead had the temerity to mention Britannia. You are an @rse sir!!! Britannia management recently explored the loco operation, setting up a 'downmarket' version of Britannia with 737s. Everyone there was on worse Ts and Cs, with no transfer available to BAL mainline. Indeed, Senior FOs from BAL who went across to gain a command took a risk, because they accepted the lowering of their own relative Ts and Cs in order to hopefully progress a career. In BA, doubtless we would have seen tools downed, and more hysterical rants in public and on pprune. Doubtless a lot of toys and cots would have parted company.
The BAL CC was, and is very different (thank god) to its BA counterpart. They worked patiently and thoroughly behind the scenes and eventually achieved the uplift of the Tfly personnel's Ts and Cs, and persuaded management that one single company was a better bet for all. They raised the new operation to identical salary, pension and seniority rights. In BA, the equivalent posturing saw the destruction of the equivalent so-called threat to mainline. Tfly CC have recently again pulled off the positive, by negotiating the current merger with FCA. Thank goodness for all of us they are who they are, and not wearing a BA uniform.
D1ckhead, Wobblehead, you should be ashamed of yourselves - however I believe your rants show you up for exactly what you are, a disgrace to your community, your union and your profession!
Those would have been very accurate posts, and rather relevant were it not for the usual fact that BA pilots, with their selfish, inward turned view of the world fail to recognise the blindingly bleeding factual historical obvious!
In your obsession with your own Ts and Cs - which is undeniably your right - you have directly shafted a number of groups of pilots who have had the misfortune to be brought within or associated with your group. I name Dan Air, GSS, BACX BA Connect, Cityflyer Mk2 as examples. The reason so many of us despise you all as a group is that you fail to embrace any form of broad church theory even when it involves pilots WITHIN YOUR OWN COMPANY, owned by the same shareholders. Worse, you have twisted rules in order to deliberately disadvantage pilots from those groups in order to elevate 'mainline' products.
That is why, although I accept OS is a crude management ploy to reduce pilot costs per se across the Western Industry, you are sneered at for your hypocrisy and the disingenuity of your specious statements about requesting support and trying to pretend this is an "all for one" exercise. I don't recall you making this fuss about Go - presumably that was different?
You condescendingly refer to people being whinging wimps, or being lily livered - yet when you have people flying on the SAME AEROPLANES (at your own insistence), with a start-up, brand new internal company council trying to feel their way, you block and object the slightest thing that might affect your mainline prospects. I wonder what would be said if an experienced skipper behaved like that to a brand new FO? Hardly CRM is it? Hardly united union activity is it? Hardly a united 'broad church' approach from BritishAirwaysLinePilotsAssociation is it?
It is quite quite nauseating to read those two posts, but they exemplify what the rest of UK aviation dislike most about BA.
The question for BA pilots should be, what does BALPA, and it's association with other Airline CCs do for us!!
The plain fact is that those of you who work under substandard conditions are too disorganised, and in some cases too nervous, to do anything about it.
Perhaps D1ckhead has a point, perhaps no-one should expect help, advice or assistance from BACC and BA pilots, but even accepting that as an argument, it would be helpful if they didn't actively oppose and fight other pilots' aspirations!! It's bad enough having to fight your management, particularly when you are a smaller operator, one does not expect to have to fight one's so called colleagues as well!
The BA treatment of Dan is well recorded. The BA treatment and again, deliberate disadvantagement of GSS pilots "because of our industrial muscle", ie because we can, says all one needs to know.
Fortunately, I know a lot of BA pilots, and the D1ckhead Deadeye and the Wobblehead are not representative of most.
It would be useful to see the IPA come to prominence - perhaps about time we had a union which did NOT include the arrogant, egotistical, bullying, posturing windbags currently represented by BACC.
Wobblehead had the temerity to mention Britannia. You are an @rse sir!!! Britannia management recently explored the loco operation, setting up a 'downmarket' version of Britannia with 737s. Everyone there was on worse Ts and Cs, with no transfer available to BAL mainline. Indeed, Senior FOs from BAL who went across to gain a command took a risk, because they accepted the lowering of their own relative Ts and Cs in order to hopefully progress a career. In BA, doubtless we would have seen tools downed, and more hysterical rants in public and on pprune. Doubtless a lot of toys and cots would have parted company.
The BAL CC was, and is very different (thank god) to its BA counterpart. They worked patiently and thoroughly behind the scenes and eventually achieved the uplift of the Tfly personnel's Ts and Cs, and persuaded management that one single company was a better bet for all. They raised the new operation to identical salary, pension and seniority rights. In BA, the equivalent posturing saw the destruction of the equivalent so-called threat to mainline. Tfly CC have recently again pulled off the positive, by negotiating the current merger with FCA. Thank goodness for all of us they are who they are, and not wearing a BA uniform.
D1ckhead, Wobblehead, you should be ashamed of yourselves - however I believe your rants show you up for exactly what you are, a disgrace to your community, your union and your profession!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hulkomaniac
Quick question if I may.
1) What percentage of BACX pilots were balpa members?
2) What percentage of Britannia's new incarnation are BALPA members?
3) How exactly have BA BALPA 'shafted' Cityflyer Mk2?
Thanks.
Quick question if I may.
1) What percentage of BACX pilots were balpa members?
2) What percentage of Britannia's new incarnation are BALPA members?
3) How exactly have BA BALPA 'shafted' Cityflyer Mk2?
Thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the relevance???
The BACX thing was a merger of three wholly owned BA subsidiaries. It had just achieved BALPA recognition by the Company, hence the answer to your first point is:
SUFFICIENT!
The answer to your second, as you are probably also well aware is that on startup, Thomsonfly (at CVT) had miniscule specific membership representation, since its pilots came from all over the industry - many as direct entry captains, and direct entry training captains - positions which they retained on the uplift. (remind when that last happened with BA??)
Again, thanks entirely to our BALCC, that membership was raised to its current high level - I don't know the exact figure, nor that of FCA, but the answer is again:
SUFFICIENT!
The difference twixt BA and BAL/TFly (thank God) is that the latter work for everyone within the group, not just the chosen few. Even longer standing issues such as Orion seniority have not been dealt with in the BA fashion. However, it is not traditional for BAL/TFly personnel to descend to the pprune/BA gutters, so I shall leave it - (and you) - at that. I'm quite sure people will make up their own minds.
PS - nearly missed point 3.
I am told about Airbus into LCY, I am told about no payrise for four years, I am told about reminder of scope clauses and mention of downgrade to Dash-8s, I am told about the expiry of the scope agreement in just under two years when the RJ guys/gals are history.....unless of course BACC change their mind and 'help' them with their ambitions to get into mainline.
So yes, I report only what I've been told by ex colleagues who remain within the dead hand of BA. Why don't you ask THEM!!!!
The BACX thing was a merger of three wholly owned BA subsidiaries. It had just achieved BALPA recognition by the Company, hence the answer to your first point is:
SUFFICIENT!
The answer to your second, as you are probably also well aware is that on startup, Thomsonfly (at CVT) had miniscule specific membership representation, since its pilots came from all over the industry - many as direct entry captains, and direct entry training captains - positions which they retained on the uplift. (remind when that last happened with BA??)
Again, thanks entirely to our BALCC, that membership was raised to its current high level - I don't know the exact figure, nor that of FCA, but the answer is again:
SUFFICIENT!
The difference twixt BA and BAL/TFly (thank God) is that the latter work for everyone within the group, not just the chosen few. Even longer standing issues such as Orion seniority have not been dealt with in the BA fashion. However, it is not traditional for BAL/TFly personnel to descend to the pprune/BA gutters, so I shall leave it - (and you) - at that. I'm quite sure people will make up their own minds.
PS - nearly missed point 3.
I am told about Airbus into LCY, I am told about no payrise for four years, I am told about reminder of scope clauses and mention of downgrade to Dash-8s, I am told about the expiry of the scope agreement in just under two years when the RJ guys/gals are history.....unless of course BACC change their mind and 'help' them with their ambitions to get into mainline.
So yes, I report only what I've been told by ex colleagues who remain within the dead hand of BA. Why don't you ask THEM!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It always saddens me when people working for companies with low levels of membership, or inadequate 'Company Councils', feel pilots from other companies should take up the 'cudgels' on their behalf! Normally when, for a variety of reasons, they are simply incapable of taking responsibility for their own situations.
I notice you deal in generalities, with no specific information.
No doubt other 'old friends' will come along shortly. Normally with the same abusive attitude.
Edited to add: I notice amongst the other 'hearsay' you mention to 'support' your allegation that BA BALPA are/have 'shafted' Cityflyer Mk2, you mention Airbus into LCY.
The only LCY Airbus I am aware of is the A318s that may fly Transatlantic. Are you suggesting these should be operated by Cityflyer??
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Manchester
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Tanny old boy, not usual to see you supporting a point so well; you perfectly illustrate and support every single point made by the Hulk. And why shouldn't Cityflyer operate the 318 - mainline operate the RJ!
Brilliant post Hulk, right on the money, glad things have worked out for you - pm me and let's talk about TFly recruitment.
Brilliant post Hulk, right on the money, glad things have worked out for you - pm me and let's talk about TFly recruitment.
Very, very good post Hulko, put very clearly into words what most of us think anyway and deserves a big pat on the back. Don't forget the franchises either who were stonewalled by these gits.
Charizard
wouldn't bother about Tfly recruitment for a while.
Charizard
wouldn't bother about Tfly recruitment for a while.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course there is another option for those who believe that BALPA is the BA Line Pilots Association - b****r off and form your own union to look after your T&Cs.
I doubt that will happen though, the basic problem being that BALPA is only as strong and effective as its members within a particular company. That means you. It's far easier to come on to PPrune and slag off BA pilots and BALPA instead of getting off your backsides and doing something effective. The petty jealousies are getting boring. If you don't like BALPA you don't have to be part of it - if you are part of it, then be active within it.
I doubt that will happen though, the basic problem being that BALPA is only as strong and effective as its members within a particular company. That means you. It's far easier to come on to PPrune and slag off BA pilots and BALPA instead of getting off your backsides and doing something effective. The petty jealousies are getting boring. If you don't like BALPA you don't have to be part of it - if you are part of it, then be active within it.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deary, deary me. The three pages here make for sad reading. One group of pilots with chips on their shoulder off the subject and fighting with another group of equally opinionated pilots. None of it makes for pretty reading.
Occasionally somebody comes along with a bit of common sense to say something like:
Without that kind of unity everybody is screwed. Including those who think that they are bringing down the "fat cats" to their level. (Quite why many pilots don't want to get themselves UP to where the "fat cats" are has always amazed me).
Over in the U.S. of A. yet another group of disgruntled pilots have voted to opt out of ALPA because they did not like the result of a merger proposal for integrating seniority lists. The bitterness generated by this will no doubt go on for decades. In reality it is a battle between two groups of pilots and not between ALPA and two airline managements. ALPA, just as happened with BALPA in the past, will no doubt end up being blamed for not making things right. Which they cannot.
When a group of pilots get together to form an association to protect their collective interests they are only as good as their unity and what they put into looking after their interests. You cannot blame any ALPA for failing to support a bunch of pilots that will not pull together. It is political common sense 101. I would not want my money spent on such idiocy.
You all get what you deserve.
Occasionally somebody comes along with a bit of common sense to say something like:
It seems to me to be glaringly obvious that the reason BA pilots enjoy such (relatively) good T&Cs, is NOT because we ever claim to be better pilots than anyone else, (We aren't - though others have said to me we occupy a narrower 'spread' of ability) but purely because union representation is extraordinarily strong within the company. I don't know the figures, but I would be very surprised if membership didn't run to around 96%?
Over in the U.S. of A. yet another group of disgruntled pilots have voted to opt out of ALPA because they did not like the result of a merger proposal for integrating seniority lists. The bitterness generated by this will no doubt go on for decades. In reality it is a battle between two groups of pilots and not between ALPA and two airline managements. ALPA, just as happened with BALPA in the past, will no doubt end up being blamed for not making things right. Which they cannot.
When a group of pilots get together to form an association to protect their collective interests they are only as good as their unity and what they put into looking after their interests. You cannot blame any ALPA for failing to support a bunch of pilots that will not pull together. It is political common sense 101. I would not want my money spent on such idiocy.
You all get what you deserve.