Redundances on British Midland Regional 146 fleet?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately for us on the 146, the scope clause prevents s from working any scheduled route as we are 5 abreast seating. Once again not being BALPA recognised has cost us. This is because we had no voice when the scope clause was put in place.
So BASH is safe he still has a job. We don't.
[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: alterego ]
So BASH is safe he still has a job. We don't.
[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: alterego ]
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alterego,
I hear that BASH will bring a "chosen few" 146 pilots across to the 145 with him. Any truth in this?
Your absolutely right on the scope clause, if your not in the negotiation you don't have a say in the decision.
I hear that BASH will bring a "chosen few" 146 pilots across to the 145 with him. Any truth in this?
Your absolutely right on the scope clause, if your not in the negotiation you don't have a say in the decision.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The futures bright the futures not scope clauses"
The future is indeed brighter for many because of the scope clauses. The lemmings are those at bmir who decided against recognition - look where it has got them. At the moment my BALPA subs are my best investment. At times like this they are likely to remain so. Use your remaining brain cell to think about it for a minute and you will come to the same conclusion. As for AR's quote in the local rag mag - just shows have badly informed he is.
The future is indeed brighter for many because of the scope clauses. The lemmings are those at bmir who decided against recognition - look where it has got them. At the moment my BALPA subs are my best investment. At times like this they are likely to remain so. Use your remaining brain cell to think about it for a minute and you will come to the same conclusion. As for AR's quote in the local rag mag - just shows have badly informed he is.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flapless
There are pilots in bmir who choose to be BALPA members,we have not chosen one way or the other about recognition, only that we need a working crew council anyway, even if we do join.Those individual members of BALPA were not consulted about the scope agreement being levied against us and this has led to a bit of a nasty aftertaste.How can BALPA represent the best interests of both sides when they are activly working against us already?
There are pilots in bmir who choose to be BALPA members,we have not chosen one way or the other about recognition, only that we need a working crew council anyway, even if we do join.Those individual members of BALPA were not consulted about the scope agreement being levied against us and this has led to a bit of a nasty aftertaste.How can BALPA represent the best interests of both sides when they are activly working against us already?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nitefiter,
bmi and bmir are separate company's. bmi's scope agreement is the result of the bmi members cc and bmi pilots taking the lead and protecting the interest of bmi pilots. There was NEVER any requirement or need for bmi pilots to look at the interests of bmir pilots - why would there be, they work for different companies. You need to ask why, whoever it is, that represents you did not have the foresight to see what was about to happen. At the time it did not require a degree in rocket science to work it out. Please do not even suggest it is BALPA's fault and how can they properly represent you. BALPA is its members - nothing more and nothing less. Get yourself a properly elected and representative company council and see how they can work on your behalf to represent your interests.
bmi and bmir are separate company's. bmi's scope agreement is the result of the bmi members cc and bmi pilots taking the lead and protecting the interest of bmi pilots. There was NEVER any requirement or need for bmi pilots to look at the interests of bmir pilots - why would there be, they work for different companies. You need to ask why, whoever it is, that represents you did not have the foresight to see what was about to happen. At the time it did not require a degree in rocket science to work it out. Please do not even suggest it is BALPA's fault and how can they properly represent you. BALPA is its members - nothing more and nothing less. Get yourself a properly elected and representative company council and see how they can work on your behalf to represent your interests.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Chumpland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eicas,
Some interesting points but.....
1/ The scope clause protects me (bmi) and believe it or not, you (bmir?). Fine, I've got no problem with you flying one of our airbus's or boeing's (in fact we'd be glad to have you along) but I'd much rather you did it for £44k than £28k. If you start flying a mainline aircraft for £28k I'll start to get worried. I'm sure Sir MB & AR would love to have you flying it for that kind of money but if easyJet & Go can turn a profit paying similar salaries to bmi as at present then there's no reason for bmi to pay less.
Without the scope clause I can see the 737 fleet coming across to bmir. Great you say till they base you at LHR on £28k. Hmm, let's see, that won't even allow you to buy a 1 bed flat in Hounslow. Or better still, why do the job for less than your contemporaries? Because I can see no other reason for bringing the fleet across to bmir. Maybe you have a private income from selling double glazing in a past life and your flying job is only a hobby but some of us need our salaries for mortgages etc etc.....
2/ You seem to vehemently hate us mainline pilots, is this purely down to the scope clause or is there some hidden agenda? Do you really want to see us all flying for bmir salaries? At least bmi salary scales give your cc some leverage.
3/ As you said BM management are acting like pit managers at the moment. But why succumb to them? Who said the scope clause was to benefit customers or the shareholders? It's to benefit us, the pilots, or don't you get it?
Hugs & Kisses Eicas
[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: Chump ]
Some interesting points but.....
1/ The scope clause protects me (bmi) and believe it or not, you (bmir?). Fine, I've got no problem with you flying one of our airbus's or boeing's (in fact we'd be glad to have you along) but I'd much rather you did it for £44k than £28k. If you start flying a mainline aircraft for £28k I'll start to get worried. I'm sure Sir MB & AR would love to have you flying it for that kind of money but if easyJet & Go can turn a profit paying similar salaries to bmi as at present then there's no reason for bmi to pay less.
Without the scope clause I can see the 737 fleet coming across to bmir. Great you say till they base you at LHR on £28k. Hmm, let's see, that won't even allow you to buy a 1 bed flat in Hounslow. Or better still, why do the job for less than your contemporaries? Because I can see no other reason for bringing the fleet across to bmir. Maybe you have a private income from selling double glazing in a past life and your flying job is only a hobby but some of us need our salaries for mortgages etc etc.....
2/ You seem to vehemently hate us mainline pilots, is this purely down to the scope clause or is there some hidden agenda? Do you really want to see us all flying for bmir salaries? At least bmi salary scales give your cc some leverage.
3/ As you said BM management are acting like pit managers at the moment. But why succumb to them? Who said the scope clause was to benefit customers or the shareholders? It's to benefit us, the pilots, or don't you get it?
Hugs & Kisses Eicas
[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: Chump ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flapless
You seem to have missed my point.I never mentioned bmi pilots looking after our interests nor did i blame BALPA, you said that "BALPA is its members",exactly right ,so why didnt they inform the said individuals within bmir about what was going on.I think that for the subs they charge you should get a bit more than a poxy diary refill.
My question was and still is how can they (BALPA) best represent both sides?, nobody(including you) has ever answered this.
You seem to have missed my point.I never mentioned bmi pilots looking after our interests nor did i blame BALPA, you said that "BALPA is its members",exactly right ,so why didnt they inform the said individuals within bmir about what was going on.I think that for the subs they charge you should get a bit more than a poxy diary refill.
My question was and still is how can they (BALPA) best represent both sides?, nobody(including you) has ever answered this.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the real reason for CLH terminating the contract with BMC? I gather Flightline are still working for Lufthansa with their 146's. Will they be getting the work? I gather they have a few aircraft sitting around, even though they are painted in Swissair colours at the moment! 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of setting off another round of Bash bashing it might be useful to fill in a little background information.
When the current crew council came into being there was a feeling that if mutual trust could be built between management and the pilot representatives a BALPA recognition ballot could be held without a managemement/pilot schism. The then chairman, now 146 fleet manager, approached BALPA (Assistant Gen Sec. now North of the Border) with just that suggestion. He was greeted with little short of hostility and told that BALPA would be pushing for a Scope Agreement to restrict BMC operating any aircraft over 50 seats to stop them taking BM jobs. When asked, the Gen Sec said that BALPA would always side with the majority in any conflict of interest. He stated that there would be a recognition vote very soon and the crew council should cease all contact with management. Good advice seeing as the pay negotiations were about to start. Those were the ones where we got our 145 seniority back and the rates went up by a fair smack. Following his departure the new Gen Sec came to a meeting with the CC Chairman and BMC management. He asked if the Crew Council would be prepared to stand for a BALPA council. When told most would not, he suggested that if the CC and management didn't encourage people to leave BALPA he would be happy to continue with the status quo. He said that they were pretty busy right then and were not really looking for any more recognition ballots. It was a good job the CC had not followed the previous advice!
So where did the employment protection agreement (Scope) come from? It was always on the agenda for BALPA and the CC had warned it was coming. I think it would have come in whether bmir recognised BALPA or not. The wishes of the larger group would have prevailed. I could be wrong but if things had gone to plan it wouldn't have made any difference. The long term plan was a career structure that offers pilots a ladder from first job to retirement. Provided those already on the ladder are not undermined of course. That was being built and hopefully still will be although the row over the 'seven' may well set that back a bit. In times like these it's easy to blame everybody else. Some at bmi blame BALPA for allowing the transfer agreement to protect the seven. Some at bmir blame BALPA for the scope agreement. Some blame the CC for not stopping it. Obviously a few blame individuals who have stood up and tried to do what they thought was right. I could say I blame those who sit on their a*ses and moan but can't be bothered to lift a finger. But I don't.
I blame over capacity in the market combined with high costs and a sudden loss of confidence by the public, management and financial markets. All the side issues, while hugely important to the individuals effected, are just side issues. And yes, it easy to say that when you still have a job, for the time being anyway. Are those still in work supposed to be ashamed of the fact?
When the current crew council came into being there was a feeling that if mutual trust could be built between management and the pilot representatives a BALPA recognition ballot could be held without a managemement/pilot schism. The then chairman, now 146 fleet manager, approached BALPA (Assistant Gen Sec. now North of the Border) with just that suggestion. He was greeted with little short of hostility and told that BALPA would be pushing for a Scope Agreement to restrict BMC operating any aircraft over 50 seats to stop them taking BM jobs. When asked, the Gen Sec said that BALPA would always side with the majority in any conflict of interest. He stated that there would be a recognition vote very soon and the crew council should cease all contact with management. Good advice seeing as the pay negotiations were about to start. Those were the ones where we got our 145 seniority back and the rates went up by a fair smack. Following his departure the new Gen Sec came to a meeting with the CC Chairman and BMC management. He asked if the Crew Council would be prepared to stand for a BALPA council. When told most would not, he suggested that if the CC and management didn't encourage people to leave BALPA he would be happy to continue with the status quo. He said that they were pretty busy right then and were not really looking for any more recognition ballots. It was a good job the CC had not followed the previous advice!
So where did the employment protection agreement (Scope) come from? It was always on the agenda for BALPA and the CC had warned it was coming. I think it would have come in whether bmir recognised BALPA or not. The wishes of the larger group would have prevailed. I could be wrong but if things had gone to plan it wouldn't have made any difference. The long term plan was a career structure that offers pilots a ladder from first job to retirement. Provided those already on the ladder are not undermined of course. That was being built and hopefully still will be although the row over the 'seven' may well set that back a bit. In times like these it's easy to blame everybody else. Some at bmi blame BALPA for allowing the transfer agreement to protect the seven. Some at bmir blame BALPA for the scope agreement. Some blame the CC for not stopping it. Obviously a few blame individuals who have stood up and tried to do what they thought was right. I could say I blame those who sit on their a*ses and moan but can't be bothered to lift a finger. But I don't.
I blame over capacity in the market combined with high costs and a sudden loss of confidence by the public, management and financial markets. All the side issues, while hugely important to the individuals effected, are just side issues. And yes, it easy to say that when you still have a job, for the time being anyway. Are those still in work supposed to be ashamed of the fact?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why all the fuss over scope clauses no bmi pilot could have a problem with a 146 operating Man-Bru, as this is operated by a stby a/c that has already been operating bmi and bmir routes, it is a stand in until bmi can put a fokker on the route, this is not about taking bmi jobs at all as the 146 would only be filling in for 3 months.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTF That is precisely the point. Surely the Scope Agreement was never intended to be used in this way. It's about long term job protection and not short term obstructionism. The problem is we live in emotional times.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In a Hotel
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't we ask the BMI union reps if we can use 146 Aircraft on scheduled routes provided that this does not affect mainline crews, in other words we don't take routes from them but do routes such as MAN- BRU & LBA-BRU that they would not do anyway?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: London, UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic,
but who owns the 146's, and when does the next lease re-negociation come up for discussion.
Could this be BMI-R attempting to get a better deal out of the owners?
but who owns the 146's, and when does the next lease re-negociation come up for discussion.
Could this be BMI-R attempting to get a better deal out of the owners?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In a Hotel
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Western
BRAL own 2 of the A/c, Faores owns another, not sure where the others are from but I am sure that BMI or BMIR don't want them. Otherwise I would n't have had my reduncy interview last week.
Merry Christmas to all.
BRAL own 2 of the A/c, Faores owns another, not sure where the others are from but I am sure that BMI or BMIR don't want them. Otherwise I would n't have had my reduncy interview last week.
Merry Christmas to all.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: South of the border
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you will get to know the answer to that one when the letter saying "terribly sorry if you have made other arrangements but we require you to cancel them and in the meantime kindly ignore all that has been said to you" arrives (allegedly), suppose we are all expected to to say whoopee.On the plus side it's (allegedly) another month with a roof over our heads, and I'm sure they are trying hard to keep things sweet, but it would be nice to learn it from the company rather than the cleaners !
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: more tea captain ? ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe someone(perhaps the goatee non wonder boy?) could answer the following;
(1) Are flightline operating the MAN-MUC and BHX-MUC flights on behalf of bmi's Star Alliance partner Lufthansa?
(2) Why are bmi operating a 5-abreast Fokker on Lufthansa/bmir flights?
(3) Are there people off the now defunct Saab awaiting Emb-145 courses, who are less senior to people on the now defunct 146.If so surely they should be offered the course.
(4) If for the Mainline transfer the date of joining list was the be all and end all,how come it counts for nothing now.
(1) Are flightline operating the MAN-MUC and BHX-MUC flights on behalf of bmi's Star Alliance partner Lufthansa?
(2) Why are bmi operating a 5-abreast Fokker on Lufthansa/bmir flights?
(3) Are there people off the now defunct Saab awaiting Emb-145 courses, who are less senior to people on the now defunct 146.If so surely they should be offered the course.
(4) If for the Mainline transfer the date of joining list was the be all and end all,how come it counts for nothing now.