BALPA BA Ballot 94% In Favour
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M Mouse, I've just taken a quick look at the latest annual report (which is very well presented by the way) -
Your £26M comes out at about 1% of total employee costs.
Less than a percent of fuel & oil costs.
About 5% of accomodation, ground equipment and IT costs.
It is less than one third of a percent of yearly revenues.
By that token it's chicken feed.
In return for you forgoing £26M, if certain conditions are met you will be given a one time payment of £13M of shares in three years time - by which time, I note, the bulk of any capital gain will have already accrued. That is to say, you will receive a single compensation for today and you will miss out on the growth between now and then by receiving a fixed value of shares. In the meantime your annual pay, and that of your future colleagues is permanently lowered. So rather than a diet for weight loss, you've opted for stomach stapling.
Current liabilities come out at £4.1 Billion vs cash of £1.4 billion.
By that token you'll all need to work for free for a year. £26M in this context is irrelevant.
I don't believe in industrial might as it happens, if I were WW I'd be looking at every way of bringing my costs down. You and CC would be high up on my list - you are both paid way over market rate for negligible added value. I'm simply stating a fact when I say you are powerful and that you hold all the cards. If your aircraft doesn't have fuel it can't fly. If it doesn't have you in it, it can't fly, simples. They employ you not for your company but because they absolutely and completely need you. You can afford to be intransigent and refuse because let's face it, they can't wholesale replace the pilot body a la the Lindsey Oil refinery. What they can do is whittle away at the bottom of the demographic, so that when you're long gone - that 2.6% saving will be reaping rewards way beyond £26M.
Anyway, it's your fight to fight and I wish you good luck in it all, I hope it all works out for all concerned.
Your £26M comes out at about 1% of total employee costs.
Less than a percent of fuel & oil costs.
About 5% of accomodation, ground equipment and IT costs.
It is less than one third of a percent of yearly revenues.
By that token it's chicken feed.
In return for you forgoing £26M, if certain conditions are met you will be given a one time payment of £13M of shares in three years time - by which time, I note, the bulk of any capital gain will have already accrued. That is to say, you will receive a single compensation for today and you will miss out on the growth between now and then by receiving a fixed value of shares. In the meantime your annual pay, and that of your future colleagues is permanently lowered. So rather than a diet for weight loss, you've opted for stomach stapling.
Current liabilities come out at £4.1 Billion vs cash of £1.4 billion.
By that token you'll all need to work for free for a year. £26M in this context is irrelevant.
I don't believe in industrial might as it happens, if I were WW I'd be looking at every way of bringing my costs down. You and CC would be high up on my list - you are both paid way over market rate for negligible added value. I'm simply stating a fact when I say you are powerful and that you hold all the cards. If your aircraft doesn't have fuel it can't fly. If it doesn't have you in it, it can't fly, simples. They employ you not for your company but because they absolutely and completely need you. You can afford to be intransigent and refuse because let's face it, they can't wholesale replace the pilot body a la the Lindsey Oil refinery. What they can do is whittle away at the bottom of the demographic, so that when you're long gone - that 2.6% saving will be reaping rewards way beyond £26M.
Anyway, it's your fight to fight and I wish you good luck in it all, I hope it all works out for all concerned.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You and CC would be high up on my list - you are both paid way over market rate for negligible added value.
), a bit of research on this and associated threads will reveal that pilots are considered by BA to be "market rate" and good value for money. The cabin crew aren't.The pilots have also given up considerably more than 2.6%. Previous threads refer but in essence it's a cut of 2.61% of basic pay, 20% of flight allowances, away from base allowances have been frozen and there have been a number of productivity changes. It equates to around 5%, depending on where you are in the pecking order. .
(BASSA won't tell you that though).
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's great, it's another argument for you to draw the line in the sand at 0%.
I didn't know that they stated you to be market rate and good value for money. What do I know, maybe you are. I'm on your side 100% whether you are or not anyway.
I'd suggest that it's a sensible position to take. A publicly listed company (theoretically) answerable to shareholders would probably gain little affection by broadcasting that it pays too much for something it could get cheaper. It would also make little sense to upset the workforce with barbs and then cut their pay when it could just cut pay and leave everyone with a smile on their face.
I also wasn't aware you've surrendered more than 2.6%, I got that figure from the press..!
I didn't know that they stated you to be market rate and good value for money. What do I know, maybe you are. I'm on your side 100% whether you are or not anyway.
I'd suggest that it's a sensible position to take. A publicly listed company (theoretically) answerable to shareholders would probably gain little affection by broadcasting that it pays too much for something it could get cheaper. It would also make little sense to upset the workforce with barbs and then cut their pay when it could just cut pay and leave everyone with a smile on their face.
I also wasn't aware you've surrendered more than 2.6%, I got that figure from the press..!
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your support, Caudillo.
BALPA has been sceptical of anything BA has had to say (before and) since Open Skies. For this reason, they independently verified BA's figures and came to the conclusion that their demands were not entirely unreasonable. A lot of negotiation went in to achieve the package we have and the bottom line was (in writing!!!) that the pilots will not be required to give up anything until or unless all other staff groups achieve their targets. It gives BA something to aim for.
Overall, what it came down to was that everything we gave up, although permanent, can possibly be negotiated back in the future and giving up what we have is a small price to pay to keep our jobs. This was what BALPA's research revealed.
BALPA has been sceptical of anything BA has had to say (before and) since Open Skies. For this reason, they independently verified BA's figures and came to the conclusion that their demands were not entirely unreasonable. A lot of negotiation went in to achieve the package we have and the bottom line was (in writing!!!) that the pilots will not be required to give up anything until or unless all other staff groups achieve their targets. It gives BA something to aim for.
Overall, what it came down to was that everything we gave up, although permanent, can possibly be negotiated back in the future and giving up what we have is a small price to pay to keep our jobs. This was what BALPA's research revealed.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, if it's a question of keeping you in jobs then there's no question whatsoever.
My point, which could probably have been made in far fewer words than I actually used, was that the (incorrect) figure of 2.6% didn't seem at all drastic enough for an apparently floundering company. If the curtain was about to come down, it seemed neither here nor there.
It struck me more as a nice, opportunistic, permanent cut, taken when circumstances presented themselves, with an eye to the future.
Again, if your job is on the line and that's what it takes, then it is a small price.
One final thing I'd say - this is after all not my fight, so I will leave it to those in the know and to those it affects - you mention it can be renegotiated back. That's true.
But BA is in trouble now, I'm not convinced it will necessarily be so in the future. Maybe it will, maybe it won't and I wouldn't like to make a call on this one after glancing at the report. Your cuts are in response to the effects of the last couple of years, an extraordinary time. Balpa came and looked, said yes the cuts are valid and needed - but why make them permanent? Why not agree that you take these cuts right now, and continue taking them for as long as Balpa considers them legitimate? When, fingers crossed, BA is back to full health - Balpa will go back, say the medicine has worked, there's no more need for it, and you automatically revert back to what you had?
I'd even venture that you may well have been happy to take a bigger cut if you had this safeguard of Balpa having the right to monitor and make the call?
My point, which could probably have been made in far fewer words than I actually used, was that the (incorrect) figure of 2.6% didn't seem at all drastic enough for an apparently floundering company. If the curtain was about to come down, it seemed neither here nor there.
It struck me more as a nice, opportunistic, permanent cut, taken when circumstances presented themselves, with an eye to the future.
Again, if your job is on the line and that's what it takes, then it is a small price.
One final thing I'd say - this is after all not my fight, so I will leave it to those in the know and to those it affects - you mention it can be renegotiated back. That's true.
But BA is in trouble now, I'm not convinced it will necessarily be so in the future. Maybe it will, maybe it won't and I wouldn't like to make a call on this one after glancing at the report. Your cuts are in response to the effects of the last couple of years, an extraordinary time. Balpa came and looked, said yes the cuts are valid and needed - but why make them permanent? Why not agree that you take these cuts right now, and continue taking them for as long as Balpa considers them legitimate? When, fingers crossed, BA is back to full health - Balpa will go back, say the medicine has worked, there's no more need for it, and you automatically revert back to what you had?
I'd even venture that you may well have been happy to take a bigger cut if you had this safeguard of Balpa having the right to monitor and make the call?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- but why make them permanent?
Secondly, BA needs to secure finance to survive. The institutions have indicated that the finance is there however they've evidently applied a few conditions. If you ask why BA is about to impose some severe changes to the cabin crew agreements, you start to get an indication of the conditions which the institutions have applied. They are the ones who need to see permanent changes. What is the point lending £x million to BA if they're going to run into the same problem in a couple of years and need more? Where's the likelihood of a return on the investment?
That's why the changes need to be permanent. Perhaps they can be negotiated back but if there is a finite point in time where these conditions will automatically be restored, the associated costs will be restored as well and that is what the institutions want to avoid.
The "Bond Issue" which has just been announced wouldn't have been forthcoming if the company wasn't sure it would be able to please the investors.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In return for you forgoing £26M, if certain conditions are met you will be given a one time payment of £13M of shares in three years time
There is also a provision for a reappraisal of the "bonus" at the end of the plan. It seems to me this is a positive step forward.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SSE of smoki
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
pilots seen as Senior Managers i fully agree with and they should be paid accordingly. The trouble in BA, with the cabin crew having such a strong union is that you have a Director(CSD) in the cabin !.
Serious changes required, and its pretty obvious WW is on a mission to end BASSA's rule forever. Lets hope part of that is a job title change long overdue.
pilots seen as Senior Managers i fully agree with and they should be paid accordingly. The trouble in BA, with the cabin crew having such a strong union is that you have a Director(CSD) in the cabin !.
Serious changes required, and its pretty obvious WW is on a mission to end BASSA's rule forever. Lets hope part of that is a job title change long overdue.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA 747-400.
Year 9 First Officer.
£4800-£5200 pcm after tax inc alllowances.
Close to 900 hrs per year.
13/14 days off pm
final salary pension.
Health care
LOL
Staff travel
BA Eurofleet Maincrew
Year 3
1200-2100 after tax inc allowances
Close to 900 hrs per year
10 days off pm
NO healthcare
Staff travel
NO loss of job cover
And CC are overpaid according to you fellows! CC must take a paycut to save the company?
Year 9 First Officer.
£4800-£5200 pcm after tax inc alllowances.
Close to 900 hrs per year.
13/14 days off pm
final salary pension.
Health care
LOL
Staff travel
BA Eurofleet Maincrew
Year 3
1200-2100 after tax inc allowances
Close to 900 hrs per year
10 days off pm
NO healthcare
Staff travel
NO loss of job cover
And CC are overpaid according to you fellows! CC must take a paycut to save the company?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA 747-400.
Year 9 First Officer.
£4800-£5200 pcm after tax inc alllowances.
Close to 900 hrs per year.
Year 9 First Officer.
£4800-£5200 pcm after tax inc alllowances.
Close to 900 hrs per year.
For me, £5500 is about average which puts a Year 11 Longhaul FO on about £4700 average. Year 9 is paid less than Year 11.
Ooops. Almost forgot! Numbers aren't pinkaroo's strongpoint.
Guest
Posts: n/a
pinkaroo.
I'm not saying that at all, I don't even work for BA. The point I'm making is that if you want to put your case you chose the wrong example. You're making comparisons between two jobs that require wholly different levels of qualification, training and commitment. You need to choose your arguments more carefully.
I'm not saying that at all, I don't even work for BA. The point I'm making is that if you want to put your case you chose the wrong example. You're making comparisons between two jobs that require wholly different levels of qualification, training and commitment. You need to choose your arguments more carefully.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bitchy! Those figures are a direct lift from PPRuNe for those source obsessives amongst you.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The training may be shorter but the trials and tribulations are comparable. Some Pilots seem to have a problem with other people earning anything above minmum wage. By the way the Pinkaroo household is new contract so basic is just over 10k. Any suggestion of a paycut is thus hugely resented. Any person earning 5 times as much observed baying for the financial blood of new contract personnel is just going to rile me a tad.
