Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Frohnsdorff Runs Amok (merged)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Frohnsdorff Runs Amok (merged)

Old 6th Jul 2002, 10:11
  #41 (permalink)  
Son Of Piltdown
Posts: n/a
Unhappy BALPA NEC to 'select' the next General Secretary.

John Frohnsdorff, the newly elected General Secretary of the British Air Line Pilots' Association, formally declined the position at the first meeting of BALPA's National Executive Council after the election in which he defeated the incumbent, Christopher Darke.

In a letter to members, John Frohnsdorff, a BA pilot, reiterated he had stood to bring about change. He himself would not take the position and another General Secretary will be selected. Four members of the NEC, including him and BALPA Chairman Captain Mervyn Granshaw, had been given the responsibility of expediting the process.

He added: 'We hope that by adopting this procedure we will select a candidate who will become the nominated candidate of the NEC and will receive the support of the Company Councils which may make a further election unnecessary.'

Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Chairman, will in the meantime be acting General Secretary.

For further information contact Ken Stevens at Union Communications on 020 7924 7555

This was posted on the BALPA website yesterday. There will not be an election. What, precisely is going on in our Union? Just how do we know these geezers are not mounting a putsch against a democratic process?
Old 6th Jul 2002, 11:42
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry mate, your questions are not worthy of analysis.
BlueUpGood is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2002, 14:07
  #43 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 76
Posts: 4,053
Received 121 Likes on 43 Posts
Au contraire. There was a ballot to remove the incumbent. All members had the choice and, for good or ill, that choice was respected. Does not democracy demend that all members again have the choice, this time to select the new Secretary ?
Herod is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2002, 14:22
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You all know that JF is doing exactly what he said he would do, once the GS had been ousted, so stop trying to stir up trouble where none exists.

If you want another election, how about one for the post of Chairman? This position should shortly become vacant as soon as the present incumbent finally realises his position is untenable and resigns.

BALPA is changing for the better - back to an Industrial Trade Union - and long overdue it is too!
Dick Deadeye is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2002, 14:39
  #45 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And since when were unions democratic?
Seriph is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2002, 21:21
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: North West
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
The posters point is valid. JF concluded his manifesto with the following:

'I believe his disdain in not proposing an election is unhealthy & undemocratic. All the reps. stand for re-election regularly. This is democracy, it must apply at all levels within BALPA.'

I am unclear as to how we will arrive at the new Gen. Sec.

Seemingly the NEC want a single candidate put forward. Perhaps they are a clique with a friend (or someone they personally feel comfortable with) in mind. Either way, it sounds like they wish to give us a fait accompli.

Surely it would be better to have a spread of suitable candidates and let the membership arrive at its own conclusion. We need to witness a healthy fight to really have confidence in a new leader.

Can anyone recall how Chris Darke came by the post all those years ago?
Wig Wag is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2002, 09:18
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wig Wag,

According to the rules two CC's representing 500 members or more can put forward a candidate for the position of GS. Therefore if you wish an election simply get your CC to put a candidate forward in conjunction with one other.

I think the intent of the selection committee is to include the aspirations of all the CC's and get someone for the job that is already agreed to be the best. Thereby negating the need for an election as the CC's themselves would have put the candidate forward.

The comments being made that this is an attempt to stitch up non BA members is patently untrue and unhelpful. If your CC doesn't like the candidate selected they can simply put forward their own.

XFO1-11 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2002, 14:01
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some quotes from John Frohnsdorff, before the election, on an earlier thread


11th May

"I will fill the position in the interim"

14th May

"I only intend to be GS, if elected for as long as it takes to find a mutually acceptable replacement."

15th May

"I would only stand down after finding someone mutually acceptable."

15th May

"I would stand down when a god replacement had been found and would not just cut and run as you suggest."

I gather that after John received a phonecall from BA management, he decided that it was not in his best interests to accept the job. Isn't it nice to belong to a union with teeth? If we can't stand up to the management on an issue such as this, what chance have we on any other issues.
So MG is now the GS purely because his airline management will allow him to do so whereas JFs will not. Perhaps this is a criteria that the team should take into account in their selection. "Is the candidate acceptable to BA management?"
P22 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2002, 15:50
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think there seems to be some anxiety here, caused mainly from confusion of what is happening now. I think when you read the facts below you will see BALPA is becoming,
1. More Cohesive - New Structure to reduce BA/Non-BA divide.
2. More Active/Militant - New "Industrial GS" required to be Hands-On and two New NEC Principal Negotiators to be appointed.
3. A Better Union - Realisation that Members expect and demand a better service than the last 10years of losses.

People, when you read the following facts please try to put any pre-conceived notions of airline differences aside and be objective. All Company Councils are involved in this process. I think very few here will not admit that this is the dawn of a new Era for all BALPA Members. JF has merely been the trigger for Members to "grab the Bull by the Horns" and begin our Long struggle Back from the depths our status has been allowed to sink. It's a time for All UK Pilots to celebrate, and UK Airline CEO's to update their CV's.

Below is a copy of a letter sent from JF to BALPA Members.

Airrage Summary of JF's Letter:

- JF stood down as per manifesto.
- NEC(all companies)debated how best to proceed.
- the NEC(again all companies)decided on formulating the structure and participants of the group of four.
- goal - find a more active hands-on GS, because members demand a better service.
- learning from the Election - Problem discovered in Election, the divisiveness between BA and Non-BA Members. BA and non-BA structure within BALPA should disappear. More cohesive in attaining groups goals as a whole. This should never happen again.
- Want an INDUSTRIAL GS not just a GS !!!
- GS to handle ALL industrial matters through Principal Negotiators. ie More active role/guidance in Industrial Matters. 2more NEC negotiators to be appointed (more militant than past?)
- Hoping these procedures will result in selecting a candidate who will receive the support of the Company Councils(all companies)and MAY make a further election unnecessary. (note the word "MAY")

JF's letter;
Ladies & Gentlemen

On the 2nd July at the NEC I formally declined to take up my position as the elected General Secretary. This was my first opportunity to formalise the position. My manifesto pledge to stand to remove the incumbent and then stand down has been met.

The NEC debated at some length the way ahead and decided in the interim that the Chairman would hold both his post and the General Secretary position. This has precedence during the tragic time of Mark Young’s death (previous General Secretary before Christopher Darke).

We also decided the process for choosing a successor. This will be timely and involve a core group of 4 NEC members to action and expedite this process. These members are myself, Dave Boys, Mike Delboy and Mervyn Granshaw. It was felt this group was representative of the election outcome. I would also like to stress that the NEC nominated candidate will have the full support of the NEC members.

We intend to select the best but we are principally looking for an Industrial General Secretary. BALPA is a small union and it is vital that the next General Secretary should have a hands-on role.
We are acutely conscious that all members expect a better service and a fully involved General Secretary should improve matters.

This election has been very divisive, however the NEC believe that some good has come out of this. By having a flatter structure (as outlined in Airwaves) we believe that the BA and non-BA structure should disappear which has served its time. To some extent the election was fought on this divide. It was never my intention that this should be the case but I have to acknowledge that this was a factor. This should never happen again.

Our new General Secretary will be tasked to handle/manage all airlines industrial matters. Although we have 25 Company Councils, it is perfectly possible for a person of the right calibre to manage the Principal Negotiators. The NEC in addition has determined that we need 2 more Principal Negotiators.

The NEC hope that by adopting this procedure we will select a candidate who will receive the support of the Company Councils and may make a further election unnecessary. I personally (John F) feel this is an opportunity to heal our wounds and move on. I am very pleased with yesterdays NEC – let us all adopt a positive approach. To this end I would ask all Company Council Chairmen to attend the Industrial Forum planned at New Road for 6th August to coincide with the NEC.

Yours sincerely
Capt John Frohnsdorff, Capt Mervyn Granshaw

Copy of post by Mike Delboy(one of the group of 4)from the BA Forum:

The Group of 4 consists of John Frohnsdorff (BA), Mike Delboy (BA), Dave Boys (Monarch) and Mervyn Granshaw (BALPA Chairman). The groups function is to collate feedback from the NEC and all the Company Council Chairman in order to create a new job specification for the position of General Secretary (GS) position. The Group is tasked with expediting this process within a week. Research is also taking place as which channel we shall use to find a prospective candidate, ie internal/external, adverts, professional head hunters, etc. We are very keen to stress that this is a totally open and inclusive process, however due to the numbers involved we have choosen the Council Chairman as the voice person for each airline.

So if you have a problem I suggest you contact your Company Council Chairman who will be participating in the process. Lets stop this silly infighting and grab this oppotunity we've been afforded. It's time to put any differences behind us and enjoy the benefits of a New Responsive and Pro-Active Union !!!!!

Last edited by airrage; 7th Jul 2002 at 16:04.
airrage is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2002, 17:13
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


I agree with all of your points. I voted for John and have high hopes for the future of BALPA. However there is no denyng that it was Johns intention to be the GS until a replacement was found. Instead we now have an unelected GS.
So in the interests of honesty and integrity, could I ask John one simple question (please don't tell me that he doesn't read this site).


Did anyone from BA management tell you that you would be asked to leave BA if you were to accept the nomination of BALPA General Secretary? A simple Yes or No will do.
P22 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2002, 20:23
  #51 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: middle england
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

So my earlier posts were not so daft then?
upperecam is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2002, 15:20
  #52 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Notso Fantastic is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2002, 22:38
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

One of these days you will answer the question. It might take a while but I am sure it will happen sometime.

Stop being so defensive. You need to realise that those you support are NOT whiter than white and have already shown that to be the case. Please answer P22's questions and stop making excuses.

Nobody in BALPA has voted for the person who is currently the GS. Even JF has not abided by the promises he made. That is a great start for a new era for BALPA.
Fuzzy112 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2002, 12:56
  #54 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Twyford
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought that this would have finished by now !
Still lots of comments here that reveal very little reading of the BALPA rule book (A very good sleeping pill alternative!) is taking place, or studying of the history of industrial negotiations, etc etc !
As to having an election via election address alone of the Gen Sec (read Head of the BALPA civil service NOT General of the BALPA SAS Storm troopers , those are the elected reps!). What do you think your chances of successfully picking a first class wife/husband etc merely on the basis of a written page of A4 would be ? Not good one would suggest! Anyway we already have elected reps coming out of our ears from each company, most of whom you have a far better chance of meeting in the flesh than any Gen Sec could possibly offer to the almost 8000 members. I suppose we could have some kind of “on line interviewing via website and pictures, but could be logistical nightmare, how much time for each member to question candidates etc?
The reality is that you have to trust your elected reps, to do what they consider is best for the organisation with an awareness of what the members want, just like parliament. Hence the practicality of the NEC effectively choosing the candidates, the group mentioned, MG JF etc, will do the process , get consensus and endorsement from the NEC and whether there e is a vote or not I have no idea, must be in the rules somewhere ! Would seem pretty pointless if only one candidate, just another expense and delay, but if that is what everyone wants, then write to BALPA via your CC I suppose and let them know.
Just like Mr Mugabe etc, you could have a coup or otherwise remove “parliament” (read NEC and CC reps), but a review of history does not suggest it would result in anything other than the conventionally shaped organisation we have now, i.e. after having had some pretty crap bits and bloodshed in the ensuing period !
Someone mentioned why CD was so interested in increasing numbers, feeling that BALPA should look after its current members. Well that was what it was doing. More members equals more income to offset the pretty large loss of revenue that will probably fall out of one large airlines changing demography. Anything BALPA or any other outfit does, costs , with many fixed regardless of size, hence drive for members and the resulting benefit of legally required recognition in non-BALPA companies that having 50% membership gives. By the way, I think that there is absolutely no way of CD reappearing, so if anyone thought that voting against him would rattle his cage and get a change, well, yes it did both, but he has gone and real world means he will not come back.
As to BALPA being responsible for loss of pay and conditions, well that is hard to prove if you are not comparing apples with apples. Where and who do you measure against ? If say, some have left existing employer A to go to a new employer B for say a command, where pay is more than as P2.at A, but less than P1 at employer A, is BALPA at fault for this ? After all, market forces rule, the choice made freely and BALPA may have had no input to terms and conditions at B and will only get any input once recognition is given.
As to the new Gen Sec, he /she is there all of the time, is often our public image and as Airrage says, has to be an industrial specialist, know what is do able and what is not, which means an understanding of the world of business and negotiation. Just as is commented in one of the other forums, you will not get much joy out of calling the other side pratts in public, and as shelf stacker mentioned quite rightly, with the good example of student union politics, REAL life is a compromise. Sometimes you will not get what you wanted, but at least you live to fight another day. Some pretty pathetic childish stuff about someone’s personal politics is irrelevant. Personally would have thought militant communist ideal material for Gen Sec, aiming to get us “workers” fair slice of cake for our skills was not a bad idea ! (Not everyone got the same pay in Eastern Europe, as they say, some were more equal than others under communism !)
Do you want militant men or not ?. I somehow doubt that any of us would want to be cannon fodder for someone trying to make his name at our expense, whilst being paid for out of our own pocket. Hence the business of CCs being in charge of negotiations, etc, not the staff of BALPA. After all, how would you feel about being called out on strike by say a Gen Sec, when you CC was against it ?
The consequence of a poorly initiated strike would make any concerns about slippage in conditions over the last few years pale into insignificance! You have to fight at the time of YOUR choosing and when YOU are ready, avoiding any desire to apply some kind of revenge. The other side know that and they will certainly try to manoeuvre any strike into a certain failure, even as far as ensuring that a strike happens so as to have the union weaken itself. It is not easy, as the miners and in our field the Australian pilots found out ! Sure be assertive about what you see is wrong, be realistic about what have you done to or not done to assist this decline and accept responsibility for your actions or otherwise. Be angry, but don’t press blindly for a strike, you may just be unleashing an emotional response that others wish to exploit. As they say, you have to keep your powder dry !

Martin A

P.S Airrage, why don’t you try and get elected, see the constraints (if any) and then come back and let us know. Much better than just writing here.
Martin A is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2002, 14:53
  #55 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

You wrote
As to BALPA being responsible for loss of pay and conditions, well that is hard to prove if you are not comparing apples with apples. Where and who do you measure against ? If say, some have left existing employer A to go to a new employer B for say a command, where pay is more than as P2.at A, but less than P1 at employer A, is BALPA at fault for this ? After all, market forces rule, the choice made freely and BALPA may have had no input to terms and conditions at B and will only get any input once recognition is given.
The 'market force' is one that is driven by migration of employees isn't it? If employer A finds it difficult to retain staff then he must raise his rates of pay otherwise employer B will recruit them. British Airways has virtually no-one in its' DEP pool due to its' inability to attract suitable candidates. Why? Because the T&C's negotiated by BALPA over the last few years has made the role of P2 at BA very unattractive. Had SCOPE existed the 'market forces' could have forced BA to address the issues that I have described.

So, in my opinion, market forces would have helped ALL British pilots, if BALPA had protected the axes of the supply and demand curve. Whilst SCOPE does not exist, BA do not need to address their dwindling supply of pilots and whilst demand for jobs in BA is negligable due to the paltry T&C's for junior F/O's, you (as the BALPA voice on this thread) have no right to use the term "MARKET FORCES RULE"
Land ASAP is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2002, 15:40
  #56 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: BIG, BNN, LAM, or OCK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The reason Joh Frohnsdorff is not BALPA GS

There seems to be much debate as to why JF is not taking up the GS position.
He has been unable to take up the position partly due to what would undoubtedly be called "a conflict of interest" by his employers at BA. As the GS is the final arbiter in any negotiations with the various companies in all industrial matters, you could say that he could prejudice BA's position by fulfilling his role as GS.
I don't doubt that somewhere in the flying orders/afs/contract (or whatever document it may be) it could be interpreted that undertaking such actions falls under "gross misconduct" and would result in dismissal. This is basically what BA management said to JF.
Personally i think that the argument is a load of b****cks, but that was the gist of the pressure applied.
Some have questioned why is it that Granshaw can be allowed to have his post without that being a conflict of interest- the Chairman , as with all chairmen, is a titular position- a figurehead if you will, and does not get into the negotition/compromising positions that the GS undertakes. It remains to be seen whether Brittannia will be happy with him being temporary GS.
John realised his goals of removing CD, always intending to stand
down, but perhaps not so soon- by putting his head above the parapet he was always going to attract much attention, and rather than start a full scale turf-war has shrewdly moved out of the limelight to concentrate on the plans to make the union a more cohesive force for the future.
There is little point at the moment in the union pulling a gun on the airlines, when by "healing the wounds" and having reasoned discussion more can be achieved in the interim- after all if you threaten the managements now they will just say no with that pitiful excuse of last autumn. Holding tight until we can present a more united front is a better plan- then the controlled aggression of impending strike action will have a far bigger impact.
Just think of the phrase "Smiling Assassin"!
invinoveritas is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2002, 20:26
  #57 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Twyford
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr Land ASAP
I see no problem with the term market forces at all, I haven’t said anyone doesn’t have the right to say anything and neither do I shout ! I sometimes emphasise words merely to highlight something, but that is the problem with electronic comms, it is not like real speaking !
Returning to market forces, if someone as a junior P2 for example left BA for say Ryan Air to get a command overnight, would BALPA be responsible for a) the pay, b) the FTL scheme they use or c) anything else of interest that I am sure anyone at Ryan Air could tell you of ? All this bearing in mind that Ryan Air are not yet in a position to recognise, or be required to recognise BALPA. So if things turned out to be less than rosy as a captain at RA versus at BA is it BALPA’s fault ? Hardly I would say.
If there are no DEPs in the pool at BA because there are no applicants and BA then decide they need Dep’s then the rate will have to go up, as it did at Go for commands, market forces. Personally would have preferred to have gotten more reward for my previous 8 years jet flying etc, but I chose to go where I did because on balance the rewards and risks made it attractive. If people leave BA because the pay is bad, then BA will also need to do something, market forces again, but as we have recruited captains from other airlines as f/os it is pretty hard for BALPA to argue that the airline is not paying market rate even though you and I would feel it not to be, but the evidence suggest people will do it at those rates. It is just the same as when you hire builder, if you can get one that “does the job at say £15 per hour, do you pay say £18 out of the kindness of your heart ? We are the same, w e have some leverage as a union, but at the end of the day it is limited because of the external forces that apply. After all, if the pay was so bad, we would have no cadets applying and that is not the case. The starting pay is not brilliant, but just look at the turbo prop rates for other operators or any starting pay for a new graduate( except the city perhaps !). For a fully sponsored cadet the pay remaining after paying back is obviously more appealing than that of self sponsoring, paying the whole bill and getting a job elsewhere, or there would be no applicants. I do understand the frustration that there is regarding the reward for the responsibility that is loaded on people, it should be more, especially for those self sponsored cadets who get the roughest deal. I do understand the frustration at the P2 being paid less than the cabin crew, but fortunately, it does not stay like that for long, especially if you take the overall package, no harm in trying to get it improved, but again market forces would make it hard to create a case for saying it is grossly underpaid, we get too many applicants !. One should bear in mind that some 25 to 30% of cabin crew are to go in BA over the next couple of years, a decimation that flight ops are not suffering.
Perhaps bringing a local touch may bring home the reality. Euro Gatwick, captains originally on 31k. Who would do it for that much? I and many other experienced F/O’s did not take up the challenge, but some less experienced took it as a chance to do their thing, neatly establishing a rate for captains in BA of 31K ! If all had held back, the rate would have had to have been higher, which it did do once all the keen ones had been used up. Same in BHX and MAN to a degree, only worth doing if you were well below pp 18, so commands well out of seniority, pay rate for a command established at a lower rate than at LHR by the actions of people voluntarily accepting the job and rate. So what should BALPA do, tell people that you cannot make a choice over these rates? If the offer is that rate or drop the base, should we drop the base and accept the inevitable loss of jobs PERMANENTLY ! It is not simple !
PS It is not BALPA view I only mentioned my name so you could collar me personally if required, coffee on me in singles next time we meet?

PS PS> You havbe to tell BA about any employment outside of BA, it is in FCO's for any BA readers. Rumour has it that some years ago an enterprising bunch of Classic pilots were bidding low to get maximum time off and flying the "Smiling Pullovers" red and white aeroplane on the now available spare days , management not amused as own fleet short of pilots due low bidding !
Martin A is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2002, 01:14
  #58 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Why don't you do a little research yourself and dig out JF's manifesto, do a little typing and answer P22's question yourself instead of wasting space just crtitising my Post. I love people on this board who never show any independant thinking but lurk around the forum waiting to pounce on anyone if they so much as make a spelling error.

I am not the Forum secretary, I am contributing to this Forum (hence the name Forum) to express my Individual Opinions and discuss matters with others, others can do the same freely. Fuzzy maybe you can start up a Questions and Answers website.

MG is acting as a stand-in GS, he is not taking up the Position theres no point in saying," Nobody in BALPA has voted for the person who is currently the GS" when we all know the circumstances. Besides we all know my Opinions about MG and this Election and you don't hear me moaning.

Martin A

Thanks for the offer, but no I have no Political Aspirations toward running for GS or BALPA Rep. You seem to find it hard to accept the legitimacy of someone's strong Political views just because they do not seek Political Office. Previously you went on about how being an anonymous Poster lacked credibility compared to someone willing to attach their names to their views, so I told you who I am. Now it seems you imply that I should go out and run for GS in order to be effective.

I am starting to get the vibe here that people are directing their questions at me like I have any control over events. I am just another Poster on Pprune like most here, and just another line Pilot who wants to come in, do my job and get paid comensurate with the Responsibilities my Job Entails and not what some Accountant who doesn't understand the first thing about our job thinks we should be Paid. Put an Accountants Mother on a plane with an engine on Fire and then ask him if he would prefer a MARKET FORCES Capt Drunkov from Yakutsk, or a highly trained UK-CAA approved Pilot to be at the controls. Forget that arguement, I am not only assuming Accountants have mothers, but feelings as well.

All this talk about market Forces ignores the fact that our PROFESSION differs from the ordinary "shelf-stacker". Besides the necessary natural attributes not enjoyed by 100% of the population(have you taken London Transport lately ?), years of training, we are also fortunate that we work for the Airlines BUT are CERTIFIED by the CAA. The airlines would have no CERTIFICATION to Operate without the CAA's trust in the level of training and qualifications of that individual Airlines PILOTS(Yes US!). So Airlines CANNOT afford to have all their Pilots transfer from one outfit to the next enmass as they would like you to believe(if you don't like it.....WRONG). Seniority is desired by all, but in the end can work against us. All that to say, we are not as REPLACEABLE as MOST other MARKET COMMODITIES that suffer the so called, "MARKET FORCES". Safeway's licence to trade is not held by the Shelf-Stackers.

Why not use the "Market Forces"arguement to our vantage. If you don't pay us what we want, we will go on a Legal strike whereby you cannot sack us for the first 8weeks, but other Airlines will use "Market Forces" to steal your customers and revenue whilst you are shut down. And since you cannot buy an Operators Certificate on the "Market" you better think of something else to sell than airline seats if you don't take us back.

I'm not surprised our PROFESSION has lost so much ground over the past few years when even on a PILOTS Forum we get so much management-consultant drivel about how we are all untrained, overpaid bus-drivers. If you all accept so readily these terms that belittle our PROFESSION and it is allowed to degenerate further, then I think as my next career I'll focus on selling time-share condo's to gullible Pilot's outside airports.

My Posts here on Pprune are somewhat more extreme than they would be otherwise if Pilots here weren't so agreeable in getting shafted by their companies. We have been at cruising FL for so long we haven't looked out the window to see how other comparable PROFESSIONS have gone on to new heights whilst we join the earth-dwelling mortals.

Believe me in other circumstances I would be the least militant person here. But I guess I just decided it time to Voice my Opinions in a hope it might change something. I do not condone Miltancy for the sake of it, but I do realise there comes a time when you have to make a stand or shut-up. I would rather work hard for a company for 30years, get rewarded for that work accordingly and retire. Companies don't work that way anymore it seems.

At least by being slightly controversial sometimes I actually get to realise some of us have a Pulse on this Forum, because I couldn't tell it by the lack of action to our degrading PROFESSION. If you guys are happy with working harder for less pay then so be it, thats what you'll get. But if not then let your voices be heard too, it's ok to like your job and get paid what you should. Don't be fooled by the management jargon, if we weren't PROFESSIONALS lives would be lost daily. If they want to pay shelf-stackers to fly, then they WILL get more lives lost. Not Everyone can do our JOB, as much as the cargo-loaders, caterers, transport drivers, CC, and Accountants would like to believe.

And NO.............
- I don't have answers, that is why we seek the help of a Professional who specialises in such things. I specialise in Aviation(although my training CAPT's might say otherwise)
- I have never considered running for any Position(management, training or union), if I wanted an earth-dwellers job I wouldn't have got these shiny wings in the first place.

- I do voice my Opinions.
- I do Vote.

Revolutions are won by the commoners on the streets, not the Generals in charge. If you think Pilots in the UK deserve more, then all you have to do is let others around you know how you feel and why, and it won't be long before we get back to where we should be.

PS: In Future I'm going to try not to spend hours trying to justify my Opinions or convince others of the reasoning behind them(is that a sigh of relief I hear). I'm not running for Election afterall. I will return if there is something worthy or new to discuss but it's pointless to drone on about whats going on right now when I don't see it as Controversial. I'll leave that for those who do, good luck. And perhaps some people here can spend less time critising other peoples ideas and Posting a few of their own.

PSS: Martin
"If the offer is that rate or drop the base, should we drop the base and accept the inevitable loss of jobs PERMANENTLY !"
At some point YES ! Economists will inform you that Subsidies in any form cause Market Distortions. The Distortions that these concessions have caused have rippled throughout our Industry and contributed to our current malaise. The solution is not to continually underbid each other or accept the lowest bidders for a job. I would have liked to have seen how the airline you mention would have reacted if the answer from BALPA had been NO. Saving pilots jobs' is a noble gesture, but is that what we did really ? Or would those jobs have been there, just run by a more efficient company. Maybe the jobs we saved weren't those with wings, but those extra inefficiencies we still carry today. All we saved was the illusion of a successful Empire which is more an inefficient beaurocracy. Perhaps all we did was delay the inevitable Easyjets and Go's, who have been great for their Pilots and the public. Even with accepting the low wages, the jobs you mention from BHX and MAN are virtually gone now, LGW pilots are not as well off as Easyjet, etc. If market forces had ruled, our offices would have become a lot smaller and our workforce richer.

But then that just an alternative Opinion.

Last edited by airrage; 11th Jul 2002 at 02:01.
airrage is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2002, 07:38
  #59 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lots of talk about market forces here. A market has many factors affecting it. The laws and theories of markets are difficult enough to understand when they are applied to something simple like baked beans but the pilot market is actually very small and therefore easily distorted and highly unpredictable. Whereas the effect of a 2p cut in the price of heinz beans is reasonably predictable the effect of changing rates of pay on a small group of highly specialised workers is not. The "consumer" is making a decision that effects their whole life rather than their next supper. You have to take a long term view.

The question is, who best to negotiate on your behalf and to advise you. As a non BALPA member who has gone from strongly anti-trade union in principle to wondering if I'm right and now back to curiously sceptical I find these arguments very discouraging. I presume that what we all want is reasonable pay and conditions, good quality of life and most of all some feeling of security for the future. Those things are not going to be available from an industry that is constantly in turmoil. I would seriously consider joining and taking part in a professional organisation that took a long term view and worked for stability and prosperity. I hope that the changes in BALPA will produce such a body.
Bash is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2002, 10:01
  #60 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
M.Mouse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.