IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty easy to get around that - simply dismiss most of the existing crew citing the drop in demand and rehire new crew as and when (if?) demand picks up.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH is looking to cut 10,000 jobs and has already ceased operations in its subsidiary Germanwings.
Be of no doubt - a lot of people are going to lose employment and the market will be flooded for several years to come with people looking for new jobs.
Be of no doubt - a lot of people are going to lose employment and the market will be flooded for several years to come with people looking for new jobs.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is illegal in many countries to fire someone and hire someone else to do the same job before a certain time has passed (three years where I come from).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK employment law allows them to make significant changes to their roles, after consultation, and then re-hire on ‘new’ contracts/roles. In this case they are making, for example the legacy crew role (main fleet) redundant and are creating new roles that are (in the eyes of the law) different and with new Ts&Cs and due to significantly changed economic climate they require fewer people. So they can then rehire subject to some sort of selection process. This is entirely legal and happens all the time - if it were not the case, then by definition businesses would never be able to change.
LH have been bailed - but at a cost - the government now have a stake (with all that entails) and they are now subject to political interference and loss of existing shareholder value. I believe this is not what IAG want to happen and want to remain in control of their business and it’s destiny.
Assuming the German government (at least initially) want an arms length relationship (assuming the stake gets shareholder approval) with LH - LH will still have to right size the business to deal with the current state of the industry, which will mean redundancies - they cannot escape this reality I believe LH had balance sheet issues/weakness before this crisis (despite being profitable), IAG is in much better shape in that respect and hence more options within their own control.
LH have been bailed - but at a cost - the government now have a stake (with all that entails) and they are now subject to political interference and loss of existing shareholder value. I believe this is not what IAG want to happen and want to remain in control of their business and it’s destiny.
Assuming the German government (at least initially) want an arms length relationship (assuming the stake gets shareholder approval) with LH - LH will still have to right size the business to deal with the current state of the industry, which will mean redundancies - they cannot escape this reality I believe LH had balance sheet issues/weakness before this crisis (despite being profitable), IAG is in much better shape in that respect and hence more options within their own control.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
In my position, if I’m ‘lucky’ to be selected to be interviewed for my role, I shall see my earnings drop from over 40k pa with incremental increases to a maximum of circa 18k pa, including variables, with no increments pay scales. This after 20 years service. BA are not negotiating this, they are consulting, very different.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. This isn’t a negotiation, it is ‘consultation’.
According to ACAS, the employer only has to demonstrate they listened to the arguments, then can end the consultation (June 14th?), and continue to do whatever it was planning anyway.
Regarding pilot redundancies, they say they require a headcount reduction of over 1100 pilots, across all fleets.
As things pick-up, hopefully that number will reduce.
It is clear to anyone that BA/IAG are using this crisis to screw everyone they can.
According to ACAS, the employer only has to demonstrate they listened to the arguments, then can end the consultation (June 14th?), and continue to do whatever it was planning anyway.
Regarding pilot redundancies, they say they require a headcount reduction of over 1100 pilots, across all fleets.
As things pick-up, hopefully that number will reduce.
It is clear to anyone that BA/IAG are using this crisis to screw everyone they can.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, perhaps the article I saw drumming up support wasn't strictly correct with the facts. It stated the whole of the Cabin Crew staff would be made redundant and a lesser number rehired. I'm sure it would be pretty difficult for a defence lawyer in an employment case to argue that the entire Cabin Crew role was now somehow different.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
As I understand it Unite state that they (and other representatives) received initial HR1 redundancy notices for the entire work force and reported that across IAG a 75% reduction in flying. The pilot community were offered a temporary deal via BALPA which they accepted. The government furlough scheme was then introduced. BA was initially reluctant to accept the government scheme but the unions convinced them to do on the understanding that the HR1 process was suspended. This should have allowed time to work out solutions to the crisis. It was the company’s intention to potential issue mass redundancy in excess of the current possible 12000.
Questions are still being asked about what happens to staff who cannot or will not accept the new contract. The proposed process is that suitable staff will be interviewed and assessed as necessary for a new contract. In effect everybody outside of BALPA’s protection is being dismissed, certain staff must reapply and new contracts are then offered. On the face of it this is against employment law but speaking with knowledgeable people including the obvious employment law specialists, there are many loop holes to circumvent the basic legislation.
Nobody outside of the leadership knows what tricks are up the management sleeves to create the cheapest work force in the UK. The only certainty is that homework will have been done and a solution which can be defended found. It was stated by the Unite rep at the select committee hearing that no (current) legal challenge exists to stop BA’s action. Legal remedy can only take place after the forthcoming events of June 15th.
Editted to add. I must be clear that this isn’t not pilots versus the rest within BA. The pilot community were not furloughed and BA management has itself created the separation of the community, no doubt deliberately. At the select committee a conservative MP asked if BALPA would support Unite in industrial action. An odd question I thought but I think he was discretely checking if BALPA felt BA’s actions were justified. He re-tried by asking if pilots would feel safe with cheap, inexperienced and demoralized cabin crew managing safety in the cabin. The BALPA rep answered no.
Questions are still being asked about what happens to staff who cannot or will not accept the new contract. The proposed process is that suitable staff will be interviewed and assessed as necessary for a new contract. In effect everybody outside of BALPA’s protection is being dismissed, certain staff must reapply and new contracts are then offered. On the face of it this is against employment law but speaking with knowledgeable people including the obvious employment law specialists, there are many loop holes to circumvent the basic legislation.
Nobody outside of the leadership knows what tricks are up the management sleeves to create the cheapest work force in the UK. The only certainty is that homework will have been done and a solution which can be defended found. It was stated by the Unite rep at the select committee hearing that no (current) legal challenge exists to stop BA’s action. Legal remedy can only take place after the forthcoming events of June 15th.
Editted to add. I must be clear that this isn’t not pilots versus the rest within BA. The pilot community were not furloughed and BA management has itself created the separation of the community, no doubt deliberately. At the select committee a conservative MP asked if BALPA would support Unite in industrial action. An odd question I thought but I think he was discretely checking if BALPA felt BA’s actions were justified. He re-tried by asking if pilots would feel safe with cheap, inexperienced and demoralized cabin crew managing safety in the cabin. The BALPA rep answered no.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unions at BA never talk to each other (Balpa being the worst).
I would not at all be surprised to see Pilots being redeployed as Cabin crew .The retention and retraining costs may justify this even though morally ( in my humble opinion ) it's wrong.
I would not at all be surprised to see Pilots being redeployed as Cabin crew .The retention and retraining costs may justify this even though morally ( in my humble opinion ) it's wrong.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They want to reduce the pilot headcount by 1100 expecting pax figures to be back up to 2019 levels by 23/4 but we were running full tilt in training over last couple of years and even then short of trainers. It will take the training department 3/4 years to train up the 1100 they are planning to lay off. If they revisit the numbers next year or 22 it will be 25/6 before the pilots they require will be online, by which time we will probably be another 200 short. I think Cruz, Mahoney and Walsh are a tad delusional.
They like to quote the ‘bad’ news from IATA.
Ok then, here’s one.
(Look at the black segment).
To base the destruction of contracts as necessary for the airline’s survival is clearly opportunistic, and maybe delusional.
As the new rates that BA are touting are £32G PA for a CSM and £24G PA for the rest, it would be probably the Lhr Legacy CC who are posting potentially taking a 50/60% pay cut. Unfortunately even without C19, it’s a buyers market at the moment. Paying the present crew £50G + PA is not sustainable when BA can get the newer contract Mixed Fleet, and for example Virgin cabin crew, for around 50% of that.
A tough time for all the Unions.
A tough time for all the Unions.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that chart other than crew, administrative and some station expenses (a little MRO which they are doing) there isn’t much else you can influence.....
I am sure there are a few TCX, BE and now VS crew who would like employment...it’s time to (try) to talk.
i suspect, rather than salaries and allowances, the biggest cost to IAG is all the restrictive agreements and rostering complexities that cost most.
I am not condoning IAG in my posts, just pointing out facts. Emotional
campaigns and rhetoric usually achieve little (remember the NUM and how that ended ?).
Accepting the world has changed and talking constructively is the only way forward imhobut we may already be past the point of no return.....
I am sure there are a few TCX, BE and now VS crew who would like employment...it’s time to (try) to talk.
i suspect, rather than salaries and allowances, the biggest cost to IAG is all the restrictive agreements and rostering complexities that cost most.
I am not condoning IAG in my posts, just pointing out facts. Emotional
campaigns and rhetoric usually achieve little (remember the NUM and how that ended ?).
Accepting the world has changed and talking constructively is the only way forward imhobut we may already be past the point of no return.....
Last edited by TOM100; 26th May 2020 at 14:30.
They can't even do that, as the attrition rates for the mixed fleet crew are fairly high. Also, the majority of trainers are WW crew, the largest cabin crew block in the company. Your figures are a bit off, not all those EF and WW crew members are on £50K+, the CSD's only but not main crew. They have signed a contract and worked their way through those pay scales so they deserve it. I think that it's time for BALPA and BASSA to put old rifts aside and have a sit-down and brainstorm, as if they get away doing that to the cabin crew, I wouldn't be surprised if that all of the sudden, pilots joining get to pay for their type ratings, salaries reduced, no more night stops etc
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
As the new rates that BA are touting are £32G PA for a CSM and £24G PA for the rest, it would be probably the Lhr Legacy CC who are posting potentially taking a 50/60% pay cut. Unfortunately even without C19, it’s a buyers market at the moment. Paying the present crew £50G + PA is not sustainable when BA can get the newer contract Mixed Fleet, and for example Virgin cabin crew, for around 50% of that.
A tough time for all the Unions.
A tough time for all the Unions.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For you to state that someone’s salary is unsustainable and so should be halved because new recruits are earning so much less, is a very dangerous game to start playing. You are talking about real people here, with real jobs, real families and real expectations of what mortgage they could afford to maintain. Companies like BA find it all too easy to ratchet down salaries for new recruits - particularly going forwards from this point of over supply for fewer jobs. Would you really be happy if your company shortly recruited pilots on half the current salaries, taking advantage of the abundance of experienced pilots that are about to be clamouring for too few jobs, and then in five years time came back and made you redundant, inviting you to reapply for your job on that halved salary? “After all, yours is unsustainable”? Is that really the kind of business practice you condone? I really despair when I hear or read comments such as the one you just made.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why the mixed fleet contract exists and why no one has been recruited onto a legacy contract for many years.
For you to state that someone’s salary is unsustainable and so should be halved because new recruits are earning so much less, is a very dangerous game to start playing. You are talking about real people here, with real jobs, real families and real expectations of what mortgage they could afford to maintain. Companies like BA find it all too easy to ratchet down salaries for new recruits - particularly going forwards from this point of over supply for fewer jobs. Would you really be happy if your company shortly recruited pilots on half the current salaries, taking advantage of the abundance of experienced pilots that are about to be clamouring for too few jobs, and then in five years time came back and made you redundant, inviting you to reapply for your job on that halved salary? “After all, yours is unsustainable”? Is that really the kind of business practice you condone? I really despair when I hear or read comments such as the one you just made.
For you to state that someone’s salary is unsustainable and so should be halved because new recruits are earning so much less, is a very dangerous game to start playing. You are talking about real people here, with real jobs, real families and real expectations of what mortgage they could afford to maintain. Companies like BA find it all too easy to ratchet down salaries for new recruits - particularly going forwards from this point of over supply for fewer jobs. Would you really be happy if your company shortly recruited pilots on half the current salaries, taking advantage of the abundance of experienced pilots that are about to be clamouring for too few jobs, and then in five years time came back and made you redundant, inviting you to reapply for your job on that halved salary? “After all, yours is unsustainable”? Is that really the kind of business practice you condone? I really despair when I hear or read comments such as the one you just made.
We could argue that it’s understandable that the relationship between the unions is sour, considering pilots volunteered to break the cabin crew strikes last time. Something I think that was morally wrong, and now I wonder, how those pilots, engineers and ground staff who volunteered feel as the company has shown their true colours. But it’s time to put differences aside and work on this together as I fear they will get away with it. It needs to get legal very soon!
GS- Alpha
You misunderstood my post. I’m not condoning any of BAs possible actions Of course nobody thinks their proposals are morally just. Just stating the facts as they are.
One of my relatives is LH FC, and almost certainly to be made redundant under the same BA management regime, I’m on your side.
You misunderstood my post. I’m not condoning any of BAs possible actions Of course nobody thinks their proposals are morally just. Just stating the facts as they are.
One of my relatives is LH FC, and almost certainly to be made redundant under the same BA management regime, I’m on your side.