IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. So provided the pp34 pilots can prove to their paymasters they are twice as meritorious and productive as those in pp1, they have nothing to worry about!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly - it cuts both ways but there are other human, behavioural and additional contributions that can be measured (and some technical) that don’t conflict with safety. If you can’t demonstrate any you get a standard salary for grade. I”m not saying I agree but just putting another point of view. In the States to work on the ground everything is bid on seniority (look at the age profile for Florida stations). They get the job based on years of service (provided they meet a minimum) not because they are best at the job or have amazing customer service - is this how we would recruit for our own business ? Don’t shoot me down, just saying.....
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 42
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must end it here because I have a bit of chair flying to do.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: France
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly - it cuts both ways but there are other human, behavioural and additional contributions that can be measured (and some technical) that don’t conflict with safety. If you can’t demonstrate any you get a standard salary for grade. I”m not saying I agree but just putting another point of view. In the States to work on the ground everything is bid on seniority (look at the age profile for Florida stations). They get the job based on years of service (provided they meet a minimum) not because they are best at the job or have amazing customer service - is this how we would recruit for our own business ? Don’t shoot me down, just saying.....
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Here
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.
If they're doing an equivalent role with no extra responsibilities then yes - they should be earning the same.
No, loyalty doesn't count for anything. Experience should, hence why more experienced staff should be given more responsible roles, such as training capt.
Should every long serving Captain be forced to earn the same as the newest Captain?
Should experience, commitment and loyalty account for nothing?
A TC role should be given to someone who is good at training. The skills required are mostly human (communication, empathy etc). It may be a 10,000 hour pilot would make a better trainer than a 20,000 hour pilot. But the 20,000 hour pilot is invaluable on the line for his experience, which is absorbed by co-pilots when they fly with them.
Rising salaries are normally paid to retain experience, which is a requirement in an airline.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Here
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point, replace the word "experience" with "aptitude" in my post. Those with aptitude should be given the more responsible roles. Sitting in the same job for 20 years is not, on its own, a good enough reason to be paid more.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BA pilot pay structure chooses to reward loyalty. When you start, you earn below market rate (particularly if you obtain an early command), but you do so in the knowledge that your salary will rise over time and then you will one day be earning a decent salary. This actually benefits BA, so much so that when considering moving to a flatter pay structure several years ago, it was decided it would be far too costly to do! In my opinion, fair is being paid in accordance with what you signed up for when you joined the company, together with any negotiated changes thereafter. If you did not like the terms and conditions, why sign the contract? Given the above, it is common practice (certainly within BA) for new entrants to gradually have lesser terms and conditions because they can be more easily adjusted to reflect the ever reducing new entrant market rate.
As an example of how this benefits BA, I have only relatively recently started earning that higher wage and as it arrived I went part time. So BA have done rather nicely out of me - a full MPE at below general market rate and then a fraction of an MPE when I started earning that more costly salary. My lifetime earnings are considerably below those of an EasyJet pilot where such a salary structure does not exist.
For the cabin crew, yes I totally agree that many of the legacy crew are on a very decent wage. Do they deserve it? Yes I very much believe they do. That is the salary they were recruited on, and which was negotiated throughout their careers. Would BA like to reduce their unit costs by ending those salaries? Of course they would! But you cannot just change someone’s salary without negotiation - that is not playing fair. It has always been likely they would have more negotiating power to achieve their aim, once MF numbers were high enough. Just at they closed NAPS once BARP numbers became high enough. It is the game that BA plays. However, fire and rehire is totally unacceptable. That being said, whilst BA are going about this in a very aggressive way, I think attempting to avoid being consulted with at all, is a dangerous game to play.
As an example of how this benefits BA, I have only relatively recently started earning that higher wage and as it arrived I went part time. So BA have done rather nicely out of me - a full MPE at below general market rate and then a fraction of an MPE when I started earning that more costly salary. My lifetime earnings are considerably below those of an EasyJet pilot where such a salary structure does not exist.
For the cabin crew, yes I totally agree that many of the legacy crew are on a very decent wage. Do they deserve it? Yes I very much believe they do. That is the salary they were recruited on, and which was negotiated throughout their careers. Would BA like to reduce their unit costs by ending those salaries? Of course they would! But you cannot just change someone’s salary without negotiation - that is not playing fair. It has always been likely they would have more negotiating power to achieve their aim, once MF numbers were high enough. Just at they closed NAPS once BARP numbers became high enough. It is the game that BA plays. However, fire and rehire is totally unacceptable. That being said, whilst BA are going about this in a very aggressive way, I think attempting to avoid being consulted with at all, is a dangerous game to play.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi GS Alpha - a very enlightening post. Just for clarity a part time post is not an MPE (manpower equivalent) it’s a HCE (head count equivalent) a full MPE (how BA measure it) would be a half MPE (part time role) and then, say, paying 2 other people the other equivalent half an MPE to make a whole. So if BA paid two people as 50% PT that is equivalent to 2 x HCE but 1 x MPE i.e the two people = 1 Manpower Equivalent. MPE is usually how they measure overtime etc so if you have 3 people earning lots of OT(3 x HCE) you would still have three people but with the OT costs could be equivalent to 5 people’s salary or 5 x MPE if that makes sense ? Semantics I know but there is a difference.
i also agree they have to attempt to talk and try and consult - no idea (especially as current circumstances unprecedented) how a court would view a blanket refusal to even attempt to consult. BA have filed the S188 as they are legally required so for BASSA to say we won’t talk until you remove it does seem a precarious position to take.
i also agree they have to attempt to talk and try and consult - no idea (especially as current circumstances unprecedented) how a court would view a blanket refusal to even attempt to consult. BA have filed the S188 as they are legally required so for BASSA to say we won’t talk until you remove it does seem a precarious position to take.
Last edited by TOM100; 10th Jun 2020 at 12:53.
You can be the pilot with the greatest aptitude, but not so great at understanding and correcting a junior pilot's ways - and therefore you should never be a trainer.
As has been pointed out above, the top salary is "the" salary, and you have to suffer a discount on the way up there. At my airline, FO's are paid terribly (take home around £1400 after loan repayments) and they only stay as they are on the path to "the" salary. To then say that everyone should settle for the intermediate or lowest discounted salary is very wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still no.
You can be the pilot with the greatest aptitude, but not so great at understanding and correcting a junior pilot's ways - and therefore you should never be a trainer.
As has been pointed out above, the top salary is "the" salary, and you have to suffer a discount on the way up there. At my airline, FO's are paid terribly (take home around £1400 after loan repayments) and they only stay as they are on the path to "the" salary. To then say that everyone should settle for the intermediate or lowest discounted salary is very wrong.
You can be the pilot with the greatest aptitude, but not so great at understanding and correcting a junior pilot's ways - and therefore you should never be a trainer.
As has been pointed out above, the top salary is "the" salary, and you have to suffer a discount on the way up there. At my airline, FO's are paid terribly (take home around £1400 after loan repayments) and they only stay as they are on the path to "the" salary. To then say that everyone should settle for the intermediate or lowest discounted salary is very wrong.
i guess if just looking for a temporary solution, when is temporary no longer temporary - 1 year, 5 years, when margins return to pre-Covid levels ? BALPA have a tough negotiation.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOM100, my understanding is that if full time, you are 1 x MPE, and if say 50% part time, you are 0.5 x MPE (hence why I said I am now a fraction of an MPE). I think that is what you are saying too? Or am I still misunderstanding? Either way, going part time as you start earning above market rate works nicely in their favour with such a salary structure, enabling them to have their cake and eat it so to speak. The incremental pay structure has more benefits than disadvantages for the company which is why they continue to support it. (They love to focus on the disadvantages because it helps to keep their inflationary pay negotiations suppressed).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
i also agree they have to attempt to talk and try and consult - no idea (especially as current circumstances unprecedented) how a court would view a blanket refusal to even attempt to consult. BA have filed the S188 as they are legally required so for BASSA to say we won’t talk until you remove it does seem a precarious position to take.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
I believe today is the deadline for BA to register pilots to the furlough scheme. Not doing so may be an indication of BA’s intentions going forward.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well knowing BA it must have crossed their mind to furlough those at risk knowing there’s a good chance they can take advantage of “the grey” in order to then make those people redundant and pay them
their notice in accordance with their reduced monthly furlough pay.
their notice in accordance with their reduced monthly furlough pay.