Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs

Old 28th Jun 2020, 14:42
  #1081 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Again, the opposite is true, it’s your opinion and I don’t have to agree with it, which as a matter of a fact, I don’t, “fella”. I couldn’t care less for it or your interpretation and it doesn’t matter what fleet she’s in, as she won’t have a say considering the union is ignoring her position, just read the BALPA forum.

Well someone who has done 30 years on the 747 won’t get the boot, someone who had issues should no matter when they joined, they shouldn’t be ahead of someone junior with better conduct, performance etc, as you know the other aspects of the matrix do not outweigh seniority, since you know it all.

My airline is also a seniority airline, and the mandate given to the union by both seniors and juniors was clear, we will share the pain evenly if it comes to it. That’s unity and that’s how it should be done. Yes, “someone’s terrorist is someone else’s freedom fighter” so the concept of fairness is debatable. But don’t sit there pretending you see yourselves as equals as anyone with over 10 years of BA knows that it’s not true.

I wish you the best of luck in your dispute.
Raph737 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 14:47
  #1082 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it fair that someone who joined last week into the A350 gets to stay, but someone who has given 30+ years service but flies a 747, gets the chop? Sorry fella; there’s nothing at all fair about that In my book. Life ain’t fair unfortunately
Life really isn't fair. It isn't fair for the long serving guys and girls at Virgin on the 747/330. What happened there?

Before you tell me BA is different from Virgin, BA claim to be losing £20m a day and is in a fight for survival. Get rid of 350 from the bottom of the MSL and they save what, £60k a day? It won't cut it. I can guarantee the only battle Balpa have on their hands at the moment is a battle to save the guys on the 747/A380 with the argument for the line in the MOA that states something along the lines of "regard shall be given to LIFO" - hardly a binding statement.

Paddingtonbear is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 14:49
  #1083 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ahh now it all becomes clear. This isn’t about fairness at all; it’s about your wife’s vulnerability to redundancy. It’s only fair, if someone else gets the chop in your opinion then.
FWIW, I believe the sun article is fantasy and although BALPA have said from the outset, that they expect agreements to be respected, they’re clearly looking at all avenues to secure ALL jobs. Including your wife’s I hope.
so rather than getting all het up and playing the man and not the ball, try taking a look at that BALPA forum yourself, and you’ll see that to a man/woman; the talk is all about saving everyone’s job and not about savings ones own arse. We aren’t the elitist selfish bunch you seem to think we are. To date, not a single pilot has been made redundant from BA. I sincerely hope we can keep it that way.
3Greens is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 14:53
  #1084 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Paddingtonbear

did Virgin have a LIFO agreement within their MOA? I genuinely have no idea.
BA are a VERY differant animal from virgin. Virgin have no simulators and the training costs to retrain their 747/330 pilots would be astronomical. BA have all the resources they need to do just that. Yes, there will be a cost, and I understand (from the “rumours”) that BA have agreed to respect LIFO (with some other elements).
3Greens is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 15:05
  #1085 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
3Greens, the Whatsapp rumours originally suggested that the Gatwick pilots were going to be stood down on 50% pay. The Sun article suggests they’re all going to be laid off. Either way that has nothing to do with seniority; as I have stated earlier Gatwick pilots comprise only 21% or so of the bottom 350 on the Master Seniority List which by any stretch is not “most” of the rumored CR. So regardless of the rights and wrongs of LIFO the inference from the article is that LIFO has been ignored, not promoted by Balpa. Are we going to get a nasty surprise this week?

I am very concerned with the change in rhetoric from Balpa which started out as flat out denial then recently has turned into “elements may have been agreed but there is no final deal”. Paraphrasing of course.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 15:08
  #1086 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
none of that sun article really makes any sense. Lazy, inept journalism IMO. They’ve clearly been “leaked” the whatsapp message and failed to either, read it or understand it. I won’t believe anything until I see it in written joint BA/ BALPA email or letter; but last I heard was BALPA remain in a position whereby BA will respect our agreements. Any deviance from that would lead to a breakdown in talks I believe.
I hear LGW holiday flight are on sale from July15th. Given holiday flights to Europe will be the first to return, I expect Lgw to bounce back strongly. BA are using it in disgraceful way as a bargaining chip with both HM.gov and the union.
3Greens is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 15:10
  #1087 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry I really should proofread before posting!
RexBanner is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 15:35
  #1088 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
3 Greens

“it’s written in our MOA which forms part of our contract that every BA pilot signs. Far from disgusting or elitist, just ensuring the company follow what is in our agreements. Or would you prefer BA to be able to ignore contracts and agreements as they see fit? What would then be the point of “agreeing” anything at all?”

Companies and Unions can agree to whatever they like. However, it should be within the law.

LIFO as the sole method of selection for redundancy is not within the law and should not be applied by the airlines as a sole method of selecting people for compulsory redundancy.

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010 changed the ‘rules’.


Last edited by 101917; 28th Jun 2020 at 15:36. Reason: Layout
101917 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 15:44
  #1089 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don’t think anyone is disputing that. I understand both sides legal advice is that LIFO+ is legal
LIFO on its own isn’t.
3Greens is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 17:21
  #1090 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That is correct. LIFO can be part of a matrix. I understand that TUI have a matrix.
Your post led me to believe that the BA pilot's contract for compulsory redundancy was solely LIFO.
101917 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2020, 20:48
  #1091 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 3Greens
I don’t think anyone is disputing that. I understand both sides legal advice is that LIFO+ is legal
LIFO on its own isn’t.
True that. Selection of employees for redundancy, as a rule, shall never be based on one sole criteria, with the exception when the qualification possessed by a group of employees is no longer relevant to the company. So, if it was a matter of scrapping completely any one fleet of aircraft, the dismissal of its crews would be extremely difficult to oppose in court. It has happened unfortunately, and many times. Nothing in the law can oblige an employer to retrain an employee for a new, relevant qualification, shall their existing one no longer serve any useful purpose to the business.

However, when all fleets are still there, experience can be a contributing factor, but not the sole one. Other matters need to be taken into account as well, i.e. performance of the employee, presence or lack of disciplinary issues, qualifications for any side duties (e.g. line trainer, CRM trainer, fleet technical pilot), progression perspective and so on.
PilotLZ is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 08:30
  #1092 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I can honestly say I’ve never worked with a more selfish pilot body than I have at BA. It’s not every pilot obviously, but it is a sizeable minority mainly skewed to long haul who have consistently chosen to protect their own at the expense of sharing the pain. PP34, JSS, etc, these things do not appear in a vacuum.

As Foss says, it was interesting to see the narrative change from “‘we’ve all got to share the pain & save all jobs’” when they were at risk to “‘we’ve got to make sure our job is worth doing, some CR may be necessary’” once it became apparent that LIFO was going to be a main factor in the redundancy.

I say interesting, what I mean as a PP2 SH FO is “‘horrifying’”, to be considered as collateral damage to preserve a senior pilots gilded lifestyle.

These people have had the very best out of this industry, and are seemingly insistent in pulling up the ladder behind them. I hope they are more of a minority than they seem to be.


Just to put the other side of the LIFO argument, I’ve never quite understood how it would be fair (to use a BA example) why I as a A320 FO should be forced out of the business to make way for a 747 FO who quite clearly in normal times wouldn’t dream of taking up a SH role, who would incur a retraining cost as well as having to pay (stat redundancy) for me to exit. LIFO within a fleet, absolutely, but as soon as you have to start shunting people into training courses, it becomes a lot harder to justify in my opinion (and is borderline illegal anyway - see redundancy bumping).

Last edited by thetimesreader84; 29th Jun 2020 at 08:47.
thetimesreader84 is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 08:33
  #1093 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 890
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
The number plate that was doing the WhatsApp round at the weekend certainly indicates the mindset of a few on long haul
Jwscud is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 09:04
  #1094 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,606
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I can honestly say I’ve never worked with a more selfish pilot body than I have at BA. It’s not every pilot obviously, but it is a sizeable minority mainly skewed to long haul who have consistently chosen to protect their own at the expense of sharing the pain. PP34, JSS, etc, these things do not appear in a vacuum.
BA pilots may or may not be selfish and you may or may not believe that but to state that 'a sizeable minority mainly skewed to long haul who have consistently chosen to protect their own at the expense of sharing the pain. PP34, JSS, etc, these things do not appear in a vacuum.' is utter nonsense. With an increase of 10 years of the retirement age do you believe that BA would have been happy to have pilots sit on the highest pay point for an extra ten years, bear in mind the highest pay points had big incremental rises in the last few years because the (then) final salary pension was based on pay in the last few years? That was why the 34 point scale was introduced and there was little anybody could have done to prevent it.

If you had actually been in the company for longer you would know the history behind the changes mentioned and that the options were limited.

In the current climate I do not see BA rushing to make the most junior on say the B787 or B777 to make way for a senior pilot from a contracting fleet, e.g. the B747, to take that position with all the associated re-training costs involved. It has been mentioned previously and often that simple LIFO is legally questionable.
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 09:11
  #1095 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: England
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
M. Mouse, as you're bringing it up, when PP34 was first discussed, was there an option for all pilots to go to 28 paypoints? I'm pretty sure it was discussed and vetoed!
Icarus1981 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 09:35
  #1096 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Like I said, these things don’t come around in a vacuum, but when BA come knocking it does seem that solutions are found that preserve lifestyles of those at the top. When retirement age was increased, there was no “PP29” compromise - those at the top kept the A scale, and everyone that came next was on a B scale. Same with JSS - when it was “discovered” that bidline was broken (debatable), the solution that was pushed (JSS) allowed those at the top to hoover up the “cream” trips, leaving those at the bottom to pick up the dross that’s left (and more of it, as it’s usually low credit stuff too). Vague promises of “you’ll be senior one day” ring hollow for many when you’re burning yourself out working 20% harder at the bottom, and the goalposts keep getting moved anyway.
thetimesreader84 is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 10:07
  #1097 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you signed up to a seniority based airline knowing that you'll be shafted until you work your way up the ladder, you have no right to complain that an airline is enforcing the principles that you agreed to when you joined. The fairest outcome is the MOA being adhered to, to the letter. Otherwise you're essentially agreeing to having your agreements torn up to suit the company whenever they see fit, especially if it's proven to divide the workforce.

Whether or not some of those at the top of the tree should be considering if they really need to bankroll their grandchildren through private school or if buying that second boat in the coming years is absolutely necessary is another matter. I'm sure there's plenty at the top of the seniority list in BA who wouldn't be missed by the company or those who sit to the right hand side of them.
Vokes55 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 10:25
  #1098 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
“The fairest outcome is the MOA being adhered to, to the letter”

The trouble is that the MOA statement referred to is out of date with the law.....
Survival Cot is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 10:37
  #1099 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Our MOA says “due regard shall be made to the principle of LIFO”. It doesn’t specify chopping the bottom 350/800/1200 to make room for people to be retrained off dead fleets.

Theres also the redeployment agreement that guarantees us 12 months salary, but BALPA & BA have gone very quiet on that. Seems that some parts of the MOA (like some pilots) may be more easily disposed of than others.
thetimesreader84 is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 10:42
  #1100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Dublin
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Survival Cot
“The fairest outcome is the MOA being adhered to, to the letter”

The trouble is that the MOA statement referred to is out of date with the law.....
The MOA is loosely worded (something like consideration will be given to the general principle of LIFO).
Anything like Virgin, which was effectively LIFO by fleet, would be easy to defend as in compliance with the MOA wording as that has given some consideration to the LIFO principle. If BA does go with LIFO+ (which as I have said previously I do not have a fairer suggestion) it will be BALPA that have brought them to that position. There seems something morbid in that those at the bottom could end up effectively paying BALPA to have their jobs negotiated away. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, and we somehow reach a fair solution of everyone taking a proportionate cut.
The Foss is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.