GB Pilots to join BA?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB Pilots to join BA?
Rumour has it that GB pilots are to be added to BA's pilot seniority list in due course. Something to do with SCOPE, I believe. Anyone know anything about this?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SCOPE is the baby of BA CC (acting in close harmony with BALPA (the British Airways Line PIlots Association once again) who see it as a device to keep the platinum brigade in the postion to which they believe they have a birthright enjoying the plum routes equipment and Ts and Cs.
The unwashed masses in the regions operating franchises are seen as a threat to to their idle rich life style and represent a threat as they are prepared to do a day's work for inferior terms.
SCOPE at its most basic ensures that those of us who are not in mainline BA are kept in our places and are denied the opportunity to fly anything bigger than 70 or 100 seats unless we are considered "the right stuff" by BA criteria. (Forget it if you are a TP driver....you don't even exist!)
Oh yes....SCOPE is "a two way valve" allowing the flow of piots from the Franchises into BA and vice versa.........B*?!cks it is!!!
Look at the small print.
Dont fall for it guys!!
The unwashed masses in the regions operating franchises are seen as a threat to to their idle rich life style and represent a threat as they are prepared to do a day's work for inferior terms.
SCOPE at its most basic ensures that those of us who are not in mainline BA are kept in our places and are denied the opportunity to fly anything bigger than 70 or 100 seats unless we are considered "the right stuff" by BA criteria. (Forget it if you are a TP driver....you don't even exist!)
Oh yes....SCOPE is "a two way valve" allowing the flow of piots from the Franchises into BA and vice versa.........B*?!cks it is!!!
Look at the small print.
Dont fall for it guys!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: world
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit bitter are we TINYTIM???
Scope is essential to all BA pilots to keep BA's work within BA and not allow the work to be franchised out.
In its basic form it also keeps pilots jobs for uk pilots- bet your interested now!
I'm one of the "platinum" brigade and have earnt my right to be there via loyalty. I resent your remarks.
Scope is essential to all BA pilots to keep BA's work within BA and not allow the work to be franchised out.
In its basic form it also keeps pilots jobs for uk pilots- bet your interested now!
I'm one of the "platinum" brigade and have earnt my right to be there via loyalty. I resent your remarks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinytim,
I think you have summarised SCOPE rather well!
I'm sure we can all understand the guys at BA wishing to preserve/improve whatever they have going for them - who wouldn't?
Anyway, my understanding is that the franchises themselves have come in for much scrutiny following the "Future Size & Shape" report, which has caused much concern in many departments.
I believe that the BA CC are effectively preventing GB from further expansion by preventing the transfer of further loss-making routes to them, something which has apparently been to the benefit of both companies since the dawn of franchising.
The GB management/owners will have to decide where their best interests lie & are apparently considering "doing a deal" with the BA CC to break the impasse.
The carrot to the GB pilots is, of course, the promise of mainline pay, T & Cs etc. not to mention access to all that BA has to offer. Just the thing to drive up costs in these ultra-competitive times, but in line with BA's history of throwing money at problems!
Certainly, access by BA pilots to the franchise flying would be a major part of the deal - whether it would work quite so well in the other direction is another matter!
Watch this space!
I think you have summarised SCOPE rather well!
I'm sure we can all understand the guys at BA wishing to preserve/improve whatever they have going for them - who wouldn't?
Anyway, my understanding is that the franchises themselves have come in for much scrutiny following the "Future Size & Shape" report, which has caused much concern in many departments.
I believe that the BA CC are effectively preventing GB from further expansion by preventing the transfer of further loss-making routes to them, something which has apparently been to the benefit of both companies since the dawn of franchising.
The GB management/owners will have to decide where their best interests lie & are apparently considering "doing a deal" with the BA CC to break the impasse.
The carrot to the GB pilots is, of course, the promise of mainline pay, T & Cs etc. not to mention access to all that BA has to offer. Just the thing to drive up costs in these ultra-competitive times, but in line with BA's history of throwing money at problems!
Certainly, access by BA pilots to the franchise flying would be a major part of the deal - whether it would work quite so well in the other direction is another matter!
Watch this space!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cruisin Level !!
You fell right into the trap posed by my provocative post and thereby made my point exactly for me!!
No one's asking you and your mates to give anything away. But we sure as hell don't want to be told by someone (particularly someone enjoying a highly privileged position within the Industry) who doesn't work for our company what we can and cannot fly or what we will be paid to do it.
You fell right into the trap posed by my provocative post and thereby made my point exactly for me!!
No one's asking you and your mates to give anything away. But we sure as hell don't want to be told by someone (particularly someone enjoying a highly privileged position within the Industry) who doesn't work for our company what we can and cannot fly or what we will be paid to do it.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The 51st State
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TinyGuy I think you are deluding yourself, or at least believe the management propaganda. Wouldn't mind a move to GB myself as it would be an improvement over life at BA Gatwickland.
Oh, and you might get a bit defensive yourself when YOUR management find people to work in YOUR company on inferior T's and C's.
Harry
p.s. BA is pants, just a matter of time before a better offer comes along.
Oh, and you might get a bit defensive yourself when YOUR management find people to work in YOUR company on inferior T's and C's.
Harry
p.s. BA is pants, just a matter of time before a better offer comes along.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unwashed masses in the regions operating franchises are seen as a threat to to their idle rich life style and represent a threat as they are prepared to do a day's work for inferior terms.
Quite! Although at least we're working hard in the regions covering your (our?) work instead of sitting around waiting for broken Embraers to be fixed again. "Ooops, broken again, better go home". Remind me again, are you employed as airline pilots or rental car drivers?
I believe that the BA CC are effectively preventing GB from further expansion by preventing the transfer of further loss-making routes to them, something which has apparently been to the benefit of both companies since the dawn of franchising
Sadly wrong. Firstly its not our fault the routes are losing money, its the ineptitude and overheads of Waterworld that are hurting them. You are welcome to the routes if you think you can make them profitable, but only if you're going to take a proportionate share of the Waterside staff and costs. What were not happy to let you do is cherry-pick those routes and then leave us with fewer routes to support the same Waterside mass. Secondly the purpose of franchises is to develop routes to a stage where the parent carrier can operate them profitably, then the franchise goes and develops new routes. Thats expansion, what you propose is nothing more than route theft. The purpose of the franchise is not to mask corporate waste and inefficiency in the parent carrier by allowing them to easily attribute costs to the wrong people (flight/cabin crew). Perhaps you can explain why GB can operate the MPL route at a profit the day after EOG cut it, despite the fact that GB pay their flight and cabin crew almost exactly the same money as EOG?
Quite! Although at least we're working hard in the regions covering your (our?) work instead of sitting around waiting for broken Embraers to be fixed again. "Ooops, broken again, better go home". Remind me again, are you employed as airline pilots or rental car drivers?
I believe that the BA CC are effectively preventing GB from further expansion by preventing the transfer of further loss-making routes to them, something which has apparently been to the benefit of both companies since the dawn of franchising
Sadly wrong. Firstly its not our fault the routes are losing money, its the ineptitude and overheads of Waterworld that are hurting them. You are welcome to the routes if you think you can make them profitable, but only if you're going to take a proportionate share of the Waterside staff and costs. What were not happy to let you do is cherry-pick those routes and then leave us with fewer routes to support the same Waterside mass. Secondly the purpose of franchises is to develop routes to a stage where the parent carrier can operate them profitably, then the franchise goes and develops new routes. Thats expansion, what you propose is nothing more than route theft. The purpose of the franchise is not to mask corporate waste and inefficiency in the parent carrier by allowing them to easily attribute costs to the wrong people (flight/cabin crew). Perhaps you can explain why GB can operate the MPL route at a profit the day after EOG cut it, despite the fact that GB pay their flight and cabin crew almost exactly the same money as EOG?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just loving this !!!
Really, BA boys!!!..... Face up to the facts.... Your CC are acting like dogs in a manger trying desperately to preserve by industrial "agreement" what by the operation of the open market they could not otherwise sustain.
You are overpaid, underworked and pampered compared with the rest of our industry in the UK plus the market dosn't want your product anymore.
Now that you've been rumbled SCOPE is being wheeled out to enable you to take more of the available pie for yourselves to the detriment of the rest of us.
SCOPE is about GREED pure and simple.
SCOPE as proposed belongs to the dark ages of industrial relations when inefficiencies and anti-competitive practises were jealously guarded to the long term destruction of those very jobs that the exponents of those practises were trying to preserve. Remember the chaos in the printing and dock industries a couple of decades ago? (You probably are too young). Well, what you are proposing is no different.....
Understandibly your CC are dead chuffed to have installed an unashamedly militant and pro BA man in the top slot at Balpa and so it is perhaps understandable that having taken over Balpa they think that they can dictate to the rest of the industry.
I look forward so much to your replies!!!!!
Really, BA boys!!!..... Face up to the facts.... Your CC are acting like dogs in a manger trying desperately to preserve by industrial "agreement" what by the operation of the open market they could not otherwise sustain.
You are overpaid, underworked and pampered compared with the rest of our industry in the UK plus the market dosn't want your product anymore.
Now that you've been rumbled SCOPE is being wheeled out to enable you to take more of the available pie for yourselves to the detriment of the rest of us.
SCOPE is about GREED pure and simple.
SCOPE as proposed belongs to the dark ages of industrial relations when inefficiencies and anti-competitive practises were jealously guarded to the long term destruction of those very jobs that the exponents of those practises were trying to preserve. Remember the chaos in the printing and dock industries a couple of decades ago? (You probably are too young). Well, what you are proposing is no different.....
Understandibly your CC are dead chuffed to have installed an unashamedly militant and pro BA man in the top slot at Balpa and so it is perhaps understandable that having taken over Balpa they think that they can dictate to the rest of the industry.
I look forward so much to your replies!!!!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I get it...... BA franchised GB to build up routes so that they could take them off them when they'd made them profitable! 
And as for GB pilots getting paid the same as EOG - £10k + allowances and a final salary pension - I think not!!!
And as for GB pilots getting paid the same as EOG - £10k + allowances and a final salary pension - I think not!!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't even waste your breath on this headbanger! Keep it in house (where this aggressive, abusive troublemaker is excluded)! Look at the profile! Hiding behind anonymity whilst being so aggressively contrary is a worrying feature!
Last edited by Notso Fantastic; 26th Aug 2002 at 14:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinytim,
Once again, you make many valid points about the purpose of SCOPE.
Naturally, the guys at BA don't like being told the facts of commercial life - but when your back is up against the wall, what can you do?
Hand Solo,
The franchisees do not cherry-pick. They do not go in & audit BA's entire network & decide which routes they like the look of. They look at what is being offered to them by BA, these being the routes that BA no longer consider viable. They then make a decision to take the route on, or not, based on it's commercial potential to the franchisee.
For this, they pay BA huge sums of money - a flat fee for the "honour" of being a franchisee & support services, plus an ongoing cut of the revenue from ticket sales. They certainly do not get anything for nothing. In addition to this risk-free revenue, BA get a continued presence on the route, keeping their face known & providing competition for those who would prefer that BA weren't there at all. They also have their own overheads to pay for.
You don't seriously believe that the function of a franchise is to pep-up an ailing route for BA & then hand it back to them, do you? Maybe in BizzaroLand!
How do you know whether or not GB is making a profit on the MPL route? If they are, good for them, maybe you can learn something from them!
With regard to flight crew & cabin crew salaries, a comparison of payslips during a stopover might be revealing. If the pay is so good at GB, maybe SCOPE should be pushing for BA crews to be on GB payscales.
Anyway, this is rather getting away from the purpose of the original post, which was to invite comments & further information on the state of play regarding GB.
Is anyone willing to comment on the likelihood or otherwise of the entire GB pilot force being forced onto BA's seniority list in return for the co-operation of the BA CC?
Once again, you make many valid points about the purpose of SCOPE.
Naturally, the guys at BA don't like being told the facts of commercial life - but when your back is up against the wall, what can you do?
Hand Solo,
The franchisees do not cherry-pick. They do not go in & audit BA's entire network & decide which routes they like the look of. They look at what is being offered to them by BA, these being the routes that BA no longer consider viable. They then make a decision to take the route on, or not, based on it's commercial potential to the franchisee.
For this, they pay BA huge sums of money - a flat fee for the "honour" of being a franchisee & support services, plus an ongoing cut of the revenue from ticket sales. They certainly do not get anything for nothing. In addition to this risk-free revenue, BA get a continued presence on the route, keeping their face known & providing competition for those who would prefer that BA weren't there at all. They also have their own overheads to pay for.
You don't seriously believe that the function of a franchise is to pep-up an ailing route for BA & then hand it back to them, do you? Maybe in BizzaroLand!
How do you know whether or not GB is making a profit on the MPL route? If they are, good for them, maybe you can learn something from them!
With regard to flight crew & cabin crew salaries, a comparison of payslips during a stopover might be revealing. If the pay is so good at GB, maybe SCOPE should be pushing for BA crews to be on GB payscales.
Anyway, this is rather getting away from the purpose of the original post, which was to invite comments & further information on the state of play regarding GB.
Is anyone willing to comment on the likelihood or otherwise of the entire GB pilot force being forced onto BA's seniority list in return for the co-operation of the BA CC?
Last edited by Miss Inform; 26th Aug 2002 at 14:27.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to apologise for my colleague at BA CitiExpress tinytim (stature or manhood?).
His posts on our company forum are as offensive mis-informed as the ones on this thread.
Most of us at BACX dont give a toss who flys what as long as we get paid on time and we don't get 'managed' out of business by the Waterside lot.
If tinytim wants to fly BA's toys then he should go through the selection procedure like the rest of you lot did. I never applied because I couldn't be bothered filling in the application form and frankly didn't understand half the questions anyway. Perhaps the the form was the first aptitude test.
Regarding scope; if all company councils had a rigid scope agreements like the BA CC apparently does then I guess Gatwick would not be littered with foreign registered 767's painted in Excel colours and the airways wouldn't be occupied by Canadian Skyservice A320's under Kestrel callsigns. Excel and My Travel would be forced to use UK crews and aircraft and tinytim could get a job with either of them and poison their company forums instead of ours and this one.
His posts on our company forum are as offensive mis-informed as the ones on this thread.
Most of us at BACX dont give a toss who flys what as long as we get paid on time and we don't get 'managed' out of business by the Waterside lot.
If tinytim wants to fly BA's toys then he should go through the selection procedure like the rest of you lot did. I never applied because I couldn't be bothered filling in the application form and frankly didn't understand half the questions anyway. Perhaps the the form was the first aptitude test.
Regarding scope; if all company councils had a rigid scope agreements like the BA CC apparently does then I guess Gatwick would not be littered with foreign registered 767's painted in Excel colours and the airways wouldn't be occupied by Canadian Skyservice A320's under Kestrel callsigns. Excel and My Travel would be forced to use UK crews and aircraft and tinytim could get a job with either of them and poison their company forums instead of ours and this one.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bat.man
Agree wholeheartedly. BALPA wouldn't be such a waste of time if they actually represented BRITISH pilots instead of justBA pilots. mytravel are using American,canadian crews and are using foreign(Belgian) contract pilots, whom they are considering keeping on permenently rather than hire UK guys and girls. It's about time BALPA stood up for our industry as a whole and not just for one section.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's quite a slur on BALPA that I don't think is justified. BALPA has struggled in a very difficult environment (UK aviation) to represent all pilots interests in the best way it can. At the end of the day, BALPA is just an Association of pilots all doing what they can for their respective Company Councils in a very hostile anti-union environment with very powerful anti-union legislation. There's not a lot else working for us!
Batman, thank you for the background. Sounds like the young gentleman has problems & likes his 'sauce' too much! Perhaps when he wakes up he may start deleting!
Batman, thank you for the background. Sounds like the young gentleman has problems & likes his 'sauce' too much! Perhaps when he wakes up he may start deleting!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all sounds like that bloke who "fiddled" while Rome burned.
Get real chaps, the losses are mounting the cheapskate operators are booming and all you can talk about is relative seniority.
If BA long haul folds, are you seriously suggesting that the BA "main line"pilots should have a claim to a job with GB Air?
Get real chaps, the losses are mounting the cheapskate operators are booming and all you can talk about is relative seniority.
If BA long haul folds, are you seriously suggesting that the BA "main line"pilots should have a claim to a job with GB Air?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You betcha! It's always been seen as a nice little job to 'unwind' in on retirement from BA - I get the feeling that it's a case of 'that looks anice job, I'll have some of that!'. BA CC don't seem to be making such a noise about wanting to go to Kyrgystan, Beirut and Addis Abbaba.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt that GB pilots would want to get involved in combining with BA pilots. They (GB)presently work for a company that is profitable and is sensibly managed by its owners. The franchise lasts for another 6 years, and then GB are free to work independently, or sign up with another airline(easyjet?airfrance?whatever).
Why get more closely involved with a once proud airline that is creaking with bad luck(sep11), militancy and mismanagement. BA has debts of £5.9bn and two-thirds of its income is being used just to pay the interest bills. BA can't afford to keep their present route structure on that kind of financial base - it has to shrink and that means less pilots. GB pilots would insist on being equals on a merged list to avoid being at the bottom of a shrinking combined business. Pruners all know that BA BALPA would not agree, because they wouldn't understand the significance of GB bringing a profitable and independent operation to the party.
The final point, of course, is that the owners of the airline call the tune at GB - not the workforce.
Why get more closely involved with a once proud airline that is creaking with bad luck(sep11), militancy and mismanagement. BA has debts of £5.9bn and two-thirds of its income is being used just to pay the interest bills. BA can't afford to keep their present route structure on that kind of financial base - it has to shrink and that means less pilots. GB pilots would insist on being equals on a merged list to avoid being at the bottom of a shrinking combined business. Pruners all know that BA BALPA would not agree, because they wouldn't understand the significance of GB bringing a profitable and independent operation to the party.
The final point, of course, is that the owners of the airline call the tune at GB - not the workforce.