BA,BACX,BALPA-Conflict of interest?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA,BACX,BALPA-Conflict of interest?
The latest rumour doing the rounds at BACX is that the RJ's are no longer coming. This is due to negotiations between BA,BACX, and BALPA concluding that BACX will operate no aircraft larger than 70 seats and nothing out of a London airport.
If this is true thats fine. I can completely understand the mainline crews wanting to safeguard there position.
However, who is BALPA fighting for? I want RJ100's in BACX, it gives me and my colleagues greater variety of aircraft and therefore career enhancement.
Why has BALPA (who represents me in these negotiations) got any interest in these aircraft joining my company?
If I was cynical, I would say that the interests of BACX crews are not being looked after (in this instance).
BALPA most certainly has its place in our profession but I suspect a conflict of interest exists.
If this is true thats fine. I can completely understand the mainline crews wanting to safeguard there position.
However, who is BALPA fighting for? I want RJ100's in BACX, it gives me and my colleagues greater variety of aircraft and therefore career enhancement.
Why has BALPA (who represents me in these negotiations) got any interest in these aircraft joining my company?
If I was cynical, I would say that the interests of BACX crews are not being looked after (in this instance).
BALPA most certainly has its place in our profession but I suspect a conflict of interest exists.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redline
I have just got a newsletter from BACX CC explaining everything !............Makes VERY interesting reading.
Apparently our CC have told BA CC just where to go on Scope which is now a dead issue from CX's viewpoint!!!!
No question of any cosy deals ....far from it.
Interesting times
I have just got a newsletter from BACX CC explaining everything !............Makes VERY interesting reading.
Apparently our CC have told BA CC just where to go on Scope which is now a dead issue from CX's viewpoint!!!!
No question of any cosy deals ....far from it.
Interesting times
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Planet Earth
Age: 23
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurrah for our CC
Our concerns about Scope.
1. If we accepted the proposal, we would be accepting that two pilots operating a CX aircraft would be doing the same job but one would be significantly better off than the other. (Without going into detail you will be aware that BA pilots enjoy better salaries, pension schemes, health care, travel and insurance benefits, bonuses preferential bidding and of course, retire at 55). We considered this to be a recipe for industrial disharmony if ever there was one. (You only have to look at the friction caused by the mixing of BAR cabin crew with our colleagues in MAN and BHX. It does not get much more stupid than that).
2. The idea of drawing any line based upon aircraft size was flawed. Whilst present market conditions might make the divisions proposed logical, who is to say that given changed circumstances it might only become economic to operate aircraft larger than 100 seats? (Look at the low cost operators - all operating 140 seaters for example.)
Yet CX would forever have surrendered its pilots' rights to fly anything larger. Referring again to the American experience, one has had the farcical situation of companies removing seats to stay within the constraints of Scope agreements. One also has to address the fact that our 146s straddle the dividing line already.
3. The idea that BA would have the right to impose its own pilots (the suggestion has been made one CX P1 for one BA P1) on each 70 to 99 seater operated by CX is highly unattractive to many of our pilots who might see “their” seat being taken by a BA pilot when they themselves either had no ambition to join BA or were otherwise not considered “suitable” to do so.
4. Many if not most of us fly in a regional airline as a matter of choice because we like the flying and the ability to live and work in a particular community. It is a lifestyle choice and for many, the prospect of operating long haul from LHR or LGW is of no appeal. The lack of appreciation of this has been a recurring theme throughout these discussions.
5. It has been made very clear to us that BA would retain the right to determine exactly which of you met their criteria as to “suitability” for transfer under the scheme into BA. In particular, they placed a substantial question mark against the ability of our turboprop pilots to meet their selection requirements. It was also far from clear that anyone from a turboprop fleet would be able to bid into BA under such a scheme.
Base training costs, Zero Flight time training qualifying requirements and historical conversion failure rates were some of the many barriers that were being held against even our most experienced pilots (thereby rendering such individuals as “unsuitable”). This is all the more extraordinary considering that BA put their own pilots, some with 250 hrs straight onto the flight-deck of medium sized jets.
6. The whole question of preservation and or extension of pension rights within the context of Scope is of itself a major and highly complex issue, which had not even begun to be considered.
Who might have benefited from Scope?
At its inception, the scheme would be open to suitably qualified jet Captains. Turboprop pilots were expressly excluded.
It is likely that the pre qualification would be at least three years jet P1. Of course anyone approaching 55 would be excluded.
A bid into BA would be a once in a lifetime bid and would be likely to have to be non-specific as to type, seat or base. (It is conceivable that a CX pilot on a 70 to 99 seater could end up flying that very aircraft he had been flying in CX but on BA terms!)
A quota system matching BA pilots into CX and vice versa would have to be devised.
(Bearing in mind that the BACC are trying to impose similar Scope deals on other franchises and, in the meantime, BA continue to recruit and train their own pilots and are likely to increase the Compulsory Retirement age, one has to ask oneself exactly where all the opportunities are going to come from? In reality it is your CCs view that the opportunities would be very few and far between.)
Our conclusions about Scope.
As a result of the debates we came to the conclusion that the proposals put to us might form the basis for developing discussions further with the BACC but that if Scope were to be effective it must be based on a partnership of two companies and not one company serving the interests of another.
In our opinion, the outline proposals put to us were seriously flawed and if the matter were to go any further we would need time to go away and starting with a clean sheet of paper, develop a concept of how we might see an arrangement working and what CX pilots might want out of it.
The fundamental principal to be established however before we could take the debate any further was that any Scope agreement “MUST OPEN UP ACCESS TO BA TO ALL, IN A FLOW BASED PURELY ON SENIORITY AND WITH NO OTHER DISCRIMINATION”.
Unfortunately this principle has not found favour with BA Management who continue to assert that they must have the right to discriminate against certain categories of pilot, in particular turboprop.
Much criticism has been made of BALPA and many of you will be very unhappy about the recent shenanigans over the election of the General Secretary and the perception that BALPA has lurched towards being seen as the British Airways Line Pilots Association again or that we are being “stitched up” with the connivance of BALPA to agree a Scope agreement which satisfies BALPA’s 3000 BA members to the detriment of our 450.
You can be absolutely certain that your CC is aware of the potential conflicts which have arisen and has vehemently asserted its right to an independent view to represent the interests of its members notwithstanding that frictions may thereby have between caused.
Most unfortunately vociferous and powerful elements within the BACC have latched onto the RJ issue as one to attach their demands for a Scope agreement and, in blunt terms, we were faced with the imposition of very short timescales within which to conclude terms.
They further told BA that if they did not make substantial progress to concluding an agreement by the end of November then no BACX RJ training was to commence and that none of our pilots, not even those displaced under FS&S would be allowed to fly the RJ 100s. (Some might see this as akin to a form of blackmail).
Previously, our understanding as to the deployment and utilisation of RJs was that up to 50 seats would be made available to our FSS displaced pilots without pre-condition, any BA pilot wishing to bid onto the fleet could do so on protected BA terms and the rest of the aircraft would be deployed once we had come to an agreement as to the terms on which they were to be flown.
Although your CC was very unhappy to learn of the package offered to BA pilots relative to CX to fly the RJ (approximately £1000 per month more than a CX pilot plus all the BA benefits of final salary pension, early retirement etc. etc.) we nonetheless felt that the overriding importance was to get our displaced pilots up and running on the fleet. Aspirational bidding onto the fleet by CX pilots was something to be dealt with later.
That is how matters were proceeding and we were awaiting information as to course dates when BACC made it clear to BA in unambiguous terms that not one of our pilots would be allowed anywhere near an RJ unless and until their demands on Scope were met.
This threat, when coupled with an unrealistically short time scale has forced your CC to go away and re-visit the fundamentals of where we consider your interests lie. We have also been considering what sort of relationship we should be looking at developing with BA consistent with the objective of securing better terms and conditions for you as well as the chances of career progression without yet further discrimination prejudice and division.
We should place on record here that your CC has made consistent attempts over the last few months to obtain four way meetings to include BA and BACX management as well as BACC in order to progress the debate. We have been persistently stonewalled and left out whilst all other parties have clearly been developing the concepts to suit their interests. It is only very recently that we were able to obtain access to this debate, after pressure from ourselves and BACC, and provide input.
We share your outrage at the “jig to our tune or else” threat from the BACC and at the same time are left wondering just what BA and CX management were doing going ahead and promising courses to you when, in reality, they had absolutely no business to do so. Our respective managements have been well aware of the industrial issues attached to the RJs since before the inception of BACX and we consider that they have to a large extent been utterly reckless in proceeding to offer the RJ to you when they knew that they might not be able to deliver on promise.
It will come as no surprise that management will now blame “BALPA” (By that, if they were honest, they would mean the BACC) for this fiasco.
In reality your CC are of the view that given the principal responsibility of your management is to manage and direct the company, the lion’s share of the blame falls squarely with them but, at the same time, we are substantially less than happy that the BACC should have latched on to this issue as a means of securing their broader industrial objectives for better terms and conditions for employment for their members and that earlier understandings have not been delivered upon.
Our response.
It serves no purpose for us to dwell on who is to blame and we have needed to find a way ahead and provide a response to the gauntlet, which had been laid before us.
The choice, which faced us, was stark.
We capitulate and accept that we will enter an agreement under duress, which makes you forever second-class citizens on inferior terms to BA (with a few crumbs of comfort in the guise of a limited number of opportunities for a few to join BA)
Or
We say, “Enough is enough”.
We are fed up with being seen as a convenient dumping ground for BA’s problems and being treated as an under-caste. The giving of final salary pension scheme and full BA terms to our BA cadets without our knowledge is nothing short of an outrage when we have some long served and loyal pilots who will earn scarcely enough in retirement to keep them off state benefits. This revelation in many respects was the last straw.
This CC will not stand by and see you made into second-class citizens. We are all pilots together working ultimately for the same company. We should be treated the same.
The message we delivered accordingly on September 30th was simply this:
“If you want BACX pilots to work together and in harmony with BA, then we should be placed on a common seniority list on common terms with our BA Brothers and Sisters”.
We are pleased to be able to report that, given our rejection of Scope, the BACC are able to associate themselves with the foregoing aspiration.
Understandably BA and BACX management as well as the BACC have all gone away to consult their colleagues and we are expecting to meet with them again in the next few days.
1. If we accepted the proposal, we would be accepting that two pilots operating a CX aircraft would be doing the same job but one would be significantly better off than the other. (Without going into detail you will be aware that BA pilots enjoy better salaries, pension schemes, health care, travel and insurance benefits, bonuses preferential bidding and of course, retire at 55). We considered this to be a recipe for industrial disharmony if ever there was one. (You only have to look at the friction caused by the mixing of BAR cabin crew with our colleagues in MAN and BHX. It does not get much more stupid than that).
2. The idea of drawing any line based upon aircraft size was flawed. Whilst present market conditions might make the divisions proposed logical, who is to say that given changed circumstances it might only become economic to operate aircraft larger than 100 seats? (Look at the low cost operators - all operating 140 seaters for example.)
Yet CX would forever have surrendered its pilots' rights to fly anything larger. Referring again to the American experience, one has had the farcical situation of companies removing seats to stay within the constraints of Scope agreements. One also has to address the fact that our 146s straddle the dividing line already.
3. The idea that BA would have the right to impose its own pilots (the suggestion has been made one CX P1 for one BA P1) on each 70 to 99 seater operated by CX is highly unattractive to many of our pilots who might see “their” seat being taken by a BA pilot when they themselves either had no ambition to join BA or were otherwise not considered “suitable” to do so.
4. Many if not most of us fly in a regional airline as a matter of choice because we like the flying and the ability to live and work in a particular community. It is a lifestyle choice and for many, the prospect of operating long haul from LHR or LGW is of no appeal. The lack of appreciation of this has been a recurring theme throughout these discussions.
5. It has been made very clear to us that BA would retain the right to determine exactly which of you met their criteria as to “suitability” for transfer under the scheme into BA. In particular, they placed a substantial question mark against the ability of our turboprop pilots to meet their selection requirements. It was also far from clear that anyone from a turboprop fleet would be able to bid into BA under such a scheme.
Base training costs, Zero Flight time training qualifying requirements and historical conversion failure rates were some of the many barriers that were being held against even our most experienced pilots (thereby rendering such individuals as “unsuitable”). This is all the more extraordinary considering that BA put their own pilots, some with 250 hrs straight onto the flight-deck of medium sized jets.
6. The whole question of preservation and or extension of pension rights within the context of Scope is of itself a major and highly complex issue, which had not even begun to be considered.
Who might have benefited from Scope?
At its inception, the scheme would be open to suitably qualified jet Captains. Turboprop pilots were expressly excluded.
It is likely that the pre qualification would be at least three years jet P1. Of course anyone approaching 55 would be excluded.
A bid into BA would be a once in a lifetime bid and would be likely to have to be non-specific as to type, seat or base. (It is conceivable that a CX pilot on a 70 to 99 seater could end up flying that very aircraft he had been flying in CX but on BA terms!)
A quota system matching BA pilots into CX and vice versa would have to be devised.
(Bearing in mind that the BACC are trying to impose similar Scope deals on other franchises and, in the meantime, BA continue to recruit and train their own pilots and are likely to increase the Compulsory Retirement age, one has to ask oneself exactly where all the opportunities are going to come from? In reality it is your CCs view that the opportunities would be very few and far between.)
Our conclusions about Scope.
As a result of the debates we came to the conclusion that the proposals put to us might form the basis for developing discussions further with the BACC but that if Scope were to be effective it must be based on a partnership of two companies and not one company serving the interests of another.
In our opinion, the outline proposals put to us were seriously flawed and if the matter were to go any further we would need time to go away and starting with a clean sheet of paper, develop a concept of how we might see an arrangement working and what CX pilots might want out of it.
The fundamental principal to be established however before we could take the debate any further was that any Scope agreement “MUST OPEN UP ACCESS TO BA TO ALL, IN A FLOW BASED PURELY ON SENIORITY AND WITH NO OTHER DISCRIMINATION”.
Unfortunately this principle has not found favour with BA Management who continue to assert that they must have the right to discriminate against certain categories of pilot, in particular turboprop.
Much criticism has been made of BALPA and many of you will be very unhappy about the recent shenanigans over the election of the General Secretary and the perception that BALPA has lurched towards being seen as the British Airways Line Pilots Association again or that we are being “stitched up” with the connivance of BALPA to agree a Scope agreement which satisfies BALPA’s 3000 BA members to the detriment of our 450.
You can be absolutely certain that your CC is aware of the potential conflicts which have arisen and has vehemently asserted its right to an independent view to represent the interests of its members notwithstanding that frictions may thereby have between caused.
Most unfortunately vociferous and powerful elements within the BACC have latched onto the RJ issue as one to attach their demands for a Scope agreement and, in blunt terms, we were faced with the imposition of very short timescales within which to conclude terms.
They further told BA that if they did not make substantial progress to concluding an agreement by the end of November then no BACX RJ training was to commence and that none of our pilots, not even those displaced under FS&S would be allowed to fly the RJ 100s. (Some might see this as akin to a form of blackmail).
Previously, our understanding as to the deployment and utilisation of RJs was that up to 50 seats would be made available to our FSS displaced pilots without pre-condition, any BA pilot wishing to bid onto the fleet could do so on protected BA terms and the rest of the aircraft would be deployed once we had come to an agreement as to the terms on which they were to be flown.
Although your CC was very unhappy to learn of the package offered to BA pilots relative to CX to fly the RJ (approximately £1000 per month more than a CX pilot plus all the BA benefits of final salary pension, early retirement etc. etc.) we nonetheless felt that the overriding importance was to get our displaced pilots up and running on the fleet. Aspirational bidding onto the fleet by CX pilots was something to be dealt with later.
That is how matters were proceeding and we were awaiting information as to course dates when BACC made it clear to BA in unambiguous terms that not one of our pilots would be allowed anywhere near an RJ unless and until their demands on Scope were met.
This threat, when coupled with an unrealistically short time scale has forced your CC to go away and re-visit the fundamentals of where we consider your interests lie. We have also been considering what sort of relationship we should be looking at developing with BA consistent with the objective of securing better terms and conditions for you as well as the chances of career progression without yet further discrimination prejudice and division.
We should place on record here that your CC has made consistent attempts over the last few months to obtain four way meetings to include BA and BACX management as well as BACC in order to progress the debate. We have been persistently stonewalled and left out whilst all other parties have clearly been developing the concepts to suit their interests. It is only very recently that we were able to obtain access to this debate, after pressure from ourselves and BACC, and provide input.
We share your outrage at the “jig to our tune or else” threat from the BACC and at the same time are left wondering just what BA and CX management were doing going ahead and promising courses to you when, in reality, they had absolutely no business to do so. Our respective managements have been well aware of the industrial issues attached to the RJs since before the inception of BACX and we consider that they have to a large extent been utterly reckless in proceeding to offer the RJ to you when they knew that they might not be able to deliver on promise.
It will come as no surprise that management will now blame “BALPA” (By that, if they were honest, they would mean the BACC) for this fiasco.
In reality your CC are of the view that given the principal responsibility of your management is to manage and direct the company, the lion’s share of the blame falls squarely with them but, at the same time, we are substantially less than happy that the BACC should have latched on to this issue as a means of securing their broader industrial objectives for better terms and conditions for employment for their members and that earlier understandings have not been delivered upon.
Our response.
It serves no purpose for us to dwell on who is to blame and we have needed to find a way ahead and provide a response to the gauntlet, which had been laid before us.
The choice, which faced us, was stark.
We capitulate and accept that we will enter an agreement under duress, which makes you forever second-class citizens on inferior terms to BA (with a few crumbs of comfort in the guise of a limited number of opportunities for a few to join BA)
Or
We say, “Enough is enough”.
We are fed up with being seen as a convenient dumping ground for BA’s problems and being treated as an under-caste. The giving of final salary pension scheme and full BA terms to our BA cadets without our knowledge is nothing short of an outrage when we have some long served and loyal pilots who will earn scarcely enough in retirement to keep them off state benefits. This revelation in many respects was the last straw.
This CC will not stand by and see you made into second-class citizens. We are all pilots together working ultimately for the same company. We should be treated the same.
The message we delivered accordingly on September 30th was simply this:
“If you want BACX pilots to work together and in harmony with BA, then we should be placed on a common seniority list on common terms with our BA Brothers and Sisters”.
We are pleased to be able to report that, given our rejection of Scope, the BACC are able to associate themselves with the foregoing aspiration.
Understandably BA and BACX management as well as the BACC have all gone away to consult their colleagues and we are expecting to meet with them again in the next few days.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if that should have gone out onto a general forum, but it is a damm good standpoint to take. I bet the management are seriously concerned that now all the CCs may be able to have a common goal, just like the CFE thing.
Well done the CXCC. When do we hear more?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: South Coast
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's very encouraging Hotel Mode. There was a bit more to the document than as posted, but nothing substantive.
I wouldn't like to think there was any effective difference between a CFE ATR pilot and a CX ATP/Dash8/J41 driver.
Please please lets see all of BALPA as one on this, and achieve the desired result. Who needs SCOPE then eh?
I wouldn't like to think there was any effective difference between a CFE ATR pilot and a CX ATP/Dash8/J41 driver.
Please please lets see all of BALPA as one on this, and achieve the desired result. Who needs SCOPE then eh?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I may be summarising this incorrectly, but if the BACC hadn't kicked up a stink about Scope then BACX would be flying the RJ on BACX terms, instead of fighting to be on BA terms and on the BA seniority list. Given that part of Scope was preventing the RJ jobs from switching from BA to BACX terms, then as long as we find a way for BACX pilots to join the BA seniority list then aren't our CC's very close to a mutually beneficial position? Discuss.
Last edited by Hand Solo; 3rd Oct 2002 at 21:33.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand,
good point, well made !!
scope can benefit both BA pilots AND BACX pilots if it is properly put together. If we can get our BACX colleagues onto BA T's & C's, then what is wrong with that. Who is going to say no to an improvement ?? Time to get our BACX colleagues onto the BA master seniority list.
folks, this is not a CC issue, it is a BALPA issue so lets not lose sight of that fact.
good point, well made !!
scope can benefit both BA pilots AND BACX pilots if it is properly put together. If we can get our BACX colleagues onto BA T's & C's, then what is wrong with that. Who is going to say no to an improvement ?? Time to get our BACX colleagues onto the BA master seniority list.
folks, this is not a CC issue, it is a BALPA issue so lets not lose sight of that fact.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me for being thick but wasn't getting all the crews operating BA flight numbers onto the BA master seniority list the goal from the beginning. Why is that such a ground breaking idea? Once CFE had been merged onto the list, albeit at the bottom which is the precedent which will be followed in every other case, there was only one way to go. This is what BA have realised and is the reason why they think integrating CFE was not that brilliant an idea (slots were good though).
Its time all this we are better than you rubbish stopped and we all realised that everyone can be better off as a result of the current situation.
"Lets get together"
Its time all this we are better than you rubbish stopped and we all realised that everyone can be better off as a result of the current situation.
"Lets get together"
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ireland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite Amazing Strategy Hand!!!
The very last thing I want to do is to return to a dispute position between the CCs. Let's work together on this one, and achieve exactly the same result as was achieved with CFE. Personally, and as a note of 'good faith' if you like, I shall agree now, (and propagate the idea amongst the CX senior community) that it is right and proper we follow the CFE example of being tacked onto the bottom of the master seniority list (even though it hurts - and as long as the DOJ for redundancy purposes is recognised).
What I would like to do though, is pay homage and admiration to Hand Solo and his mates on the BACC. Fancy that!!!
They knew all along that if they proposed that only CX jet pilots with over three years on jets could get an interview to join BA, this would result in a a joint Seniority and Ts and Cs campaign!
They knew all along that if they proposed banning all CX turboprop pilots from even getting a BA interview, then this would result in a joint united approach from the relevant Cs!
They were clever enough to see that proposing what someone has referred to as 'Industrial Apartheid' was the perfect way to bring us all together!
As I said, no more stones to hurl, but please Hand (who knows, I may fly with you one day) give the credit for this approach where it is entirely due, to the BACX Company Council. They are the ONLY ones so far to come out of this whole affair with credit! And they deserve all our thanks for it.
Now all we have to do is get rid of our management - and most of yours too I suspect!
What I would like to do though, is pay homage and admiration to Hand Solo and his mates on the BACC. Fancy that!!!
They knew all along that if they proposed that only CX jet pilots with over three years on jets could get an interview to join BA, this would result in a a joint Seniority and Ts and Cs campaign!
They knew all along that if they proposed banning all CX turboprop pilots from even getting a BA interview, then this would result in a joint united approach from the relevant Cs!
They were clever enough to see that proposing what someone has referred to as 'Industrial Apartheid' was the perfect way to bring us all together!
As I said, no more stones to hurl, but please Hand (who knows, I may fly with you one day) give the credit for this approach where it is entirely due, to the BACX Company Council. They are the ONLY ones so far to come out of this whole affair with credit! And they deserve all our thanks for it.
Now all we have to do is get rid of our management - and most of yours too I suspect!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate that this has been a fairly painful process for many. (I am on the BA side with long held aspirations for a regional command, which I thought would be denied to me! So the pain wasn't all on the CX side)
It is pretty apparent, by either accident or design, that we may be moving towards the right result, ie. maintaining varied career opportunities, and improved benefits for ALL!
Well done to the BACX CC, and although I am one of BA CC's biggest critics, well done too.
I hope I detect a spirit in which both CCs can now work together to benefit the entire BA/BACX community.
Now that really would worry the 'management'
"Divide and rule?" - Not on this one!
It is pretty apparent, by either accident or design, that we may be moving towards the right result, ie. maintaining varied career opportunities, and improved benefits for ALL!
Well done to the BACX CC, and although I am one of BA CC's biggest critics, well done too.
I hope I detect a spirit in which both CCs can now work together to benefit the entire BA/BACX community.
Now that really would worry the 'management'
"Divide and rule?" - Not on this one!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oscarh - yes.
guys/girls,
we should be working together on this whole issue. some posts here seem to be of a 'divide & rule' or 'we're better than you' nature. well that approach does no one any good.
it is all to easy to take a short term view, but we must look beyond today and think about 2-3 years down the road.
scope is about CREATING opportunities for ALL. So to that end, if our CX colleagues join the BA list, then their turboprop pilots must come too. we had the same argument when CFE joined the BA list and i am happy to report that the exCFE pilots ARE on the BA list. quite right too.
Scope does not mean that you have to be based at LHR, it just means that if you fancy giving it a go for 4 years, then you can. You can always return if you don't like it. and if you want to stay where you are, then you can do that too but on better T's & C's.
above all SCOPE is about giving you the choice.
work together not against eachother.
divisive=divide & rule for BA/BACX managers=lost opportunities for EVERYONE.
so, having read some of the posts here, one could coceivably ask are some of them written by management to create a divide?
who knows?
lets just work TOGETHER.
guys/girls,
we should be working together on this whole issue. some posts here seem to be of a 'divide & rule' or 'we're better than you' nature. well that approach does no one any good.
it is all to easy to take a short term view, but we must look beyond today and think about 2-3 years down the road.
scope is about CREATING opportunities for ALL. So to that end, if our CX colleagues join the BA list, then their turboprop pilots must come too. we had the same argument when CFE joined the BA list and i am happy to report that the exCFE pilots ARE on the BA list. quite right too.
Scope does not mean that you have to be based at LHR, it just means that if you fancy giving it a go for 4 years, then you can. You can always return if you don't like it. and if you want to stay where you are, then you can do that too but on better T's & C's.
above all SCOPE is about giving you the choice.
work together not against eachother.
divisive=divide & rule for BA/BACX managers=lost opportunities for EVERYONE.
so, having read some of the posts here, one could coceivably ask are some of them written by management to create a divide?
who knows?
lets just work TOGETHER.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say I am completely signed up for this. Let's not get into the blame game, no profit there.If Rob and Giles have got the same objective, that's good enough for me. The management simply cannot afford to take on the pilots, particularly when what we are suggesting is logical and sensible - and may even end up saving a fortune in synergy as we dump another tier of operational management.
A suggestion - any chance this projected amalgamation could 'exclude' our management pilots?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Manchester
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds great to me - only question I have is:
Does anybody know by what percentage going onto BA Ts and Cs would ACTUALLY affect BACX ? I don't believe for a minute the cries of doom from management - but it must presumably have SOME effect.
It would be interesting to know that figure, if only to rebut Management Pilots and Trainers who are all sying it would bring BACX down.
Does anybody know by what percentage going onto BA Ts and Cs would ACTUALLY affect BACX ? I don't believe for a minute the cries of doom from management - but it must presumably have SOME effect.
It would be interesting to know that figure, if only to rebut Management Pilots and Trainers who are all sying it would bring BACX down.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a combined business that turns over very roughly between half and three quarters of a billion pounds a year (CX not BA) you can be quite certain that, in percentage terms , the cost of aligning wage scales and other Ts and Cs would be quite containable.
What has to be addressed either by the current board of BA( or their administrative receivers if they do not) is the profligate waste of a mangement structure which belongs to the last century.
That self same mangement also need to learn that a pilot is a pilot is a pilot. The fact that he is BA does not make him into a super hero with amazing value which makes him worth shed loads more than any other pilot.......
The solution is quite simple really for anyone who does not have a vested interest in not seeing it.
What has to be addressed either by the current board of BA( or their administrative receivers if they do not) is the profligate waste of a mangement structure which belongs to the last century.
That self same mangement also need to learn that a pilot is a pilot is a pilot. The fact that he is BA does not make him into a super hero with amazing value which makes him worth shed loads more than any other pilot.......
The solution is quite simple really for anyone who does not have a vested interest in not seeing it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am a happy member of BACX, fortunate enough to based where I want to be on the jet fleet.
I would like to publicly commend the BACX CC for their tireless work regarding these issues.
The way forward is to work together, and the management have to realise that BA as a company is not the be all and end all in the marketplace now. Whilst I accept that the T&C s are better than that offered by BACX, is the lifestyle. I like working in the regions, and my home life is important to me.
There is no way that any turboprop pilots should be disadvantaged by SCOPE, that is what is currently being proposed by the BA CC not their management, and there is no way that BA should have any access to BACX aircraft unless we have that recipricol arragement, whithout condition.
BA seem to forget that BACX already have the 146. With over 100 seats, are they suddenly going to demand they fly that aircraft. Or is that just an opportunity to dispatch the management to be based in Inverness ?
I commend the BACX CC, as many other posts do, because in truth, they ARE THE ONLY ONES coming out of this with any real credit.
Well done Bill and Giles
I would like to publicly commend the BACX CC for their tireless work regarding these issues.
The way forward is to work together, and the management have to realise that BA as a company is not the be all and end all in the marketplace now. Whilst I accept that the T&C s are better than that offered by BACX, is the lifestyle. I like working in the regions, and my home life is important to me.
There is no way that any turboprop pilots should be disadvantaged by SCOPE, that is what is currently being proposed by the BA CC not their management, and there is no way that BA should have any access to BACX aircraft unless we have that recipricol arragement, whithout condition.
BA seem to forget that BACX already have the 146. With over 100 seats, are they suddenly going to demand they fly that aircraft. Or is that just an opportunity to dispatch the management to be based in Inverness ?
I commend the BACX CC, as many other posts do, because in truth, they ARE THE ONLY ONES coming out of this with any real credit.
Well done Bill and Giles
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it my imagination or are these two airlines BA & BACX starting to gel together.
There seems for the very first time a chance that both airlines are going to start pulling in the same direction and when that happens the only way is surely up.
We at BACX are about to sign our new contracts with improved salary and conditions, just as important if not more so new scheduling agreements have come into place giving us a little bit more control over our lives.
Despite future size and shape and the affects it has had on certain individuals, I feel a lot more confident about the company and its future than I have for a long time.
There seems for the very first time a chance that both airlines are going to start pulling in the same direction and when that happens the only way is surely up.
We at BACX are about to sign our new contracts with improved salary and conditions, just as important if not more so new scheduling agreements have come into place giving us a little bit more control over our lives.
Despite future size and shape and the affects it has had on certain individuals, I feel a lot more confident about the company and its future than I have for a long time.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Roman Empire
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEAR HEAR HEAR !!!!!!!
May I too commend Bill and Giles for their stance, very well done chaps! Thank goodness you were elected and re-elected.
Whilst at it, in the general spirit of things, may I also commend the BACC who do appear to be looking at the complete picture, rather than just their part of it at last. Well done all; now we need to translate these fine aspirations into action.
1. All opportunities open to all. using a master seniority system accepting the CX go to the bottom - but staying in current ordering.
2. CX to continue with their age 60 retirement for Final Salary Pension Purposes, and Money Purchase pilots to be brought into the scheme.
3. CX pilots to maintain grandfather rights (a la CFE) for those of us who are happy where we are.
Only problem I could potentially see is where BA guys may wish to take a command with CX temporarily, or indeed post age 55. This will need some careful thought, but if all new recruits come in via CX, it should balance out in time. The overall pilot product should be a much more rounded individual than in current practise too.
Bill, Giles, Rob - any timetabling on this?
Whilst at it, in the general spirit of things, may I also commend the BACC who do appear to be looking at the complete picture, rather than just their part of it at last. Well done all; now we need to translate these fine aspirations into action.
1. All opportunities open to all. using a master seniority system accepting the CX go to the bottom - but staying in current ordering.
2. CX to continue with their age 60 retirement for Final Salary Pension Purposes, and Money Purchase pilots to be brought into the scheme.
3. CX pilots to maintain grandfather rights (a la CFE) for those of us who are happy where we are.
Only problem I could potentially see is where BA guys may wish to take a command with CX temporarily, or indeed post age 55. This will need some careful thought, but if all new recruits come in via CX, it should balance out in time. The overall pilot product should be a much more rounded individual than in current practise too.
Bill, Giles, Rob - any timetabling on this?