easyjet pilots to strike??
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one,think that this deal is a complete sell out to the company, and if it goes through it is a licence to be walked over forever.
I was persuaded to rejoin BALPA on the condition that they would not settle for anything less than a Rotering Agreement, and not settle for anything less. What have we got on offer but , a hastily cobbled together package that doesn't settle anything.
I concede that the Negotiators have had a damn hard time in getting as far as they have, but this deal is scarecly any different from the prior offering which we were urged to reject. It is though RW's tactics of continually wearing the BALPA boys down has finally worked and they are ready to surrender and admit that this all they can achieve. BALPA seem to have given up on the deal and seem keen to put a lid on it, in order that they can move onto the next project, preferably less strenuous.
Me, I'll stick with them for the time being, until after the new ballot at least and see what happens. If it is a Yes vote, and we waive the white flag, it is a goodbye from me, and a goodbye from him by all accounts. Membership numbers will fall and that will be the end of a credible union in Easy.
Options?
The TGWU (UK's 2nd biggest Union!), (Transport get it!) is a very reasonable £9 odd a month apparently, and has already some pilot members and has some excellent reports from colleagues.
Maybe they would have had more success in negotiating , with full time professional negotiators , than our chaps, bless 'em, who aren't pro's after all.
Unfortunately the reasons for paying the BALPA subs are becoming fewer and fewer, unless they can now prove their worth.
I was persuaded to rejoin BALPA on the condition that they would not settle for anything less than a Rotering Agreement, and not settle for anything less. What have we got on offer but , a hastily cobbled together package that doesn't settle anything.
I concede that the Negotiators have had a damn hard time in getting as far as they have, but this deal is scarecly any different from the prior offering which we were urged to reject. It is though RW's tactics of continually wearing the BALPA boys down has finally worked and they are ready to surrender and admit that this all they can achieve. BALPA seem to have given up on the deal and seem keen to put a lid on it, in order that they can move onto the next project, preferably less strenuous.
Me, I'll stick with them for the time being, until after the new ballot at least and see what happens. If it is a Yes vote, and we waive the white flag, it is a goodbye from me, and a goodbye from him by all accounts. Membership numbers will fall and that will be the end of a credible union in Easy.
Options?
The TGWU (UK's 2nd biggest Union!), (Transport get it!) is a very reasonable £9 odd a month apparently, and has already some pilot members and has some excellent reports from colleagues.
Maybe they would have had more success in negotiating , with full time professional negotiators , than our chaps, bless 'em, who aren't pro's after all.
Unfortunately the reasons for paying the BALPA subs are becoming fewer and fewer, unless they can now prove their worth.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carruthers
Well make sure they don’t this time.
Reheater
So you’ll be happy to spurn anything which BALPA may achieve further down the line and volunteer to operate along the lines of the pathetic deal you’ve been offered so far?
Lord Fulmer
Just vote No then and proceed from there.
Well make sure they don’t this time.
Reheater
So you’ll be happy to spurn anything which BALPA may achieve further down the line and volunteer to operate along the lines of the pathetic deal you’ve been offered so far?
Lord Fulmer
Just vote No then and proceed from there.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the suggestion of a series of press briefings (if that is what I understand is being put forward) by the pilots’ representatives, at appropriate times, would be a good idea.
If easyJet pilots are really trying to improve company efficiency, as well as their own lifestyles and pay prospects, then I would have thought that this information would have hit a very favorable chord with both the shareholders and the traveling public.
If easyJet pilots are really trying to improve company efficiency, as well as their own lifestyles and pay prospects, then I would have thought that this information would have hit a very favorable chord with both the shareholders and the traveling public.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
continuing on...
Voting NO does not necessarily mean that industrial action is inevitable. There is another way - where pilots continue working and the aircraft keep on flying.
The pilots council and BALPA would need to take the initiative and check the applicable employment and trade union law, but what if...
... the pilots vote NO to the ballot and resist any change to their present terms and conditions of contract until a fair and workable pay deal and rostering agreement has been negotiated with management? The law needs to be checked, but this would mean that if the company attempted to impose their own revised pay deal then the pilots (BALPA members or not), en masse, would refuse these conditions. The company would have 2 options. Firstly, to agree to retain the status quo until the matter was resolved or, secondly, with an impasse it could revoke the contracts of ALL of its pilots. This would of course mean no pilots employed, no pilots insured to fly the aircraft, no operation - end of story, company dead in the water, finito!
Nah! Uncle Ray wouldn't want that.
So we all go happily along until the matter is resolved. But, I hear you say, what about the timescale. Well we have waited this long and I don't think another few months of waiting is going to make all that much difference if a workable pay deal can be defined.
One drawback of course for the pilots would be no pay rise until the matter had be resolved. Another would be no base changes until an agreement had been reached.
... oh! and I almost forgot, because the terms and conditions of employment would be 'frozen' there would be no type conversions onto the brand new, very expensive, future-of-the-company-depends-on-them shiny Airbus fleet. Now Ray Webster would find it extremely difficult to explain to the company's backers why, as the weeks went by, the airports in the South of England began looking more and more like aircraft graveyards with Airbus aircraft sitting on the ground gathering dust. The backers might think that he and the 40 thieves (sorry management team) were ineffective. You probably think that this is unlikely to happen. I agree. But the threat of having many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investors money sitting idly on the ground is what Ray Webster is afraid of - his Achilles Heel. It would leave him isolated, vulnerable and open to accusations of mismanagement.
Positive action following a NO vote would define precisely want had to be achieved and set a clearly defined agenda in terms of both timescale and financial incentive for this matter to be resolved. This is not blackmail - it is negotiation between management and the workforce but with both parties being equal in the conciliation process - both have much to gain and both much to lose. The only way forward (as usual in these situations - yawn) is for management and employees to work together and not be at loggerheads with each other - to reach agreement for the MUTUAL benefit of the parties and principally for the continued success of the airline on which all of our prosperities depend.
... as for the media - well Mr Webster could hardly go back cap in hand to his pet paper The Guardian saying that all was not as it should be. It was he (allegedly) who leaked the story that the strike was off in the first place. Difficult now to retract that statement because any industrial action would be seen (or could be 'spun') as being pre-emptied by an unfair management imposing their terms and conditions on the workforce!!! (oh dear!)
... and if he tried to employ pilots from outside the airline, I can see the notice in "Flight International" and "The Log" already (as was the case in the Cathay Pacific dispute) - 'due to the continuing dispute between pilots and management prospective applicants are advised not to submit an application to this airline until they have sought advice ...'
... gets down off his orange box and thinks 'is this only a dream?' or is it time to thrust a radical iron fist in the air and look positively towards a bright orange dawn ... a wry smile crosses his face as he thinks there just might be a feasible alternative to a 'yes' vote ...
Voting NO does not necessarily mean that industrial action is inevitable. There is another way - where pilots continue working and the aircraft keep on flying.
The pilots council and BALPA would need to take the initiative and check the applicable employment and trade union law, but what if...
... the pilots vote NO to the ballot and resist any change to their present terms and conditions of contract until a fair and workable pay deal and rostering agreement has been negotiated with management? The law needs to be checked, but this would mean that if the company attempted to impose their own revised pay deal then the pilots (BALPA members or not), en masse, would refuse these conditions. The company would have 2 options. Firstly, to agree to retain the status quo until the matter was resolved or, secondly, with an impasse it could revoke the contracts of ALL of its pilots. This would of course mean no pilots employed, no pilots insured to fly the aircraft, no operation - end of story, company dead in the water, finito!
Nah! Uncle Ray wouldn't want that.
So we all go happily along until the matter is resolved. But, I hear you say, what about the timescale. Well we have waited this long and I don't think another few months of waiting is going to make all that much difference if a workable pay deal can be defined.
One drawback of course for the pilots would be no pay rise until the matter had be resolved. Another would be no base changes until an agreement had been reached.
... oh! and I almost forgot, because the terms and conditions of employment would be 'frozen' there would be no type conversions onto the brand new, very expensive, future-of-the-company-depends-on-them shiny Airbus fleet. Now Ray Webster would find it extremely difficult to explain to the company's backers why, as the weeks went by, the airports in the South of England began looking more and more like aircraft graveyards with Airbus aircraft sitting on the ground gathering dust. The backers might think that he and the 40 thieves (sorry management team) were ineffective. You probably think that this is unlikely to happen. I agree. But the threat of having many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investors money sitting idly on the ground is what Ray Webster is afraid of - his Achilles Heel. It would leave him isolated, vulnerable and open to accusations of mismanagement.
Positive action following a NO vote would define precisely want had to be achieved and set a clearly defined agenda in terms of both timescale and financial incentive for this matter to be resolved. This is not blackmail - it is negotiation between management and the workforce but with both parties being equal in the conciliation process - both have much to gain and both much to lose. The only way forward (as usual in these situations - yawn) is for management and employees to work together and not be at loggerheads with each other - to reach agreement for the MUTUAL benefit of the parties and principally for the continued success of the airline on which all of our prosperities depend.
... as for the media - well Mr Webster could hardly go back cap in hand to his pet paper The Guardian saying that all was not as it should be. It was he (allegedly) who leaked the story that the strike was off in the first place. Difficult now to retract that statement because any industrial action would be seen (or could be 'spun') as being pre-emptied by an unfair management imposing their terms and conditions on the workforce!!! (oh dear!)
... and if he tried to employ pilots from outside the airline, I can see the notice in "Flight International" and "The Log" already (as was the case in the Cathay Pacific dispute) - 'due to the continuing dispute between pilots and management prospective applicants are advised not to submit an application to this airline until they have sought advice ...'
... gets down off his orange box and thinks 'is this only a dream?' or is it time to thrust a radical iron fist in the air and look positively towards a bright orange dawn ... a wry smile crosses his face as he thinks there just might be a feasible alternative to a 'yes' vote ...
Last edited by SpannerInTheWerks; 19th Feb 2003 at 18:41.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of another 'yes' vote but that is from someone who has resigned and just wants his back pay settled quickly!
For the ditherers some comments from another forum discussing DBA takeover by easyjet which is relevant to the easyjet vote on T & C:
However, the "proposal" for the future T&C under easy management was unacceptable.
The term "proposal" is a bit misleading, because RW said, either accept it the way it is or easy will walk away. Nice way of negotiating with people who- under the orange culture- "make the difference".
(They've seen through the orange culture already!)
DBA had similar bad T&C until 2000, when the staff would not bear it any longer. Staff stood together despite threats and misinformation and managed by the way of industrial action to get a reasonable agreement.
The lesson learned: Either you do something to change bad T&C or you accept it. But then please stop complaining once and forever.
EasyJet - Vote yes at your peril - seems to be the message.
For the ditherers some comments from another forum discussing DBA takeover by easyjet which is relevant to the easyjet vote on T & C:
However, the "proposal" for the future T&C under easy management was unacceptable.
The term "proposal" is a bit misleading, because RW said, either accept it the way it is or easy will walk away. Nice way of negotiating with people who- under the orange culture- "make the difference".
(They've seen through the orange culture already!)
DBA had similar bad T&C until 2000, when the staff would not bear it any longer. Staff stood together despite threats and misinformation and managed by the way of industrial action to get a reasonable agreement.
The lesson learned: Either you do something to change bad T&C or you accept it. But then please stop complaining once and forever.
EasyJet - Vote yes at your peril - seems to be the message.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what is happening with the Loyalty Bonus for SFO/FO. Will this only be payable on promotion to a command?
And what about grandfather rights for existing F/O's.
I started in november 2000 so when can I expect to book a holiday or will it be lovely England for another while.
It's all not very clear for me. Can somebody help me out?
And what about grandfather rights for existing F/O's.
I started in november 2000 so when can I expect to book a holiday or will it be lovely England for another while.
It's all not very clear for me. Can somebody help me out?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vnav1
As I understand, you'll get your loyalty payment in April (as was previously the case) then, you'll get another in November on a pro-rata basis. Loyalty bonuses will stop after 2 years under grandfather rights but you'll still accrue 'years worked' for when you get a command.
This is all discussed on the Pilots Council ezboard available to all BALPA members. If you're unable to access this (not a member) then I'm afraid that's one of the reasons why loyalty bonuses for SFO/FO will disappear after 2 years - not enough membership (just over 50%) to stand up and fight this mediocre offer from management.
I don't want to give the impression of 'sour grapes' but if most had joined up for the fight (as I did - £15/month as an FO for the 1st year), then the present pitiful offer would not have been 'recommended' by the council for sure!
Remember, any non-members who moan about any deal that is accepted - have only themselves to blame - and the only vote they have is with their feet!
As I understand, you'll get your loyalty payment in April (as was previously the case) then, you'll get another in November on a pro-rata basis. Loyalty bonuses will stop after 2 years under grandfather rights but you'll still accrue 'years worked' for when you get a command.
This is all discussed on the Pilots Council ezboard available to all BALPA members. If you're unable to access this (not a member) then I'm afraid that's one of the reasons why loyalty bonuses for SFO/FO will disappear after 2 years - not enough membership (just over 50%) to stand up and fight this mediocre offer from management.
I don't want to give the impression of 'sour grapes' but if most had joined up for the fight (as I did - £15/month as an FO for the 1st year), then the present pitiful offer would not have been 'recommended' by the council for sure!
Remember, any non-members who moan about any deal that is accepted - have only themselves to blame - and the only vote they have is with their feet!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Baloo, I just wish that a few more of the non-members realised this.
The proposed deal is not great and I am far from being happy about it but when the non-members come out and say to me well what have BALPA done, look at the deal were getting...I just tell them how little they actually would have got had it not been for the current PC...
The proposed deal is not great and I am far from being happy about it but when the non-members come out and say to me well what have BALPA done, look at the deal were getting...I just tell them how little they actually would have got had it not been for the current PC...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Springbok, Balloo
Indeed I had planned to add that message to my post but, for once in my life, decided not to ruffle any feathers!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a very fair point though. Some folk are now crawling out of the woodwork challenging, criticising and generally moaning about the offer - but those very same people have been unwilling to invest money in their future.
I know Balpa is expensive, too expensive, but it is there for my peace of mind as well as pay negotiations.
This offer is not perfect - far from it - but it's so much better than we would have ended up with had it not been for the very hard work of the PC and, to a slightly lesser but necessary extent, Balpa.
Doubtless the next few weeks will be full of the usual rhetoric "cr@p offer, cr@p Balpa" etc etc but most of it will doubtless come the people who sat on the sidelines and did absolutely nothing to influence the deal.
Oh well, back to the rugby!
Indeed I had planned to add that message to my post but, for once in my life, decided not to ruffle any feathers!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a very fair point though. Some folk are now crawling out of the woodwork challenging, criticising and generally moaning about the offer - but those very same people have been unwilling to invest money in their future.
I know Balpa is expensive, too expensive, but it is there for my peace of mind as well as pay negotiations.
This offer is not perfect - far from it - but it's so much better than we would have ended up with had it not been for the very hard work of the PC and, to a slightly lesser but necessary extent, Balpa.
Doubtless the next few weeks will be full of the usual rhetoric "cr@p offer, cr@p Balpa" etc etc but most of it will doubtless come the people who sat on the sidelines and did absolutely nothing to influence the deal.
Oh well, back to the rugby!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps your use of rhetoric is incorrect.
Rhetoric is persuasive speaking or writing to impress, especially seen as exaggerated or meaningless, which is of course what the BALPA propoganda machine are good at, you fulfill this definition to the extreme. I did not sit on the fence, but still ended up with a cr@p deal.
Rugby was good though.
Rhetoric is persuasive speaking or writing to impress, especially seen as exaggerated or meaningless, which is of course what the BALPA propoganda machine are good at, you fulfill this definition to the extreme. I did not sit on the fence, but still ended up with a cr@p deal.
Rugby was good though.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
I won't argue the toss about the use of the word rhetoric (although it does mean verbose and pompous as well), but it's a fact that if the other 49% of the pilots in the company had joined up, this deal would have been rejected by an overwhelming majority.
We just can't fight a decent battle with only half the troops on the battlefield!
Why sink to personal insults?
I won't argue the toss about the use of the word rhetoric (although it does mean verbose and pompous as well), but it's a fact that if the other 49% of the pilots in the company had joined up, this deal would have been rejected by an overwhelming majority.
We just can't fight a decent battle with only half the troops on the battlefield!
Why sink to personal insults?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that you all might be under the impression that you “have” to accept the deal on offer, just because your CEO states that it is one time and so never to be repeated or improved.
Please be aware that this is a tried and tested (and slightly weary though still effective) management maneuver to railroad you all into acceptance. Don’t fall for it!
Vote No and send your representatives in again for further talks proposing your own deal (it’s called taking the initiative) and remember to make sure that it features any benefits being back dated to when your last agreement expired.
BALPA members – don’t lose heart – you have the moral ascendancy and you can win this fight.
Non-BALPA members – for chrissakes join and stop being such wimps!
Please be aware that this is a tried and tested (and slightly weary though still effective) management maneuver to railroad you all into acceptance. Don’t fall for it!
Vote No and send your representatives in again for further talks proposing your own deal (it’s called taking the initiative) and remember to make sure that it features any benefits being back dated to when your last agreement expired.
BALPA members – don’t lose heart – you have the moral ascendancy and you can win this fight.
Non-BALPA members – for chrissakes join and stop being such wimps!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SpannerInTheWerks
12 Feb - “Voting NO has (sic) does not necessarily mean that industrial action is inevitable.”
Err, up to a point Lord Copper.
What will drastically reduce the inevitability of industrial action is as near to a unanimous BALPA membership as possible sending a clear message to management that if reasonable terms are not forthcoming, then such action will definitely become inevitable.
The effectiveness of this process has been clearly illustrated on a far larger platform – the credible US threat of war on Iraq has forced Saddam to allow UN inspectors back after a four year hiatus. For sure, without the threat, no return of the UN would ever have happened.
May I therefore suggest that now is not the time for arguments about value for money of BALPA subscriptions or the attractions of the TGWU or IAPA. Now is the time to climb aboard and project some force. After you all win against your management you can indulge in such peacetime luxuries.
NB. For all hair splitters and tangent seekers, I’m happy to discuss Iraq in “Jet Blast”, not here.
12 Feb - “Voting NO has (sic) does not necessarily mean that industrial action is inevitable.”
Err, up to a point Lord Copper.
What will drastically reduce the inevitability of industrial action is as near to a unanimous BALPA membership as possible sending a clear message to management that if reasonable terms are not forthcoming, then such action will definitely become inevitable.
The effectiveness of this process has been clearly illustrated on a far larger platform – the credible US threat of war on Iraq has forced Saddam to allow UN inspectors back after a four year hiatus. For sure, without the threat, no return of the UN would ever have happened.
May I therefore suggest that now is not the time for arguments about value for money of BALPA subscriptions or the attractions of the TGWU or IAPA. Now is the time to climb aboard and project some force. After you all win against your management you can indulge in such peacetime luxuries.
NB. For all hair splitters and tangent seekers, I’m happy to discuss Iraq in “Jet Blast”, not here.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without exception every eJ balpa member I have spoken to has voted NO. Agreeing with the previous posts, like it or not we need many more flight deck members to join the union. That is the only way we can get a reasonable outcome when dealing with 'Ali Webster and the forty thieves' Now to be known collectively as AW+40T. 