:{ :{ :{

squeakyunclean

In answer to point 1 of your last post. My contract doesn’t say anything about redundancies. There is no mention of policies for demotion in my copy of the PPP manual. Would you mind quoting a reference for this particular point, so that I can read it, please?
Regarding point 3 of your post. I think you haven’t read my previous post carefully. I have never said that seniority lists were to be used to decide redundancies. RTFQ = ½ TBA.
Now point 4 of your post. I have said it all along. I agree with LIFO (date of joining) for redundancies. Next thing you mention is the command board. That is a fairly new thing. It was only formed a couple of years ago. However the command board and the opinion of the training department I believe is very important. They are able to judge the suitability of the individual, not just to fly a single engine ILS, but to command an aircraft and its crew, to represent the company anywhere and to have the adequate maturity for the job. When you say that date of joining is absolute and not open to debate, that in itself can be very dangerous. As I said on earlier posts, date of joining cannot be the determining factor for many reasons; lack of suitability, lack of experience, lack of ability. Not every person that becomes a pilot is a suitable candidate to be a commander. To answer your question regarding demotion. It should be last captain promoted, first captain demoted. Simple. Not need for assessment, that was carried out during the promotion process.
Point 5 of your post. Here we agree on something. At last. Demotion can only be for disciplinary reasons (that I believe is taken care of by the law). However, what do you think it’s happening to those captains that are being laid-off and re-employed (re-deployed they called it)? They are being asked to resign and accept a new contract as SFO’s. Isn’t that a demotion? It is in my eyes, whatever they call it.
Point 6. I think I answered this one the paragraph above. Change of job description, change of salary, etc. That I think qualifies as new terms and conditions don’t you?
Point 7. I think you are repeating yourself, but again I’ll answer it. I haven’t said that a seniority list should determine redundancies. I'll say it once more. I agree with LIFO (date of joining) for redundancies. I must however apologise for saying that some individual or individuals have moved up the list. No, they haven’t moved up the list. The seniority list is being ignored for re-deployment and a list using date of joining has been issued on the 8th September 2004 together with the rest of the paperwork (options pack, etc).
I don’t mind that list or that list being used for redundancies, but I do mind that list being use for re-deployment. And yes, there have been individuals that directly or indirectly have benefited from this. And some individual or individuals have been instrumental in the changes.

:rolleyes: :suspect: :suspect:


Well, I think that clarifies my views, but I don't expect you to agree with me, particularly if you were junior to me on the Captains Seniority List before the changes and in a couple of months time, I will be your first officer.
On the other hand two professionals and CRM will prevail and together we’ll take that Airbus from A to B and back. And since you’ll be a richer man than me and a gentleman, you’ll offer to pay for all that beer in the bar.

:ok:

The CC have introduced a single seniority list based on date of joining! In principle I have no problem with a single list based on date of joining, in fact it makes sense.

The issue is that our contract (the PPP manual) contains two seniority lists, one for Captains and one for F/O's. If you had asked any pilot in the company three weeks ago how demotions would take place the vast majority would have said according to the Captains seniority list! Here then is the problem, the CC have changed the accepted principle of the two seniority list system without consulting the people they represent. If you promote Captains on suitability and seniority then it should apply in reverse order under the current system. The reason the CC have justified the use of LIFO is because the company does not want to pay the demoted Captains their former command salaries. Hence redundancy is the only option. This is simply the mechanical method of demotion and should not alter the principle of command seniority.

The job of the CC is to represent the best interests of the work force, many do not feel they have done that in this case. The company don't feel they have done so either and have even said so in writing. I have had extended dialoge with most of the members of the CC and believe they have take this action in the main for what they consider good reason but have misjudged badly the mood of the crews. I do not accept the view held by some that the use of LIFO will redress the inequities perceived or real of the last few years regarding promotions. This is not the time!

The CC have to be able to hold up the rules for demotion and be able to say this is fair and without question is in accordance with the PPP and accepted practice. At this point they cannot do that which is why emotions are high and so much debate has taken place. The only way they could have achieved this was to ballot the crews on adopting a single seniority list based on LIFO. As it stands they are wrong in the eyes of many they represent and indeed the company. The company have their own reasons for letting the CC go ahead with this which is another issue.

I speak as one who has no axe to grind on this issue as I will be unaffected directly by either method and indeed had I been consulted would have supported the adoption of a single seniority list. But the way this has been done is plain wrong and very unfair.


:(

I'm sure someone will correct me but I always thought that it was the JOB and not the PERSON that was being made redundant. Thus how can they "demote" captains by making them redundant and rehiring them as first officers on new contracts. As they are also making FO's redundant surely any of the FO's could make a claim for unfair dismissal as while they are being made redundant someone else is being hired to do the same job.
Confused?

:cool:

kinsman

I am pleased to hear somebody else with a similar view that has gets no advantage one way or another. I have always believe that because of my position in the Captains Seniority list I would be demoted. So, it doesn’t matter which way it is done. In fact I have always felt I would be pushed sideways either way. However, I have been told by a representative of the CC that I haven’t got to worry about my position because of the number of people that have already resigned.
Well it doesn’t matter where I end up. As a matter of fact I might well move on anyway and I have been thinking about it before hand. However still doesn’t make the whole process right. I know of at least two captains from the Airbus and Boeing fleet that decided for this reason to resign. Great loss. Both nice guys and popular colleagues. One I have seen his performance during training and is clearly above average and for that reason was promoted very early in his short career with the company. He will be demoted using the new seniority, but he might have been safe with the original system. So he will have no problem in getting himself another job but the company has lost a bl**dy good pilot and a hell of a nice guy. And guess what? He resigned and said to me. “I am so disappointed how they have dealt with the whole thing that I am walking away from it all.” He hasn’t yet got a firm offer of alternate employment but had enough. Sad.

:hmm:

The reference to redundancies is in the ppp, as is the reference to disciplinary procedures, don’t know the page numbers though. I believe the ppp is part of the contract.

What did you mean by proper use of the Captains seniority list? I was never any good at cryptic crosswords!

All I am saying in the waffle about a ‘demotion board’ is that there is no policy for demotions, simply picking from the bottom is arbitrary in the extreme, but if that is the policy then so be it, but it isn’t.

There is a new post from one of the CC on arena. That sums it up for me.


Now, about that beer.......

:D

Yeh, that's more like it.

We'll leave it to the legal beagles and we concentrate on the good staff. Mine is a pint of Harveys please.
Thank you.

:ok:

Viscount

I agree with you entirely.

Just a suggestion; bale out now and go for Ryanair. You and 76 of your colleagues are worried about your jobs; there are at least a handful that would gladly give you theirs at Ryanair, if you believe their rants here. You'd actually get a pay increase too.

My only word of caution is watch them scatter with the four winds, when push comes to shove! Go for it anyway, because their logic is that they want BALPA and will give their jobs up. You will loose yours because of BALPA! Ironical, isn't it?

Besides, you can also award yourself an extra 1% on top, because you'll have no subscriptions to pay either. Quids in, I reckon.

The assertion that you make a 'position' redundant is correct.

When redundancies are being done, the company has an obligation to offer the affected personnel any other jobs that are available within the company and I think that they must match the 'old' salary for at six months too (please check).

If the captains' posts are being permanently deleted but first officers' posts are available, then they should be offered to those affected before the company goes to the market place to recruit.

That said, MYT and previously Airtours have been known to be a bit cavalier in the way that these issues have been addressed.

That said, I would be SERIOUSLY inclined to run what is happening past a good Employment Law solicitor who, whilst not cheap, can often affect your individual outcome.

It is possible that recently HR have had to be squeaky clean (no reference to a previous poster) and that they are well within their rights (perhaps not morally but within the law of employment).

So, as the old adage goes 'don't assume, check'.

Good luck guys, I knew as soon as the DC10s went, the Boeings would be next and that's why I left when I did.

Bye for now.

DD

:\ :\ :\

Jack The Lad


For all my sins, I am a BALPA member, but not for long.
A lot of people don’t agree with what the BALPA CC has come up with, included the company, but they threatened to walk out of the talks if their demands were not met.
So, for that reason LIFO has also being applied to demotion rather than seniority. I think that the majority of people (except some, but not all of the CC members) agree that LIFO for redundancy was the way forward and that seniority should be applied when it comes to demotions. However some individual in the CC and a couple of others possibly associated with or near to the CC manoeuvred the deal to their own gain. And yes one individual in the CC has gain when compared to me around 36 positions on the list.
Well, it makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Many people are digging a whole in the sand and pretend is not happening, but it is. Some guy said to me: “well, if this lot go under some of these guys may end up being your chief pilot or whatever in your next airline, so I am keeping quiet”.
However I do know of a reasonable number of people that think the whole thing stinks. And there are some prepared to challenge it when it comes to it. So, for the time being, just seat low and wait.
PS. Cheers Dude
:cool:

Vis Sus, re redundancy policy, the ref you were looking for is, I believe, PPP-7-10, second para from bottom.

It has been interesting to watch the opinions of those chaps who were lucky enough to join the company and, (for whatever reason, no doubt there were many), gain commands ahead of of people who joined the company before them.
Those with longer service who took longer to gain their commands (again for whatever reason) need now be in no doubt as to their "obvious" inferiority in some peoples eyes.
It's enough to make a chap weep.

JB

I don't think the real issue has anything to do with who did not get their command when because they were as you imply not very good or on the wrong fleet or their face did not fit. But if you really want to know who has been using that as a reason for the use of LIFO based on date of joining for demotions then look no further than BALPA.

The issue is should we accept the effective introduction of a common seniority list without consultation? Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

A Captain is a Captain no matter when or how he became one or how many times he was passed over or failed. The issue is the accepted two seniority list system in use at MYT. LIFO should indeed be used for demotions, LIFO based on date of promotion! That or ballot the crews on the introduction of a single list based on date of joining.

How many of you working for BA or any other UK operator would accept what is happening in BALPA's name at MYT out of interest?

As a few posters have pointed out, if an FO is made redundant, the job cannot be offered to a new hire (i.e demoted Capt re-employed on a new contract) as the position has ceased to exist, and it would be unfair dismissal ir respect to the FO.

Howevere I think it depends on what you're employed to do. Are you employed as a Pilot with a rank of FO or Captain, or are you employed as an FO or Captain ?


If it is the latter I think that the redundant FO has more of a chance of persuing an unfair dismissal case, as the Co has stated that FOs are not needed, and so can't re-hire a new FO to fill your place.

This is by no means a legal standpoint, just my view from having been there myself. Best of luck to you all.

:(

A Very Civil Pilot

I have asked that question before, but I get no answers.
When I’ve got the job, I’ve got a contract saying I was going to be a First Officer. When you get promoted you don’t get another contract. I didn’t receive one.
Now there are two things happening.
The company need fewer pilots, so they decide to cut back in numbers.
By laying from the bottom based on DOJ, they end up with more captains than first officers. So, they then say we need to make captains redundant. So they are applying LIFO (DOJ) to do that and re-employing us as SFO.
First officers are being made redundant.
Is this legal, right or fair?
BALPA will not reconsider going back in their decision about demotions or re-deployment as it is refered.
The BALPA main negotiator is on leave (good timing!) and BALPA CC chairman was on leave last week and this week is on a longhaul trip.
Nobody in BALPA head office were able to help me, because they had no information about the negotiations and they were not prepared to put me through to the BALPA solicitors or even give me their address.
Great, hey!

:confused: :( :hmm: :ugh: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I would imagine that any decision by management negotiators would have to be ratified by the management board. It would seem only just that similar arrangements should apply to the BALPA negotiators decisions. Is there to be a referendum? Should there be one it is in the interests of everyone to swell the number of BALPA members in order to get the opinion and possible approval of as large a number as possible of the pilots.

Of course the decisions would have to be justified and set against the alternatives as they were presented. This implies a publicity campaign to keep the pilots informed. From reading these posts that doesn't seem to have been happening so far. In circumstances like these ignorance is not bliss.

Good luck

For info when we had post Sept 11 redundancies at Air 2000 it was conducted on a LIFO. With regard to LHS it was last promoted first to RHS (on a seperate 'demoted captains' payscale, which was top FO's salery I believe). This was all endorsed and negotiated by BALPA and they did do a lot of work to minimise redundancies by introducing part paid winter leave and other measures to satisfy the management. Your CC are MYT pilots after all and will, I am sure, do all they can to preserve as many pilot jobs as possibe! Besides they are all you have on your side so maybe it is best to lobby them directly, tell THEM what you want and come up with as many ideas as YOU can to offset job losses.

However it happens it is always pants for some, but rest assured it WILL happen and YOU must make it as palatable as you can and mimimise the numbers of your collegues who will be made redundant.

Get your CC to contact First Choice CC for ideas.

Good luck, we all know how awful these times are:(

:)

micky320

Thank you very much for your post, constructive, helpful and unbiased.
I have spoken to one of our BALPA guys. He is a very nice chap, but I think it’s a little late. The workforce is unfortunately now divided, which is no good. Some of the BALPA CC members believe they have done the right thing, but I think it’s a long way of being right or fair.
Thanks once again.
Cheers.
VS

:ok:

Viscount

Don't loose heart; it's never too late until such time as the deal is done.

I imagine, from what you say, that there will be many guys that feel the same as you, that it is too late to do anything about it. I don't think that is true. It will be if you do nothing.

I cannot advise you on contract or employment law and that may well overide what are established principles in other airlines. You may need to seek some expert advice here and you should do so, as a group if necessary, to keep the costs at an acceptable level. That is what BALPA should be doing, but history shows they did not in the past, especially in the case of the Dan Air pilots when they actively obstructed them (their own members) from mounting an independant challenge

There should be one seniority list for redundancy purposes. LIFO. No other way is acceptable. Can't think that anyone would disagree with that.

There should be a separate list; a Captain's seniority list, which is also based on LIFO, i.e. date of command determines your position, regardless of when you joined the airline. I cannot think that anyone, unless they have a personal vested interest, could really object to that.

The above is simple, straight forward and probably acceptable as fair by most reasonable individuals.

What muddies the waters a bit (probably qute a bit in the case of MYT) is the issue of having to retrain pilots onto a different types and/or resettle them to a different base. These problems are more dfficult to solve but should not detract from the fundamental principles of fairness.

I think you should establish your rights and then set about achieving them.

Easy from the outside looking in, I know. Good luck to all.

In jmc Airlines, post Sept11, the company tried to make the following happen:

A: 55 Commanders back to SFO's.

B: 60 SFO/FO's redundant.

The company failed because of a few reasons, mainly:

1: There was, and still is no clause in PILOT contracts for reduction of pay. They can demote, but cannot remove command pay from a commander.

2: The BALPA CC were a decent bunch of guys

3: The membership supported them wholeheartedly

4: The (then) Chief Pilot was probably "one of the boys"

5: The company actually proved themselves either very generous or rather soft.

I hope that you MYT guys and gals get a satisfactory solution to this problem.

If there is hope, it is this:

NO commander was demoted in jmc and no SFO or FO was made compulsarily redundant post Sept11. And I believe the industry was worse then than it is now.

And for the record, jmc/TCUK run a COMBINED seniority list. i.e. new commander who was senior was never at risk of losing his new command. FAIR IS FAIR.

:)

micky320, Jack The Lad & wheelbarrow

Thank you all.
It’s very touching to find people out there in other companies sympathetic towards us. I wonder if some of the BALPA wheels are reading the posts on this thread.
I have contacts in JMC and know a chap that was initially demoted and subsequently re-instated.
Time is running out for us and I believe now we have to wait until people get demoted or re-deployed as they prefer to call it (that’s legal), before any further action is taken.
Keep your ears to the ground.
I’ll try to keep you posted.
Cheers.
:ok: :ok:

Will any BALPA reps be demoted or redundant under current proposals?

:mad:

faq

No. To the contrary, one of the CC members has gone up by 36 positions when you compare it to me. He would have definitely been demoted before BALPA changed the way demotions are going to be carried out.
However, allegedly this individual was not involved in the negotiations.
The whole thing is a little messy, to say the least.

:mad:

Hi all

A genuine question please.

On page 1 of this thread it was stated that this LIFO male/female issue was because of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Now, if this is the case, why are people having a go at the Balpa CC if their actions/recommendations are restricted by an Act of Parliament?

I stress, this is a genuine question and not meant to be inflammatory.

Flaps One

I accept that your question is genuine, but I think the reason is very simple. There are clearly many other more fundamental issues that have arisen out of the first post that have greater and more far reaching implications than just the male/female issue. That's the way this forum business works.

It would be daft to start a new post on what is principally the same subject becuase it didn't directly relate to the first person's post, don't you think? We would have 10 different posts on essentially the same subject.

VS....I would hope that said individual who would scoot up the seniority list by 36 places abstained from any votes or discussions, on the grounds that he had a compulsory 'conflict of interest' to declare. If he did, then he should be applauded! Any reference to male should also imply female and singular should also include plural, for the sake of correctness.

Besides; having a pop at BALPA is always fair game, due to their dark deeds

;)

I am lead to believe that the deal is not sealed yet. Apparently a few things could still happen. I wasn't told anymore than that.
In the next few days we'll be told a bit more.
Whatever the outcome I know one thing. Apart from the people that have directly benefited out of the deal or the negotiators, nobody agrees with the whole thing.
Although not a lot, there is some comfort there.
Cheers Jack.
;)

The company would like to use the Captains seniority list for demotions but will not do so unless there is a call from the shop floor in sufficent numbers. They have agreed to accept the CC's wish to use LIFO reluctantly.

Wheelbarrow

It is not important why the two list system exists! The fact is it does and not just at MYT. I have stated here and on the company wed site that I have no problem with a single list based on date of joining.

My objection is four members of the CC have in effect introduced a single seniority list without consulting the crews at this critical time. The CC represent less than 50% of the crews. The IPA asked to be included in talks and I have heard today the CC were asked by the company if they wanted the IPA involved but the offer of help was declined!

The company is not happy with the situation and nor are a large number of the crews but the CC will not be moved. So as far as I am concerned they are not acting in the best interests of either the crews or the company on this issue and have created division within the work force that will take many years to sort out and cost the company dearly in goodwill. So whilst I support the CC on many issues and even the concept of a single seniority list I cannot see how any fair minded individual can say the CC have handled this issue well or even correctly. The longer this goes on the more convinced I and others become that the CC have got this badly wrong all be it with the best of intentions.

I hope they soon see this and take action. Either to reverse their position or ballot the crews if they fail to do either membership of BALPA will be badly effected and further damage will be done to the company.:(

"So you have a scenario where someone who has had their Command for 6 months will keep it over someone who has had it for 3+ years purely because they have been in the company longer. Fair?"

Sounds OK to me A4? That's the idea of a LIFO surely, DOJ?

Very fair if that is the accepted system in play at the time! The point is that this was not the accepted system for demotions!

LIFO is accepted for the reduction in size of the overall establishment and is not contested.

There will be those who agree with demotion from date of joining company and those who agree with it from date of command. It obviously depends on where you sit. in MYT, where there is conflict in areas such as base change requests, courses for 767/A330, leave preference and a whole host of things the "seniority list" IS King, and not the date of joining the company. Now the seniority list is conveniently dismissed by the BALPA CC, and against the company's wishes as has already been pointed out. But that is not the real issue here as seniority lists are something to resolve at another date.

As Kinsman has mentioned, the point is that the BALPA CC did not consult or ballot their members and appear to be at variance with the BALPA policy and its previous practices on demotion. They are still blinkered to all that is happening around them and fail to realise, or at least won't admit, that they have got it so wrong on this occasion. MYT BALPA CC LISTEN TO YOUR MEMBERS, WHILE YOU STILL HAVE SOME, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !

Whilst you can't make everyone happy, had the CC taken heed of its members at least we could have moved forward in a united way. As it is now, there much divisiveness and anger spreading throughout the workforce. The rifts appearing and the fallout from this will take a long time to repair if urgent action isn't taken to get members onside !

Demotion should be on Command seniority but it is not possible under present employment law so the Captain has to be made redundant and then re-employed as a FO.
Redundancy has always been LIFO so it must apply in this case.
It would appear command seniority lists are now meaningless and a single seniority list possibly indicating Captain or F/O is all that is required.
Get the feeling BALPA had no choice and would have found itself in a difficult legal position had it taken a different view.
I suppose in truth once we join a company it should not be possible to leapfrog to a higher seniority by virtue of an early command, we are all employed as pilots, perhaps status is irrelevent to the issue.

Quote, from the Airtours (now MYT obviously) Pilots Polcies and Procedures manual, which forms part of the contract of employment.

PPP-6-1
SENIORITY
“Seniority within the company is established on the basis of date of commencement of employment (or calculated date of commencement of employment, if applicable)”

PPP-7-10
REDUNDANCY
“Redundancy for pilots is based on a “last In, First Out” policy. This may be supplemented by a call for volunteers for redundancy.”

Quote, from the COMPANY (NOT BALPA) announcement headed PROPOSED FLEET REDUCTION - FLIGHT DECK SELECTION PROCEDURE.

“Captain Redundancy – Redeployment to Senior First Officer

As a result of the imbalance between Captains and FO/SFO resulting from the application of LIFO it will be necessary for a number of Captains’ positions to be made redundant.”

All the above is attributable only to the company, BALPA have interpreted and the conclusions have been debated on this forum. Are BALPA right or wrong?

Squeacky

You have been a little selective in your extract!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPP-6-1

There are seperate seniority lists for Captains and First Officers/Senior First Officers. First Officers/Senior First Officers promoted to command from the same Command List irrespective of different appointment dates created by the training plan will be listed on the Captains Seniority list in the same sequence as their names were recorded on the First Officer Seniority list.

A Seniority list as at the date of issue of this revised Manual is at Annex A. Updated lists will be promulgated from time to time in Flight Crew Notices(FCN), and the Chief Pilot holds a Master List.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPP-7-10

Redundancy

Redundancy for pilots is based on a "Last In, First Out" policy. This maybe supplemented by a call for volunteers for redundancy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now in paragraph 7-10 you will see no reference to date of joining! However, it has always been accepted that this meant date of joining in the same way we had all accepted that demotions would be according to the Captains Seniority list in Annex A!!!

Once again no one has any problem with using date of joining for overall work force reduction and this may include some Captains who gained very early or direct entry Commands. Redundancy/Redeployment is the mechanical method of demoting a Captain to remove the extra salary, under the current PPP this should be done in accordance with the Captains Seniority list.

The Company wanted to use the two Seniority lists for Redundancy which would have meant one or two Captains who are at present going to leave the Company would have stayed. The CC chose to use Global LIFO not the Company. Global LIFO based on date of joining in fact is not in accordance with the PPP as you can see from 7-10. Which states only LIFO with two seniority lists e.g. "last in, First out" according to the positions on the respective list.

However, you can justify using date of joining for redundancy in terms of leaving the company based on paragraph 1, PPP-6-1. But this is the heart of the problem and is open to question especially when applied to demotions no matter how you choose to mechanically carry them out. This is why other airlines have stuck to the Captains Seniority list for demotions when two lists exist.

The Crew Council chose to apply LIFO based on date of joining to demote Captains against the expressed wish of the management. The CC had a choice and they are wrong, very wrong!

:ok:

I didn’t quote the paragraphs regarding the seniority lists because there is no mention of company seniority, only seniority within rank. It doesn’t appear to contradict the first paragraph.

If seniority within the company is established on the basis of date of commencement of employment and LIFO is used for redundancy, and the company are making Captains redundant then, err, so you are saying that, err, mmm, but…..

Oh so seniority is not based on date of commencement of employment but based on your most recent change of role/position within the company. (Are you sure it says that?)

Ahh, it’s so much clearer now. The PPP manual should say that redundancy will be decided by seniority within rank, company seniority is irrelevant, because that is how other airlines do it, and the company want to do it that way anyway. Quick, call BALPA tell them to disregard the PPP and everyone will accept it.

Bye, bye

I wonder how many of the posts here and on Arena shouting their views about this subject are BALPA members and not just the spungers who take all the benefits to our pay and conditions that BALPA have fought for over the last years and are just too mean to pay their dues. A lot I think.

The BALPA members I have spoken to ARE SUPPORTING THE CC just because they are not posting does not mean there is no support!

The majority of the membership understand that the CC have stuck to LIFO because it is the only firm legal thing in that old out of date rag the PPP, and as for the Captains seniority list. All of us if we are honest with our selves know some of the Captains on the Captains seniority are there sooner than others because of who they drink or golf with and which fleet they are on has a lot to do with it. The list keeps changing every few months because some one complains so what use is it's value?

If you take the time to compare the LIFO and Captains seniority list there are ten or so Captains that will be effected over those who are in the frame on both lists depending on which method you use for selection and it is terrible that this is the case but there are guarantees that these pilots whose Captains position is made redundant will be offered a SFO position and will get back to the LHS. Little consolation I know but a job. I agree that it does seem unfair that a few people will keep their command when they are newly promoted but think of the majority and live with it because all this bitching will only make any future negotions difficult, the company is the fly on the wall here and in Arena and we are only helping them formulate a new attack on our conditions.

No wonder the company were not in favour of using LIFO for the reduction of Captains because most of these Captains are pilots on the Airbus and the management is Airbus. Think of the training cost, and do we realy want those other pilots on our fleet!
They would of ditched the Boeing and DC10 pilots if they could and taken back only the guys they wanted to drink and golf with and they would be at the bottom of all the lists that they choose to make.

Get real guys this is a money saving exercise and the more money they save the bigger the bonus for those at the top. If MYT has got the pilot numbers they want after this no more flying in both seats until all the Captains get back to the LHS and the FO's get their jobs back.

The HR department and the company management have more spin than Labour and have put the blame for all this at BALPA,s door but remember they are trying to reduce membership with the method they put news to the pilots and will put further cost cutting measures in place if they can. Some pilots are playing straight into their hands.

BALPA and the CC are working hard to save jobs and have done. FACT

Fed Up
 

I am fed up with upset CP's, people who don't want to relocate, indignant BALPA members, and all. I've just lost my job for the 3rd time in 5 years, as an FO who could now be a Captain, but will now end up as an FO at the bottom of someone else's seniority list. I am a parent, and am over 40 years old.

Shut up and get a life, you selfish lot. Or at least, try to be constructive.

RH,
Shut up and get a life, you selfish ***. Or at least, try to be CONSTRUCTIVE!

Latest word on the street is that it's all change. Boeing's not going, possible some (maybe 3?) A320's going and many fewer redundancies all round. That's if they ever find the big picture!!

Roy Hud
Sorry you are loosing your job.
I feel that I was far from indigant as a BALPA member, only teling it like it is.
MYT is cutting jobs NOT BALPA.
Pilots may jump ship and the ship may sail on and you may be rescued from the life boat.
You and other pilots are on your own without BALPA and you should join or be prepaired to swim in a sea full of sharks that is aviation today.

P.S. Hows EMU

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Just imagine how blo*dy awful it would be for all of us without BALPA. It would be like working for that O'Reilly chap at Ryanair.

OK, the solution's not perfect but it's better than the company's likely solution.

For those who have taken the pay rises and the steadily improving rostering on the back of their colleagues' subs to BALPA.....well who cares about your opinion anyway. You've sponged for too long. Go and join a non-union outfit and see how you get on there.

I'm with the silent majority backing BALPA.

Bernulli
The spungers may think the grass is greener but it still is fxxxxxx grass! BALPA are doing a good job for us.

I'm with the majority. And it's BALPA members with MYT