MYT - I can't believe it!!
 

MYT are reducing the pilot force using LIFO (last in first out).
In my opinion that's fair. However because of the sex discrimination act (1975) it doesn't totally apply to our female pilots, i.e. a similar percentage (within 5%) of both male and female pilots has to be laid-off, regardless of how many are employed of each sex.
Subsequently, demotions are also carried out using LIFO and not date of promotion. So a pilot that worked for the company previously in another department before becoming a pilot, but managed to keep the original date of joining, or a pilot which for whatever reason did not obtain his command until very late, can now keep his command against a far more senior captain. Is that fair?
Have you experienced this kind of events in your company?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

But what happens if you are due for redundancy under LIFO because you were a man when you joined, but have since undergone sex-change surgery and are legally registered as a woman...

Like me!

Hi VS. I think you should ask BALPA about this one. They are involved in the negotiations and I believe it's the way that they want it done......

763 jock

I know. I think that LIFO is a good idea, however how can it be fair for a very junior captain to keep his command, when other far more experienced and in some cases better commanders, even trainers potentially be demoted.
It's crazy in my eyes, but on the other hand I might be bias, because I might be directly affected.
Thank God I don't fall into the "better commanders/trainers category".
I wonder if I am being unreasonable.
:hmm:

Yeah, these things are always hard to deal with. I guess no matter how they do it, someone's got to go. Too bad. Thinking of you guys.

Been there done that. Hated it!

Likewise VS. When I joined at the bottom of the F/O's list, I always felt "vulnerable" should there ever be redunancies. Similarly when I went on the bottom of the Captains list, I felt that I would be the first guy put in the RHS if "demotions" were ever required. I bet a few BALPA subs will be cancelled in the near future! Apparently, with retirements/volunteers/change of working patterns etc the number has gone from 118 to about 77....Good luck to you.

Are you saying that BALPA want to go against the strict LIFO reverse seniority list ? So a female pilot who has been there for a shorter period than a male pilot may retain her job while a male pilot, with longer in the firm, gets hoofed out ??? ...... and BALPA want this ????

Tell me it aint so....please....

skibeagle,

The issue is not whether BALPA want it or not, it is directly related to Employment Law. I believe BALPA sought expert legal advice on the matter before the final solution was arrived at.

To Viscount Sussex and 763 jock I'm potentially at risk of redundancy as well (what a great statement). Wish you both all the best if the worst does happen. The job market isn't to bad at the minute so hopefully I shouldn't be state dependent! :uhoh:

Big Tudor

As you say, BALPA sought legal advice regarding the issue of sexual discrimination; however it would be discrimination against the male pilot if a lower service female was kept over the longer serving male pilot. I believe it's to do with actual compensation. It would be cheaper to compensate the male pilot than the female pilot so I was told by BALPA.
LIFO is great and fair for redundancies and it would be also fare if it meant LIFO based on date of promotion, but not on date of joining as it has been agreed between BALPA and the company.
I personally will be stopping my subscription from the union.
:mad:

Redundancies
 

How about this for a novel idea|?

From the total list of pilots decide how many Captains and First Officers the airlines needs to retain.

Have a look at their training records and sim rides in respect of ability and experience.

Keep the best, irrespective of length of service, and let the weakest ones go!

Ergo, the airline is slimmer, more cost effective and retains the best technical crews available.

Now THAT IS FAIR !! and gives the airline a great "once in a lifetime" to get rid of the borerlines fliers that only JUST manage to pass a check ride/sim ride......and anyone who has been/is a sim instructor will know there are plenty of them in the business!!

Hmmm. No-one as good as you, eh Ali?

The truth is that, if we are all really honest, the only good redundancy scheme is the one that leaves us in the job and kicks the other guy out first! Therein lies the problem - it is almost impossible to be just or fair in a manner that will seem 'right and good' to everyone. If you lose your job then you see it as a bad deal - and who can blame you?

LIFO is the only fair way to do it. Most pilots are incredibly selfish, sadly, and many think they are way better at their job than anyone else. Once you are into the realms of Mercenary Ali's thinking then you are faced with the difficulty of working out who is the 'better' pilot. There are almost countless permutations of ideas as to how you assess that - all designed to see that you stay in the company and the other guy goes! The other factor in favour of LIFO is that it is much easier for those removed to get jobs as there is no slur on their character or abilities. As we have seen from the comments so far, even the LIFO method is fraught with problems. The alternative is far worse - the company decides who stays and who goes. Old scores are settled, 'hunches' and 'gut-feelings' are acted on, 'big' personalities are kept on, quiet guys kicked out, anyone who dared to question anything at any point in the past is removed and so it goes on.

LIFO may be imperfect but if you leave it to the management to sort out then you will see what serious injustice is really all about.

Hey come on guys!
 

This has nothing to do with me! It does not matter how good or mediocre I am this is a reality check!

Are you really trying to tell me that there is no way of marking and/or judging who score highest at their sim rides and in their line checks or in their LOFT excercises?

I know we live in a "painless society" where every student has to have a degree however useless it may be, where nobody is allowed fo "fail" so everyone has GCSE's even if they are at Grade E, F and G which actually mean they FAILED!!

Now come on there are ways of the IRE/TRE/Check Airmen/sim instructors making reasoned judgements as to who is TOP and who is Median and who is only just a PASS !!

Anyway it was just and idea to kick around, it does not affect me personally cos I am staying where I am!! Ha Ha Ha....:ok:

:confused:
Norman Stanley Fletcher

I agree with you that whatever system or scheme you chose you will have unhappy people.
Also I agree that LIFO (using date of joining) is the fairest way of doing it when it comes to redundancies. Also in my opinion LIFO (using date of promotion) should be applied when demotions are being considered. In the case of MYT potentially some new captains (including those that have previously failed their command assessments) could remain as captains, were most of the trainers could be demoted, because of date of joining. Obviously it doesn’t go that far (yet) because of numbers.
Surely that cannot be a good or a fair way. And I am not trainer by a long way.
On the other hand if LIFO is being used, LIFO should mean LIFO, regardless of sex, race, religion, ethnic background, etc.
LIFO should also be used to demote trainers, but now we have politics of fleets (Boeing/Airbus). Who do you keep? The most senior Training Captain on the Boeing fleet or the newly promoted Training Captain on the Airbus fleet, since you are getting rid of the Boeing aircraft. Who do you demote? The senior Training Captain (male pilot) or the junior Training Captain (female pilot), since now you are contemplating the issue of sex discrimination.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

Or you could do it the way that MIke Street did it for BA when Dan Air were taken over. You ignore pilot's contracts for LIFO and decide to keep those pilots that you need who are flying the aircraft you are keeping on the day of the take-over.

And then you create a whirlwind of problems which take years and years to sort out - in the courts and elsewhere.

VS,

Im sorry to hear of your situation, I know exactly how you feel as I went through the same process with Virgin Atlantic following 9/11.

Not that it is of any use to you, BALPA managed to screw that up as well, LIFo did not really mean LIFO the demotion process was a complete :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:-up.

The only fair way to demote is LIFO to the LHS, the individuals are then put into a protected group & get their commands back in order as & when they re-appear.

I hope it all works out for MYT, why is it that we always suffer for teh incompetance of individuals who then walk away with a nice tasty pay-off?

You could encourage those pilots who are working past their Normal Retirement Date/Pensionable Retirement Date to retire. They are often on high increments, and they really ought to have better things to do with their time!

You could get rid of the most senior pilots by redundancy, giving them preferable terms, on the grounds that they are on the highest increments.

But most likely, you could simply do what the contract agreed by the union says you will do, and the union will always go for LIFO because the people doing the negotiations will generally be senior and have a vested interest.

Don't worry lads and lasses, my tongue is in my cheek - in broad terms, at least.

BALPA knockers in overdrive again I see!

What has happened here is that the pilots' representatives - elected by those pilots who are BALPA members - have taken the view that wrt redundancy, LIFO should apply (as would be considered sensible by just about every single airline pilot on the face of this planet btw).

When it comes to demotion, should it be based on doj as a pilot, doj as an employee, date of promotion, position on the seniority list, 'usefulness' - ie, should a trainer be exempt - being on the right type, etc etc. The list is endless and I suspect that every pilot will have their own view which will be different to everyone else's. Who would want to be a rep in this decision making time? Not me thanks.....

I think the general feeling is that the decisions have been taken by the CC WITHOUT consulting the membership. Throughout the whole "consultation" process within MYT, there has been VERY little feedback to the troops and the final options have certainly put a lot of noses out of joint.

What is the point in having two seniority lists (Capt and FO) when you just amalgamate them into one based on date of joining to decide who goes and who stays. OK, it's LIFO but it takes no account whatsoever of an individuals career progression within the company. There are now instances of people who have been in the company for a considerable period who have not been promoted to the LHS (for whatever reason.....) for several years but will now retain their Commands whilst, arguably, more dynamic individuals (quicker Commands) are demoted or worse made redundant.

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?

The whole thing is bl00dy mess....... there are only a very few who will not be affected by the fallout. I think BALPA will be receiving less in the way of subs in the not too distant future......

A4:(

:hmm:

A couple of questions.

1) What is the main purpose of Captains Seniority List?
2) Do you think it should be ignore?
3) What do you think is the fairest way of doing this?
You have 400 pilots but you only need 300 pilots.
How would you do it?
Please, only serious answers, thanks.

:confused:

LIFO is the only way - regardless of fleet, rank or position !

Viscount

I think there is a fair way to do things and there is an expedient way to do things. A lot depends on what situation the airline is in, financially, and what agreements it has in force for its pilots.

An airline in financial difficulty, which is probably the only reason it would make redundancies in the first place, could be excused for making the minimum statutory payments and taking the least-cost option for shedding crews (indeed, it has a responsibility to do so). That is not unreasonable, because it is also in the best interests of those pilots it retains that it makes the best financial decsions.

Ability has nothing to do with any of this; if a captain is deemed suitable to be such, then it is a no cost factor. If he wasn't suitable, then he shouldn't be there anyway.

Training personnel are different, because they have been chosen (hopefully) because of their ability and attributes to be so. They should have their own seniority list.

So, what is fair?

I think most agree that LIFO is a fair principle, in so far as anyone will loose their jobs.

The airline should probably ask for voluntary redundancies first, so as to limit the number of compulsory redundancies. It may not do this if it is not obliged to do so under employment law.

Demotion is most fairly dealt with on the seniority basis of the promotion. Perceived ability should not be an issue here either. Hopefully you were promoted when you reached the required standard and experience, so that has its own seniority list based only on the date of upgrade.

BALPA will not, and never have, added any real value to this process. How can they? Besides, they are too busy trying to gain recognition in their 'high profile' campaigns to worry about those whose contributions will be ceasing soon.

Call me cynical? Yes, you'd be 'right on'.

Sorry, but true.

Jack

Jack The Lad

I think I am very much on side with what you say in many aspects.
Unfortunately it's not the way things are going here with the company or BALPA for that matter.
All is not lost in my eyes.
I think justice should prevail and I for one will do my best to that end.

:(

<< BALPA will not, and never have, added any real value to this process. How can they? Besides, they are too busy trying to gain recognition in their 'high profile' campaigns to worry about those whose contributions will be ceasing soon. >>

What garbage. The MYT reps are doing their best to sort out this mess, not those in charge of counting pennies.

Shaman

RTFQ!

I refer to BALPA, the organisation, not the MYT reps or any other airline reps. I have the greatest respect for the voluntary, unpaid and often thankless work most of the reps do, under difficult circumstances. Trouble is they are often misled or let down by the Organisation that has a different agenda all too often.

You might wish to retract your 'Garbage' comment!

At the end of the day i think it has to be LIFO. Surely it doesn't matter if pilots are just passing checks by the skin of their teeth or not, if they pass then they are good enough. Same with promotion to the LHS (and demotions, redundancies etc.), it shouldn't be picked from a list of the best,it should be seniority, if they pass the command course then they ARE good enough, end of story.

LIFO is the way to go regardless of age, sex, creed or colour (fleet, type etc.).

Wingman;)

:hmm:

I don't think I made it clear enough.

I will say it again. I am totally in agreement with LIFO for redundancies, but I would like to see seniority from the Captains Seniority List to be used for demotion. The Captains Seniority List is not a "best pilots list", it's just a seniority list that has always been there and people get onto it as soon as they get their commands regardless of how good or how marginal they are. People come off this list as they retire or leave the company's employment. When somebody leaves the company, everybody on that list moves up one position regardless of ability or how well they get on with the company managers or trainers, etc.
A pilot becomes eligible for command in MYT according to the lay down requirements of the Pilot Policies and Procedures and length of service is not one of them. Therefore why should it then become for demotion. People should be demoted in the reverse order in which they were promoted.
I’ll spell it out again.
LIFO is OK for redundancy but not for demotion in my opinion.
An existing (old and established) seniority list is being binned and replaced by a new seniority list just created and nobody has been consulted. It has not been put to a ballot.
The reason…maybe pennies, maybe depends on who negotiated the whole deal, I don’t know, but it is not right.
The repercussions could be huge. Change of base for commanders, ratings onto other types, further demotions, future promotions and future vacancies.

:}

Viscount

I'd be interested to learn what it is about the proposed method that you find disagreeable. It sounds like it relates to demotion?

Yes. As I said before, I believe that since promotion is not just a direct result of length of service it should not be the determining factor for demotion.
For example, you could have two individuals joining a company. Lets say pilot #1 has 5000 hours and joins the company in March. Pilot #2 has 3000 and joins in February the same year. When a vacancy occurs, pilot#1 has the minimum number of hours required and is suitable for command. Pilot#2 doesn't have the minimum hours required. Pilot #1 gets promoted. Three or four years later, pilot #2 has the hours required and subsequently gets his command.
A couple of months later, the company needs to lay-off pilots.
Those pilots that joined the company last, are laid-off. The majority of those pilots laid-off are first officers/co-pilots. Now, you have the right number of pilots, but you need to balance the number of captains and first officers. So, who would you demote first, pilot #1 or pilot #2?
:uhoh::sad::oh: :ouch: :ooh: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I speak as one who is still in the "at risk" of compulsary redundancy category despite the new numbers (77) needed to go. In a more favourable climate, I could reasonably have expected a "look-in" at command given my sim/line assessments of late. However, in the game of snakes and ladders that is our industry I am facing redundancy on the LIFO principle which is the norm. I have accepted this piece of misfortune. Since I have accepted possibly losing my job under these rules, I feel that Capts losing their commands under LIFO should accept it also. It's bad luck for some, beneficial for others, but removes any subjectivity of possibly assessing potential demotees using any other process.
In a similar vein I have had to accept some who are above me on the list who have far fewer hours than me and may therefore be judged "less useful" at the moment, due to the fact that they were cadets and therefore entering the ladder whilst still learning their trade. I accept this situation with good grace - good luck to them I say. Maybe it will be easier for me to get a position elsewhere because of my greater experience, and therefore there is fairness at play in that these lower experience people but with great potential, are being protected somewhat by the system.

Those Capts facing demotion will be repromoted using the LIFO principle in the future.

As one who is in a vulnerable position due to LIFO, I suggest that it is a fair system and Capts who will be demoted because of it should take some comfort in the fact that they could be in a much worse situation. One old Capt once said to me that he based his finances on being an FO, and anything extra was a bonus.

Viscount

Thanks for the clarification. In my mind, the answer is simple; Pilot 2 would face demotion first due to the fact that he should be lower on the Captain's seniority list.

If however both Pilot 1 & 2 were demoted and one of them had to be made redundant (an unlikely scenario) then Pilot 1 would be the one to face redundancy as he joined last.

In the same way, imagine that you had a First Officer that had been with the airline for 15 years and had never been upgraded (it happens). Then the airline faced some savage cuts and lots of Captains were demoted and one of those Captains had only been with the airline for 7 years, it would be proper for him to face redundancy before the 15 year man.

As I say, it s simple to me, but others will undoubtably see it in a different light.

Lets face it the company would simply like to lay off all the boeing and MCd D pilots as those fleets are going, most of those pilots are more senior and thus paid more and it saves on retraining. Thats the cheapest option and without BALPA thats exactly what would happen.
To counter that LIFO is the simplest and fairest way of dealing with redundancies and demotions.
At least they are offering VR so that will thin some ranks at the top.

JTL couldn't agree more but life is never that simple and I'm sure if you read your own company redundancy clause in your contract you will see how easy it is to take a different view.

Normally cost of retraining senior pilots, retention of pilots regarded as essential and fleet redundancy are covered in such a way as to make the whole process a nightmare for all involved.

Good luck to MYT one hopes when the debt for equity deal is finally thrashed out the company will emerge stronger to face the future.

:ok:
Jack The Lad

I agree with you completely, but that’s not the way the company is doing it.
BALPA was the one that insisted in using LIFO on everything including, Captains demotions, basing, etc., and disregarded the existing seniority lists.
It’s mad. The company is looking at it and thinking “great, BALPA have done the dirty job for as.” They don’t have to do anything. BALPA takes the blame and the company get what they want. A lot of people don’t agree, but are frightened or shocked and they are going along with it. They are not looking ahead at the consequences and potential implications of getting rid of the seniority lists. If and when people get re-trained onto the Airbus 330’s, guess who is first on them? Not even the most senior trainers, but the most junior captains on the fleet. When it comes to re-locating people, you have the same scenario. I know of a captain that is going to be “bumped”. I think that’s what they are calling it. He will have to accept another base or accept redundancy. So he has told the company he rather be demoted than change base. Another captain that knew that he would be “bumped”, elected for the severance package, for that very reason. However if you have a mortgage insurance and elect voluntary redundancy, the insurance company will not pay. Mind you, that’s another issue.
As I said, it seems very unfair the way it has been handled and although the BALPA company council (the majority of them) have lost in seniority, they are not immediately affected by it. One Captain in the cc has actually benefited by it. But the BALPA cc has worked very hard on this one. I for one am very grateful for the work they have done, but totally disagree with creating a new seniority list and getting rid of the old ones, particularly at this moment in time.
:(

There are still two seniority lists. They will continue to be used to decide, for example, 330 ratings, basing etc. The pilot’s date of joining has been added to each list for ‘transparency’.

Date of joining is being used for redundancy only, as per the contract/ppp, i.e. nothing has changed.

Apparently when a company uses LIFO for redundancies, provided date of joining is strictly adhered to, a Captain may be made redundant and offered a new position as a F/O, despite other F/Os being made redundant. If LIFO were not to be used this could not happen. In other words a Captain would be made redundant, no job.

Also, other than for disciplinary reasons, there is no provision for demotion in our contract/ppp. Any pilot demoted would have a case for constructive dismissal.

The BALPA CC are doing an excellent job, don’t be surprised if there are only a handful of compulsory redundancies at the end of this thanks to their hard work.

Similar Experience
 

In reply to the original question, yes myself. It was for ATC training, as an ATSA. I was redeployed, on last in company, first out, others who had longer service from other departments before joing ATC, after me, (and not having commenced OJT as an ATCO), stayed in! Both a potential loss for the company!, as well obviously, and very personally, for me.

:rolleyes:
squeakyunclean

I don’t really know what you mean by ‘transparency’.
I don’t know if I am in total agreement with your reasoning.
Date of joining is not being used just for redundancies as you say.
Captains are being made redundant against first officers that are being kept on, although these first officers joined the company later. So that’s the first inconsistency and disregard for LIFO.
I am ‘at risk’ and I know first officers not ‘at risk’ (of redundancy) that are junior to me.
Captains, as long as they accept redundancy, are being taken back by the company with the original date of joining and other first officers are being laid-off. That’s the second inconsistency of LIFO being applied.
So in effect LIFO is being used for demotion and not for redundancy.
So the other question is:
What are they making redundant? Is it pilots or captains and first officers, or just captains?
As I said earlier on this thread:
400 pilots – 100 pilots = 300 pilots. (LIFO).
300 pilots / 2 = 150 captains + 150 first officers. (Captains Seniority List).
I say it again is not right and therefore not fair.
Next question: Is it legal?
That I think I better ask a lawyer in employment law that specializes in aviation related matters.
I think they are better informed that most pilots.
:D

VS

‘transparency’ was just a quote from the Chief Pilots memo, I’ll not try and explain what he meant.

It’s not my reasoning either, it’s just what is happening in accordance with our contract.

If a pilot who joined the company after you is ‘not at risk of redundancy’ and you are ‘at risk of redundancy’, there has been a simple mistake.

The only inconsistency I can see is a Captain with a date of joining before a F/O could find himself redundant. The difference between a Captain at risk and a F/O at risk is that the Captain will be offered another job as a pilot, albeit as a F/O, the F/O will not.

:oh:

squeakyunclean

Please explain what you mean by saying “it’s just what is happening in accordance with our contract.”
What is happening in accordance with our contract?
Where does it say in our contract that our seniority list will be pushed aside? This is the first time it was going to be used for its proper purpose, but it gets ignored and a new one produced.
Looking at the Pilot Policies and Procedures manual, PPP-6-2 under Promotion is clear how people get promoted. It mentions three things ‘seniority, qualification and suitability’. Seniority from the Captains Seniority List determines who the more senior captains are, so in my view it should be reversed for demotion.
Where is it written about demotion based on date of joining?
Who has negotiated the new terms of conditions for all pilots without previous consultation?
Who benefits from the new list? Why change a list that has been there for years? Has anybody involved in the draft of the new list moved up in seniority? Have a look at the Captains list issued by the chief pilot on July 2004 and then compare it with the new list. Have a look at the names that have moved up.
:suspect: :suspect: :suspect:

VS, tried to answer the points in order

1. My contract/ppp says redundancies will be decided by last in first out, what does your contract say?

2. It doesn’t.

3. Who said the seniority lists are to be used to decide redundancy? Does your contract say something like ‘ redundancy will be decided by a pilots position on the Captains/First Officers/Second Officers/Flight Engineers seniority list’ (delete as reqd)?

4. It doesn’t mention that promotions will depend on company requirements, the opinions of the training dept. etc Date of joining is absolute and not open to debate, a pilots suitability for command is, that is what the command board is for. That’s why date of joining is used to decide redundancies. If the company announced demotions I would expect it to be decided in accordance with my contract/ppp. Apart from disciplinary reasons there is no provision. ‘Reversed for demotion’, does that mean you start at the bottom of the list, have a demotions board, a demotion assessment in the sim and finally a demotion comp check? How else would you assess ‘seniority, qualification and suitability’? Are you suggesting the last few on the Captains seniority list are just demoted? If commands were just given to the pilots at the top of the F/Os seniority list I’d have to agree.

5. It isn’t, demotion can only be for disciplinary reasons.

6. Nobody, because there are no new terms and conditions. If there were any changes BALPA did the talking.

7. Nobody benefits from the new list. Redundancies are decided on date of joining, a pilots position on the seniority lists is not relevant. The new list is not a replacement, it has been produced for use with the options pack. Nobody has been moved up in seniority because the new list is not a seniority list, it’s a date of joining list. The current seniority lists will remain and everyone will remain in the order they always were, some may find themselves on a different list.