Greedy BA pilots want more dosh
 

BA faces pay fight with militant pilots

BY ANGELA JAMESON of the Times

BRITISH AIRWAYS could be held to ransom by militant pilots when it begins negotiations over pay this autumn, as a worldwide shortage of pilots begins to bite.
The airline could be forced to increase pilots’ pay by 10 per cent, three times the pay rises that its other employees can expect, when the current two-year pay deal runs out this September.

BA’s 3,300 pilots have seen their foreign colleagues receive pay rises of between 10 and 40 per cent in the past few days, as international airlines have moved to quell a wave of industrial action. Cathay Pacific, the Hong Kong carrier, and Iberia, the Spanish flag carrier, have both been hit by industrial action this week as their pilots have tried to exploit their strong negotiating position to win huge pay increases.

During the last round of pay talks the pilots came close to striking, before finally agreeing a settlement that many thought was unsatisfactory.

Industry analysts yesterday suggested that BA would have to table an offer of at least 10per cent to prevent pilots from taking industrial action.

A spokesman for the British Air Line Pilots Association (Balpa) said that his members would have noted the high pay rises being achieved overseas. “It could be a very tough fight. Pilots are very much aware of their worth to the company,” the spokesman said.

Airlines have been hit by the global economic downturn, at a time when they have also had to cope with high fuel costs and demands for substantial pay rises by pilots and others with strong bargaining power. Industry analysts consider that recent pay deals struck by Lufthansa, United Airlines and Delta have been over-generous to the pilots.

Mike Powell, airlines analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, said: “Pilots have a lot of power. They can stop an airline overnight and they can wipe out a year’s profits in weeks, especially at the moment, when passenger numbers are down.”

A spokeswoman for BA confirmed that pay negotiations with pilots would start this autumn, but denied that there was any link between the talks and the worldwide recruitment crisis that is enabling experienced pilots to name their price. BA recruits about 200 staff each year, 120 of which come from their own training scheme.

Industry observers believe that experienced flyers could be tempted overseas by the attractive packages being offered by foreign carriers, such as Emirates, which offers starting salaries for pilots of about £56,000 tax-free. BA co-pilots, by comparison, can expect to earn just £24,000 in their first year, according to Balpa. From that salary they must pay back a quarter of the cost of their training, during their first five years with the company.

A BA captain with 20 years’ flying experience can expect to earn a salary of about £110,000. This is supplemented by a variety of accommodation allowances and travel benefits.

In comparison an experienced pilot with Emirates can probably hope to make £100,000 a year, tax-free. The airline also offers free accommodation and cheap or free loss of licence insurance, which is considered a perk.

Cathay Pacific, the Hong Kong carrier, which imposed a 9 per cent pay settlement on its pilots this week, also pays housing allowances and private school fees for pilots’ children.

And why shouldn't they get a pay rise???? :confused: Their basic pay is lower than several others; United/Delta etc. :rolleyes: :cool: :D

Pay settlements made in other countries seems hardly a justifiable reason to claim a 3x UK inflation rate pay rise though. In any case, this is currently just media speculation, so references to 'greedy BA pilots' are somewhat harsh. Although just when BA is getting over the Ayling era, for its pilots to consider themselves eligible for a pay rise of such proportions would seem somewhat questionable.

Mark you, quite why Ayling Bob and his family should have been granted free First Class travel for life is also highly questionable. Understand he is considering calling his new yacht 'The Golden Handshake'.......

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

Never, ever, EVER, label a group of workers as "greedy" until you have a big, wide, and educated look at why they are taking the stand that they are.

........ "starting" salary for EK pilots at £ 56 000. Really?
Just looked at my records which show the real picture. First year scale for an FO is 16 360 Dirhams, or roughly £ 39 000. It falls slightly short of the journo's misguided rubbish.
:mad:

Oh well, dream on......

AA76757 - I certainly wasn't referring to BA pilots as being greedy! The original contributor chose to use 'Greedy BA pilots want more dosh' as the heading for this thread, not me!

BEagle, sorry for the confusion. I was not using your quote to make a comment to you about greed. I was using your (very appropriate) quote to show the author of this thread that there are OTHERS in this equation who are REALLY the greedy ones.

BEagle, 3x uk inflation is still inadequate when you consider how pilots' salaries have been eroded over the last few years by 'greedy' management. We are finally calling time and demanding our true worth. You spend enough time on this forum to know exactly what the issues are but I'd quite happily pop over to Brize and explain it to you slowly!!

Thanks for the offer - but at least you now have collective bargaining power to negotiate reasonable settlements! Management 'greed' or mis-direction, I wonder? Wasting money on a 'global gimmick' deeply unpopular with shareholders and staff alike whilst treating the cabin crew with total disdain was not so much 'greed' by Ayling Bob as crassly incompetent leadership.

However, I'm sure that major airline pilots know that their future is inextricably linked to the company's profitability. Without sound business practices, the scope for large pay awards must ipso facto be more limited; however, success also merits reward!

Incidentally, whether it was you or another of my ex-colleagues with whom I spoke the other day who said "It was bad enough when I left - I don't know how it could possibly have got any worse", but the comment was wholly accurate!

The last thing the long-suffering BA image needs is ill-informed media speculation concerning pay negotiation tarnishing their aircrews' reputation.

BA pilots have accepted %RPI for the last 3 years.

The largest part of any company's expenditure is the wages bill. This can be up to 48% of total expenditure and BA is no exception (c.45%).

So exactly how much of this 45% goes to those 'greedy' pilots - just 8% !!!

Thats not 8% of the 45% - Thats 8% of total wages bill !

Why does BA struggle to make a profit? Certainly not because it has a high pilot / aircraft ratio - Quite the opposite.

It is because it has the largest number of ancilliary employees per airframe of any airline in Europe (except possibly Iberia).

Very little has changed since Ayling.

It's actually 13% but we won't argue of details you point is correct. BA has 250 employees per aircraft. where are they, not on the flightdeck, not in the cabin, not in the terminals and not in the hangers. you work it out. Airfrance incidently has 230. would anyone have believed that 15 years after privatisation ba would have more employees per aircraft than air france. it makes you weep. Everything we give up they spend at waterside. enough is enough. Lufthansa fly broadly simalar number of passengers with 40000 staff. we have 60000.

Hmph! Just goes to show you what an ignorant reporter can do with statisitcs. The comparison between the 56k at Emirates and a starting CEP at BA is one prime example of disinformation. The whole article smacks of a BA management attempt to pre-empt the upcoming negotiations with their usual underhand tactics of undermining the pilots.

Regardless of what The Guvnor, 411a or the other 'experts' (not) on the industry say, the fact that there is a worldwide shortage of experienced pilots is largely due to the airlines own lack of investment in training over the last 20 years. Now it is coming back to haunt them.

Supply and demand is the reason that the pilots can now make their larger claims for increased pay. Over the years most pilots have had their status eroded and pay, by comparison, has also lagged behind. All during the years of a pilot surplus the managements got away with their beancounters short term views and eroded pilot pay and didn't bother with investment in training.

Typically of any airline where beancounters are in top management positions, their 'know the price of everything know the value of nothing' skills have left the worldwide marketplace short on the required skill to operate their expensive aircraft. It has come back to haunt them and they are now desperate because of the larger pay demands of the pilots.

It has nothing to do with pay rises and inflation. It is purely a value for money argument. If you want experienced pilots to stay, be productive and operate the very expensive aircraft in order to help the company generate a profit then they are going to have to pay for that service.

Irrespective of what other groups feel, the pilots have to fight to get back their status and the companies will have to pay the going rate for those skills. If that means an increase in prices for the consumers then so be it. Inflation will hurt but at the end of the day it is supply and demand that will dictate the pay that pilots can command.

To call the pilots 'greedy' as LTN Man has done just goes to show that there will always be people out there who envy the pilots at the better paid airlines. Ignore their petty jealousies. If they had put the effort into getting their licences and worked their way into 'the job' they would be in a better position to understand what it was all about. Cabin crew, engineers etc. may also feel jealous but they have their own unions and will be able to dictate their demands based on the supply and demand of their positions.

These companies expect us to operate their tens of millions of pounds of equipment efficiently and safely. It takes many years to train someone to the level of skill required and many more years of experience to achieve a command. Because the managers were too short sighted to foresee the pilot shortage that we now have they are panicing. Serves them right and we need to remain on our guard against their disinformation tactics.

Can anyone confirm the following in the article:

If correct, it's an interesting twist on the bonding issue where certain people - like tilii have made much out of BA not bonding. However, those airlines that bond generally don't ask you to pay 25% of the costs!

As for 250 staff per aircraft... :eek: :confused: :eek: ! I spent much of yesterday going over our proposed staffing levels with several of my colleagues - and with 7 operational aircraft we come to 537 staff. That's around 77 people per aircraft - including admin, res, technical, station staff, ops, flight deck and cabin crew (34 crews total). OK, so we're contracting a lot of functions out - but 500?!?!?!

No one has yet explained why the flight deck people think that they are so much better than the rest of BA's employees - and why if they are so concerned about the pay scales of their most junior colleagues, why the senior chaps don't 'adopt an FO' and give him/her 10% of their own salary! :D ;) :D

Can't see that happening, somehow!

As for the alleged shortage of pilots - well, that's debatable. So let's debate it.

What's fact is that the previous primary source of highly trained pilots - the military - has all but dried up. The other source (especially in the States) - the 'captive' commuter airlines - is also drying up; due in no small part to the fact that that's where the real growth is in terms of aircraft numbers (and therefore crew requirements).

There are, as a quick glance over in the Wannabe's forum will show, many pilots who would like to get into the business but they are finding it hard to get onto the first rung of the ladder - due in large part to the requirement of insurers for 1,000 hours TT with multi turbine experience as a prior requisite. At the other end of the scale, you have guys being forced to retire at 55 when they have 10 years or so of useful working life left.

Still, the shortage is decreasing with the failure of a number of airlines over the last year or so - and that's a number that's going to increase as the recession deepens.

Personally, I agree with Sir Algernon Scruggs (on this issue at least) that the airlines should be investing more in their own futures and creating a pool of pilots from which they can recruit, which some are. However, the problem for them is not so much the new guys but rather the experienced people in the left hand seat that want to move on - that experience comes only with time. Bonding helps retain some - but if someone is determined to leave, you can't prevent them.

And as for pay - in my opinion, it's not so much an issue of actual pounds and pence - it's an issue of productivity. What's the cost per hour of productive (ie flying, not duty) time to the airline? For the charter carriers, those figures are invariably good - but that's not often the case at scheduled airlines and especially not those which are grossly over-staffed!

LTN man.... You are not a Pilot are you. But I bet you would like to be one.

Never read so much tosh in my life.

Market forces will prevail. Pilots are in short supply: no pilots = no airline.

Ergo, you pay for the guys who drive or you go down. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR.

If we withdraw our labour be you Delta. AA, United or The Guvs embryo mob you go out of business PDQ. Watch what happens at Cathay if the boys go on strike. I'll give 7 days before the beancounters cave in.null

Guvner, pray tell where this alleged recesion is. Yes there is a bit of a slow down, which is a natural knee jerk reaction from the American economy, but it ain't that bad and British consumer confidence is still high. Now dont go and tell me that pax numbers are down significantly. There's a little fall out from foot and mouth and business from across the pond but it's so small almost not worth mentioning. BAA (stats) if believable are still showing a very healthy increase, so unless they are just going to airports to do their shopping, then i presume they must be getting on the aircraft to leave b***s**t like this behind. Leave the economic scare mongering to the city boys who are pretty good at scaring prices up and down with out much thought to the economy.

PauldeGearup - that's a rather short-sighted attitude! Let me put it this way - you can have all the pilots you need, but if the ground engineers aren't prepared to sign off your aircraft, you're as flightless as a kiwi.

Or if the cabin crew decide they aren't going to work - then you're grounded.

Equally, if the passenger service people decide not to process the pax then you're also going no where.

What exactly makes you think that you're (a) worth more than any of your colleagues; or (b) you're indispensible?

It's a team effort and for one group to demand astronomical pay increases at the expense of the rest of the team is deeply divisive. :mad:

FLAREDAMIT - where have you been hiding for the last year or so; Central Africa? :eek: :rolleyes: :D

If you don't believe that we're in an economic slowdown/recession (depending on your definition) just talk to your commercial department. Then read some of the threads - especially in the Freight Dogs forum. Really!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The reality is that it's not pax numbers that count; it's the yields. With the increase of routes by people like FR, EZY and GO, more low fare pax are flying (Freddie Laker's 'Forgotten Man' effect). However, it's the high yield pointy end F and J class pax that pay the bills at the end of the day - and those people are evaporating about as fast as a spilt glass of water in the Sahara!

Re the Cadet Pilot pay - The cadets in the first 4 years will earn 21k less then their DEP equivalent, and in addition have to pay back 15k from their own pocket over the first 5 years.

What we are talking about here is brining BA up to the market rate for pilots.

BA cadets are the luckiest guys/gals in the world. Anyone fortunate enough to be one should just get down on their knees and thank God for the greatest career opportunity in the entire industry that has been handed to them on a silver plate. I hope there is not a single one of them who would be foolish enough to mutter so much as a whimper about their terms and conditions.

As for the other BA pilots - different matter entirely. I hope they are successful in securing a very good deal for them and also for those who will follow. I am not a BA pilot and never will be, but I recognise how vital it is that BA lead the way with salaries. Ultimately what happens at BA filters back down to everyone else in the industry - be it good or bad! As the only real 'major' airline in the country, they carry the flag in every sense and I hope are hugely successful in obtaining a good deal for all.

Guvnor, it is not a case of being indispensable or not. As you point out all the different trades and professions are needed. The difference in value depends on how easy it is to replace those different workers.

As we all know it takes many years to aquire the skills to manage (not just pilot) a large jet a/c and the hoops and hurdles we have to navigate through to get there make it a very demanding profession which not everyone can get into even if they want to. Comparing it to any of the other jobs that are involved in making the airline run is about as relevant as comparing chalk and cheese.

Apart from fully qualified engineers the rest of the jobs you mention are not highly skilled and can be replaced in a much shorter time. As you have stated you will be outsourcing many of the jobs if you ever get your airline off the ground and we all know that means relying on a company to provide unskilled or low skilled labour at even lower wages than you are prepared to pay. If those workers, usually temporary or seasonal, were to start demanding pay rises in line with what the pilots are asking for then yes they could cause some disruption but they are unlikely to achieve their demands are they?

It is not a case of the pilots believing they are worth more than the other workers, it is a fact. They have spent longer aquiring their licences, skills etc than all of the others and they are expected to keep those skills at a high level at least twice a year for their sim checks, never mind the medicals. Not one of the other workers you have mentioned have to pass a medical and maintain such a high level of competence which is evaluated twice a year.

It is no use stating the obvious. We know that if an engineer doesn’t sign off the Tech Log or the cabin crew don’t show up or the tug driver doesn’t come to work or the ticket agent doesn’t check the pax in or whatever the aircraft isn’t going anywhere. To say that we shouldn’t base our demands on what we believe we are worth and the industry can afford is just a desperate cry of realisation by managers like yourself that it is going to cost you more to operate your airline and therefore you have to charge more to your customers.

If the engineers are not happy with what they are getting and there is a shortage of them then you will see equally ‘outrageous’ (to you) demands from them in due course. The airlines where you now see industrial action have consistently failed to invest in their workers, whether it be pay or conditions and they are now reaping the rewards of industrial action because the short term view of the managers and beancounters who only saw bottom line ‘profit’, ie price and not value which involves a lot more for a lot longer.

The airlines where the management actually value their pilots and realise that they are not just a commodity but highly motivated individuals who appreciate recognition for their skills and the long road it took to get there and the equally complicated effort it takes to maintain those skills and proficiency will not have to worry about industrial action. Airlines such as CX where the dinosaurs from the ‘lorenzo school of mismanagement’ believe in the motto “beatings will continue until morale improves” have only their ‘beancounter’ shortsightedness leaders to blame for letting the situation develop into the action that is now being taken.

Those same ‘beancounter’ leader types have been mismanaging BA pilots for many years. They are not worried about the long term effects of their decisions because they know they will be far away in another company by the time the mess has to be cleared up, content with their golden handshakes. The BA pilots rightly feel aggrieved with their pay and conditions and that is due to the management not respecting them and their skills. If the new leadership in BA has any sense, and we will find out nearer the time, then they will negotiate and reach a settlement that both sides find acceptable. I doubt anyone will be happy but whatever BA manage to achieve for themselves will set the standard for the rest of the airlines in the UK.

Anyone who calls the pilots greedy is not a pilot themselves. If we are comparing chalk and cheese then lets compare baggage handlers to bond traders. Now there’s a difference in salary to compare. Oh, lets not forget consultants, lawyers, surgeons, IT specialists etc.

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: Sir Algernon Scruggs ]

Isn't it remarkable that when company directors vote themselves big salary increases, bonuses etc, it is necessary to attract the best talent. When the lower orders ask for above inflation increases they are greedy, irreponsible and much more.
Go for it BA pilots.

Well said bigmac and Sir Scruggs. Roderick Eddington is right now grinning about the 165,000 share options (at £3.21 per share) that the rest of the board voted him last week!

I would like to say that Ms A Jameson deserves a B+ for her article. As far as journos writing about pilot's pay is concerned, she did a pretty good job.

The situation at BA is quite simple. Despite what the BA spokeswoman says, we are having a hard time recruiting experienced pilots and now, even retaining pilots.

Most of us who fly for BA have shares in the airline and we are very keen for the compay to do well. During the Gulf war we took a 5% pay cut to help out the company and we have done our best to restructure and implement the Business Efficiency Program. We have seen our productivity and hours flown increase yet our P60s and days off decrease. At our last pay deal we were sold out by Balpa (1.?% increase), who were still trying to work in partnership with BA, yet BA managed to find the money to give CSDs a 5.6% pay rise. We are now being subjected to more and more disciplinaries and our sickness is even being closely monitored to make sure that we work as close to 900 hours per year as possible.

Flight Ops can find the money to offer starting pay of £85,000 to IT managers and give them date of birth (rather than date of joining) seniority for Staff Travel, yet a 20 year BA Captain is on a salary of £76,854pa (not £110K) and is responsible for 100s of lives, $220,000,000 worth of company assets (a 747-400) and $1 billion of liability.

Rod Eddington is 100% correct when he complains that BA is suffering from a silo mentality. Each department is only concerned about its own costs and not the overall cost to the airline. As a result of paying managers bonuses for handling their own budget, the big picture has been lost.

Many of us feel that enough is enough. We no longer feel charitable for the greater good. Why should we work harder for less only to see the savings thrown away by other departments? At least the City sees our value and importance: "Pilots have a lot of power. They can stop an airline overnight and they can wipe out a year's profits in weeks...".

When you look at BA's turnover, it is amazing that our profits are so poor. Yet many of BA's pilots now earn less than pilots at Ryanair and Easy. Much of BA's core work has been contracted out, yet our employee numbers keep growing.

At Waterside (company HQ) people show up for work at 10.30am and then head home at 2.30pm. By 4pm the place is deserted. Go and see it for yourselves if you don't believe me! Sadly BA's modern management practices are such that if you only require 4-5 hours to do your work then fair enough. Well I say put in a full 8 hour day and lets reduce the number of time wasters and leeches who are bleeding this company dry.

Yes, sadly there is a storm on BA's horizon. And it is of their own doing. BA's pilots are a dedicated and hard working group but we have had enough of being taken advantage of. An extra 10% would only go about 1/3 of the way towards getting us back on side.

Gentlemen. We here at CX are undergoing our greatest trial ever. It is being made far more difficult thanks to the efforts of one Tony Tyler. He is apparantly joining BA at the end of August. This man makes Joseph Goebbels look like a rank amateur. He is a liar out of all proportion. He is guilty of demonising the pilots of CX in the local HK press. This man is ruthless, and will stop at nothing to discredit the aircrew in any dispute or negotiations. There is no lie too big, no tactic too dirty that he won't employ in the pursuit of victory. Make sure that you have the BEST public relations firm employed before your pay negotiations. You WILL need it! This man gives new meaning to the word 'loathsome', and you MUST be ready for the coming battle. Best wishes from CX. :mad:

The Resistance - I had heard rumours regarding TTs arrival at BA. I'm certain that he will get along well with our new Chief Pilot. :eek: It looks as though the executioners have been put in place!

IT is losing 100 contract workers and BA is also after Cabin Services to cut £18,000,000 in costs (easily done but that's another topic ;) ). I suspect that BA will try to pre-empt our contract negotiations with threats of more cuts and increased productivity, etc. This will cancel out our demands for >10% and we will end up with the usual RPI deal. Or so they would like to think. How much would a strike cost BA?

If only we had management like at SAS who have awarded their pilots with 19% over 2 years, whilst avoiding a damaging war of words leading to possible industrial action.

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: Hot Wings ]

=Just thought I would play devils advocate.

Maybe BA needs to trim costs so they can pay pilots more. I hope so because I hope to join them one day... as a pilot..before anybody asks.

Hot Wings - personally, I agree with you regarding the huge pay awards made to certain airline CEOs. As I said earlier, it's a team effort - and that applies from the top down. Given that the buck should stop with the CEO, I'd say that they should do what Herb Kelleher has done on occasions and have nil pay and profit share. Now that's putting your money where your mouth is!

I'm currently in Atlanta, and had a very interesting discussion this evening in a restaurant near the airport with several DL pilots about their recent pay award; their working conditions and their external business interests.

In my opinion, productivity should be the yardstick against which performance is judged. Look at the Southwest (and Ryanair) people - they manage many more rotations (and correspondingly hours in the air) than their equivalents in the likes of BA. FR crews are, apparently, amongst the best paid crews today. I have no problems with that at all - they work damn hard for it! However, there are other carriers where that isn't the case - especially on long haul flights. How much time, in each flight, is actually spent hands-on flying the aircraft? Not a lot. Pilots today are largely systems monitors - and to state otherwise is naive. The safety of the aircraft, frankly, rests with the cabin crew and the air traffic controllers - both of whom are remarkably poorly paid.

Like it or not, we are in an economic downturn/recession and that means that all costs need to be cut to the bone.

And for those of you out there that think that they can blackmail their employer into caving in to excessive pay demands, I have two words:

Aerolineas Argentinas.

There, the pilots thought that they could force the management into paying them more; so they struck. A couple of days later, the company was out of cash - so it folded. Those pilots went from having a job (albeit one that was not, in their opinion, paying enough) to having no job at all. Rather more seriously, none of their colleagues have jobs, either.

Do you really want that on your conscience?

The Guvnor,

You really have excelled yourself this time-

"Pilots today are largely systems monitors - and to state otherwise is naive. The safety of the aircraft, frankly, rests with the cabin crew and the air traffic controllers - both of whom are remarkably poorly paid. "

What about the cleaners, if they did'nt turn up on a turnaround we could possible depart overweight and end up as a smoldering wreck at the end of the runway.

But then again who would find themselves in court, not the cleaners.

I've always given you some slack for some of your previous idiotic posts but this really is crass stupidity.

The Guvnor crept from beneath his stone and scribbled in the sand:

<<In my opinion, productivity should be the yardstick against which performance is judged.>>

Quite right.

<<Look at the Southwest (and Ryanair) people - they manage many more rotations (and correspondingly hours in the air) than their equivalents in the likes of BA.>>

Not, however, correct. By law here in the U.K., Pilots and Flight Engineers are only allowed to fly a maximum 900 hours a year. This is so that we don't become too tired and fatigued and fly into mountains etc.

In B.A., some pilots have had to be taken off service because they've reached that 900 hour limit. I would suggest that this shows we *are* productive, and more so than the majority of other airlines.

<<Pilots today are largely systems monitors - and to state otherwise is naive. >>

Not naive. Tell me, are you actually in the flying business, or are you just someone with an axe to grind and an overwhelming compulsion to show the rest of the world that you have no knowledge of aviation?

<<The safety of the aircraft, frankly, rests with the cabin crew and the air traffic controllers - both of whom are remarkably poorly paid.>>

Ah, right. Delusional as well. Tell you what, next time you are on an aircraft and it has the misfortune to lose an engine, why don't you suggest to the crew that a stewardess pop up to the flight deck and take control of the situation?

Oh, come on TwoTun - at least read my post properly. :rolleyes: I didn't say anything at all about hours, I said rotations which means that they are getting higher utilisation out of their aircraft and crews - which is what makes them profitable and other people not.

In what way, exactly, would you (or wooof) disagree with my statement that pilots are largely systems monitors?

And Wooof - how far do you think you'd legally be able to fly a loaded pax aircraft without cabin crew or ATC?

Cleaners are optional (though a dirty aircraft tends to put off the pax). ATC and cabin crew aren't.

Unless you disagree with this? :D :D :D

Guvnor,

I think comparisons between BA and Aerolineas Argentinas are a bit off the mark. BA will not collapse after two days of striking but I think the company are probably sensible enough to realise that if they don't make a good offer (they are able to afford considerably better than RPI), then they can forget about making a profit for the rest of the year!

Airforcenone - all points agreed with! However, my points were as follows:

1) We're in an economic down-turn/recession therefore companies need to cut, not add, costs (something that BA could do with its excessive management structure, for example) - and which it's already doing by cutting back on contract personnel; and

2) There's no justification for flight deck to think that they should be given a higher % increase than anyone else at BA - that's just divisive. When it comes down to the crunch as I've said before, it's a team effort and if any part of that team withdraws their involvement then the whole team suffers.

Make hay whilst the sun's shining - not whilst it's p!ss!ing with rain! :D :D :D

The Guvnor, let me try to be the first to react to your latest crazy remarks by imposing an immediate 100% increase in your council tax.

Guvnor,

As 'hands-on groundstaff' I find your 'part of a team' comments laudable and agree to most of your points, however I realise that the only groups that can really cause major problems are both Flight, Cabin Crew and to a lesser extent the Engineers. This view is widely acknowledged throughout the Airline, but makes groundstaff feel vulnerable. It would be great to be treated as equals when it comes to pay awards or benefits etc etc, but I'm realistic and accept that it'll never be. The first casualty from any conflict is the truth, the next piece of collateral shrapnel normally takes out the helpless groundstaff.

Guvnor

Please read Sir Algernon Scruggs last post about relative values and stop bleating on about it.

It is evident that you don't like pilots but I have a theory. You actually realise our full worth and you resent it. On the one hand we are probably (together with engineers) the single most decisive factor where safety is concerned; which is paramount to running a marketable airline. Secondly, the fact that experienced pilots are difficult to come by forces you to make your job offer attractive; and that costs you money. You enjoy the freedoms of capitalism but you would withold it from others.

I think that any respect you ever had in this website depletes with your every post, every time.

Magplug

I think you'll find that the single largest expense in an airline is the fuel bill!

Guvnor,
Some of your comments on this thread may come back to haunt you when you finally get your tinpot airline off the ground. You already seem to have defined yourself as a management dinosaur that nobody likes. Consequently there wont be too many naiive systems monitors knocking on your office door for a job.

Norman Stanley,
Couple of things about your referances to BA cadets. Firstly, luck isn't a factor, cadets are offered a place because they are selected to have the abilities that BA are looking for. The only people who disagree with that who I have come across are a few bitter individuals who were rejected. Secondly, if you are fortunate to have sponsorship, it doesn't automatically mean you have to become a corporate kiss a$$. I was a cadet pilot and I, nor any other cadet pilot I know are inefficient to the tune of 21 grand. I do my job well, and I think I am underpaid for what I do. Whimpering? No, I just understand my value, and I am worth more than what I am getting now.

ear2ground - as a customer's first point of contact, I happen to think that ground staff are actually very important people. The way that the check in staff and CSAs treat the pax will be their initial - and save some radical problems or outstanding service on board - will form the pax's overall impression of the airline. The buck starts with you guys!

Secret Squirrel - wrong. I don't like anyone - whether they be pilots, engineers, ground staff or baggage handlers - thinking that they are more important than the rest of the team; and demanding to play by their own rules.

As I have said several times on this and the BA thread there's a world of difference between different pay scales (and yes, pilots will always be paid more than engineers or cabin crew) and what we're discussing here which is substantially higher pay demands than those for the rest of the team.

Understand where I'm coming from now? :rolleyes:

Whats_it_doing_now 300+ applications and counting, thank you for asking. :D :D :D

Perhaps you chaps should do what I did and get yourself a copy of Nuts!, the story of Herb Kelleher and Southwest Airlines. Another good one is Gordon Bethune's autobiography.

Now, that's how you run an airline!

I just could not resist exposing some ignorance (denial) of pilot productivity to the bright light of a Tennessee (US) day. I'm sure BA flies some short legs as we do, and many flights must be in very busy airspace, not to mention accents to deal with. As for the handy phrase ('sound byte') "systems monitors"-very superficial, and as for long haul vs short haul-anyone who has flown the short legs in the older two-pilot planes, especially in a B-737, DC-9 or F-100 (just like in the smaller regional aircraft) etc understands which pilots are the most productive. In terms of how many legs are flown (yep, I know, pushing 250-400 seats thru bumpy skies is also quite productive), the workload is larger as aircraft size/leg-length decreases. This is often not well-known to those who work outside a two-person cockpit (or flew mostly as part of a three-person crew).

We who do this often sweaty job flying the short legs with no rest periods truly understand who the busiest pilots are, when multiple checklists, airspeed, altitude and heading vectors... must be complied with, catching blocked/cut-out radio calls with new clearances and guesses (yes) as to how adequate the arrival fuel will be while often worsening weather are all intermixed in a rushed operation. Sometimes five or six of these short legs are equal to less than eight total block hours of flying-but result in a very long day. Many times more fatiguing than a typical daytime long-haul flight.

Even long-haul flying in itself is known to be fatiguing, not including circadian body clock problems...

Some ignorance of these topics among laymen is normal, but such implied ignorance from a former DC-8 (or other such long-haul aircraft) pilot etc. can only consist of denial in order to attempt to support an arguement which rests on the flimsiest foundation. The pilots who fly the line DO the job with their hands and can't be swayed by such 'Kuhscheisse'. Use it as fertilizer on your flowers.

Good luck BA pilots. To Lufthansa's Vereinigung Cockpit, sehr gut gemacht... weiter so!

[ 16 July 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[ 16 July 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

People,like GVNR, picture pilots sitting in comfy seats eating ,drinking and checking out the best view in the house.
They never see the same pilot at the end of a long-haul flight awake when others are asleep, or trying to sleep when the rest are awake.

They have no idea what it is like to blat around Europe in Winter, with poor weather, air traffic (and delays) for multiple sectors.

They do not realise that in no other profession is one's career examined so exhaustively. 2 medicals, 2 base checks, and a line check each year which can be FAILED!

Yet,if one of these people happened to be onboard an aircraft which suffered an emergency and the crew brought the flight to a safe conclusion, I wonder if their attitude towards pilots would change?

I somehow doubt it! They would say "That is what they are paid to do". AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT!

Fellow Aviators

I am new to this site and have had the great pleasure reading what my fellow colleagues have to say. Quite enlightening at times. Until that is I happened upon the idiotic comments of the “Guv”. He/She seems to be well known, I on the other hand have no idea who this person is. Let me add that I have no desire to meet such an A%$.
Frere’s please do not humour his pathetic comments and arguments with justification of our worth. Pass on your comments to your unions and let these matters be discussed in the correct forums.

To Mr/Miss/Mrs Guv
If indeed you have 300 applicants may I be so humble as to suggest you occupy your time with reading into these alleged CV’s and not contaminate an otherwise fruitful thread with your divisive drivel.

The Guvnor spouted forth:

<<Oh, come on TwoTun - at least read my post properly. I didn't say anything at all about hours, I said rotations which means that they are getting higher utilisation out of their aircraft and crews - which is what makes them profitable and other people not.>>

To remind about a previous post of yours, you said:

<<Look at the Southwest (and Ryanair) people - they manage many more rotations (and correspondingly hours in the air) than their equivalents in the likes of BA.>>

See - you did say something about hours. Don't berate me for having a go at you when you can't remember what you put in previous posts, old chap.

You also went on to say:
<<In what way, exactly, would you (or wooof) disagree with my statement that pilots are largely systems monitors? >>

How about the fact that I've been flying since 1973, and I don't consider pilots to be "Systems Monitors"?

:rolleyes: