GB Pilots to join BA?
 

Rumour has it that GB pilots are to be added to BA's pilot seniority list in due course. Something to do with SCOPE, I believe. Anyone know anything about this?

SCOPE is the baby of BA CC (acting in close harmony with BALPA (the British Airways Line PIlots Association once again) who see it as a device to keep the platinum brigade in the postion to which they believe they have a birthright enjoying the plum routes equipment and Ts and Cs.

The unwashed masses in the regions operating franchises are seen as a threat to to their idle rich life style and represent a threat as they are prepared to do a day's work for inferior terms.

SCOPE at its most basic ensures that those of us who are not in mainline BA are kept in our places and are denied the opportunity to fly anything bigger than 70 or 100 seats unless we are considered "the right stuff" by BA criteria. (Forget it if you are a TP driver....you don't even exist!)

Oh yes....SCOPE is "a two way valve" allowing the flow of piots from the Franchises into BA and vice versa.........B*?!cks it is!!!
Look at the small print.

Dont fall for it guys!!

Didn't understand a word of that !!!

Bit bitter are we TINYTIM???

Scope is essential to all BA pilots to keep BA's work within BA and not allow the work to be franchised out.

In its basic form it also keeps pilots jobs for uk pilots- bet your interested now!

I'm one of the "platinum" brigade and have earnt my right to be there via loyalty. I resent your remarks.

Tinytim,

I think you have summarised SCOPE rather well!

I'm sure we can all understand the guys at BA wishing to preserve/improve whatever they have going for them - who wouldn't?

Anyway, my understanding is that the franchises themselves have come in for much scrutiny following the "Future Size & Shape" report, which has caused much concern in many departments.

I believe that the BA CC are effectively preventing GB from further expansion by preventing the transfer of further loss-making routes to them, something which has apparently been to the benefit of both companies since the dawn of franchising.

The GB management/owners will have to decide where their best interests lie & are apparently considering "doing a deal" with the BA CC to break the impasse.

The carrot to the GB pilots is, of course, the promise of mainline pay, T & Cs etc. not to mention access to all that BA has to offer. Just the thing to drive up costs in these ultra-competitive times, but in line with BA's history of throwing money at problems!

Certainly, access by BA pilots to the franchise flying would be a major part of the deal - whether it would work quite so well in the other direction is another matter!

Watch this space!

Thanks Cruisin Level !!

You fell right into the trap posed by my provocative post and thereby made my point exactly for me!!

No one's asking you and your mates to give anything away. But we sure as hell don't want to be told by someone (particularly someone enjoying a highly privileged position within the Industry) who doesn't work for our company what we can and cannot fly or what we will be paid to do it.

TinyGuy I think you are deluding yourself, or at least believe the management propaganda. Wouldn't mind a move to GB myself as it would be an improvement over life at BA Gatwickland.

Oh, and you might get a bit defensive yourself when YOUR management find people to work in YOUR company on inferior T's and C's.

Harry

p.s. BA is pants, just a matter of time before a better offer comes along.

Tiny Tim

Or did you just fall into my trap????

Your bitterness is outstanding! Lifes not all roses at BA you know. Or are you naive enough to think it is?

tinytim

so you've seen the proposed SCOPE agrement then?and read the small print that you intimate having knowledge off?

I thought not...
jumbo

The unwashed masses in the regions operating franchises are seen as a threat to to their idle rich life style and represent a threat as they are prepared to do a day's work for inferior terms.

Quite! Although at least we're working hard in the regions covering your (our?) work instead of sitting around waiting for broken Embraers to be fixed again. "Ooops, broken again, better go home". Remind me again, are you employed as airline pilots or rental car drivers?


I believe that the BA CC are effectively preventing GB from further expansion by preventing the transfer of further loss-making routes to them, something which has apparently been to the benefit of both companies since the dawn of franchising

Sadly wrong. Firstly its not our fault the routes are losing money, its the ineptitude and overheads of Waterworld that are hurting them. You are welcome to the routes if you think you can make them profitable, but only if you're going to take a proportionate share of the Waterside staff and costs. What were not happy to let you do is cherry-pick those routes and then leave us with fewer routes to support the same Waterside mass. Secondly the purpose of franchises is to develop routes to a stage where the parent carrier can operate them profitably, then the franchise goes and develops new routes. Thats expansion, what you propose is nothing more than route theft. The purpose of the franchise is not to mask corporate waste and inefficiency in the parent carrier by allowing them to easily attribute costs to the wrong people (flight/cabin crew). Perhaps you can explain why GB can operate the MPL route at a profit the day after EOG cut it, despite the fact that GB pay their flight and cabin crew almost exactly the same money as EOG?

I am just loving this !!!

Really, BA boys!!!..... Face up to the facts.... Your CC are acting like dogs in a manger trying desperately to preserve by industrial "agreement" what by the operation of the open market they could not otherwise sustain.

You are overpaid, underworked and pampered compared with the rest of our industry in the UK plus the market dosn't want your product anymore.

Now that you've been rumbled SCOPE is being wheeled out to enable you to take more of the available pie for yourselves to the detriment of the rest of us.

SCOPE is about GREED pure and simple.

SCOPE as proposed belongs to the dark ages of industrial relations when inefficiencies and anti-competitive practises were jealously guarded to the long term destruction of those very jobs that the exponents of those practises were trying to preserve. Remember the chaos in the printing and dock industries a couple of decades ago? (You probably are too young). Well, what you are proposing is no different.....

Understandibly your CC are dead chuffed to have installed an unashamedly militant and pro BA man in the top slot at Balpa and so it is perhaps understandable that having taken over Balpa they think that they can dictate to the rest of the industry.

I look forward so much to your replies!!!!!

Oh, I get it...... BA franchised GB to build up routes so that they could take them off them when they'd made them profitable! :rolleyes: And as for GB pilots getting paid the same as EOG - £10k + allowances and a final salary pension - I think not!!!

Don't even waste your breath on this headbanger! Keep it in house (where this aggressive, abusive troublemaker is excluded)! Look at the profile! Hiding behind anonymity whilst being so aggressively contrary is a worrying feature!

Tinytim,

Once again, you make many valid points about the purpose of SCOPE.

Naturally, the guys at BA don't like being told the facts of commercial life - but when your back is up against the wall, what can you do?

Hand Solo,

The franchisees do not cherry-pick. They do not go in & audit BA's entire network & decide which routes they like the look of. They look at what is being offered to them by BA, these being the routes that BA no longer consider viable. They then make a decision to take the route on, or not, based on it's commercial potential to the franchisee.

For this, they pay BA huge sums of money - a flat fee for the "honour" of being a franchisee & support services, plus an ongoing cut of the revenue from ticket sales. They certainly do not get anything for nothing. In addition to this risk-free revenue, BA get a continued presence on the route, keeping their face known & providing competition for those who would prefer that BA weren't there at all. They also have their own overheads to pay for.

You don't seriously believe that the function of a franchise is to pep-up an ailing route for BA & then hand it back to them, do you? Maybe in BizzaroLand!

How do you know whether or not GB is making a profit on the MPL route? If they are, good for them, maybe you can learn something from them!

With regard to flight crew & cabin crew salaries, a comparison of payslips during a stopover might be revealing. If the pay is so good at GB, maybe SCOPE should be pushing for BA crews to be on GB payscales.

Anyway, this is rather getting away from the purpose of the original post, which was to invite comments & further information on the state of play regarding GB.

Is anyone willing to comment on the likelihood or otherwise of the entire GB pilot force being forced onto BA's seniority list in return for the co-operation of the BA CC?

I have to apologise for my colleague at BA CitiExpress tinytim (stature or manhood?).

His posts on our company forum are as offensive mis-informed as the ones on this thread.

Most of us at BACX dont give a toss who flys what as long as we get paid on time and we don't get 'managed' out of business by the Waterside lot.

If tinytim wants to fly BA's toys then he should go through the selection procedure like the rest of you lot did. I never applied because I couldn't be bothered filling in the application form and frankly didn't understand half the questions anyway. Perhaps the the form was the first aptitude test.

Regarding scope; if all company councils had a rigid scope agreements like the BA CC apparently does then I guess Gatwick would not be littered with foreign registered 767's painted in Excel colours and the airways wouldn't be occupied by Canadian Skyservice A320's under Kestrel callsigns. Excel and My Travel would be forced to use UK crews and aircraft and tinytim could get a job with either of them and poison their company forums instead of ours and this one.

Bat.man
 

Agree wholeheartedly. BALPA wouldn't be such a waste of time if they actually represented BRITISH pilots instead of justBA pilots. mytravel are using American,canadian crews and are using foreign(Belgian) contract pilots, whom they are considering keeping on permenently rather than hire UK guys and girls. It's about time BALPA stood up for our industry as a whole and not just for one section.

That's quite a slur on BALPA that I don't think is justified. BALPA has struggled in a very difficult environment (UK aviation) to represent all pilots interests in the best way it can. At the end of the day, BALPA is just an Association of pilots all doing what they can for their respective Company Councils in a very hostile anti-union environment with very powerful anti-union legislation. There's not a lot else working for us!

Batman, thank you for the background. Sounds like the young gentleman has problems & likes his 'sauce' too much! Perhaps when he wakes up he may start deleting!

This all sounds like that bloke who "fiddled" while Rome burned.
Get real chaps, the losses are mounting the cheapskate operators are booming and all you can talk about is relative seniority.

If BA long haul folds, are you seriously suggesting that the BA "main line"pilots should have a claim to a job with GB Air?

You betcha! It's always been seen as a nice little job to 'unwind' in on retirement from BA - I get the feeling that it's a case of 'that looks anice job, I'll have some of that!'. BA CC don't seem to be making such a noise about wanting to go to Kyrgystan, Beirut and Addis Abbaba.

I doubt that GB pilots would want to get involved in combining with BA pilots. They (GB)presently work for a company that is profitable and is sensibly managed by its owners. The franchise lasts for another 6 years, and then GB are free to work independently, or sign up with another airline(easyjet?airfrance?whatever).
Why get more closely involved with a once proud airline that is creaking with bad luck(sep11), militancy and mismanagement. BA has debts of £5.9bn and two-thirds of its income is being used just to pay the interest bills. BA can't afford to keep their present route structure on that kind of financial base - it has to shrink and that means less pilots. GB pilots would insist on being equals on a merged list to avoid being at the bottom of a shrinking combined business. Pruners all know that BA BALPA would not agree, because they wouldn't understand the significance of GB bringing a profitable and independent operation to the party.
The final point, of course, is that the owners of the airline call the tune at GB - not the workforce.

It's funny I thought SCOPE was all about

British Airways Pilots wanting to fly any aircraft painted in British Airways Colours operating British Airways Services

be it Longhaul, Shorthaul, Passenger, or Cargo.

Mb.

SCOPE is an abberation to the modern-day world. Regardless of how you apportion overheads or anything else, I would challenge anyone to categorically state that BA's costbase is lower than that of GB or other franchises on a like-for-like basis.

There are some routes within BA which are absolute basket-cases and certainly were (not so long ago) losing so much money that they had no right to be in existence. Take Gatwick-Bilbao, for instance. Scope clauses dictate that there is no problem with BA dumping that poorly-performing route, but there is a problem with GB Airways taking it over if GB believes that it can make a profit on it. The provisions of scope mean that BA would prefer to dump a route and let a non-BA competitor take it over and make a profit on it rather than allowing a company close to home to do so, thereby still contributing franchise fees and connecting traffic revenues to BA coffers and maintaining a BA presence on the route.

BA and its unions are neither tackling the inherent problem of BA's costbase which means that it cannot make money on routes where others can; and its fall-back option is to yield routes to its competitors to make a profit out of it due to scope. How can this be in the interests of anyone other than BA's competitors?

And before anyone harps on at me about BA's costbase, just look at the industrial agreements over and above CAP371 within which BA crews (both flight and cabin) work. That, coupled to the bid system, has to cost money which is part of the problem.

Oh, where to start?

Flightrider:-
And before anyone harps on at me about BA's costbase, just look at the industrial agreements over and above CAP371 within which BA crews (both flight and cabin) work. That, coupled to the bid system, has to cost money which is part of the problem

CAP371 says no more than 900 hours per year. Paul Douglas (Very Senior BA Flight Ops manager) quoted in The Times this week as saying that even with no industrial agreements they couldn't get more than about 720 hours per year out of short haul LHR pilots. Thats what working at a busy airport means. Have you ever worked out of LHR? I clocked 650+ hours last year in a quietish regional airport doing short sectors, I'd easily make 720 given a bigger proportion of long sectors. And what do you say to the long haul guys who reach 900 hours after 10 months?

Fiftyfour - BA is undoubtedly mismanaged, but how succesful do you think GB would be without access to the BA brand? I've heard a thousand times that you pay a franchise fee for it, but BA mainline are operating with one hand tied behind their back because of the cost of Waterside. You get a damn good deal out of that franchise fee and I suspect it doesn't even come near to a proportionate cost of keeping the BA bureacracy running

HolyMoley - the naff destinations haven't escaped our attention. I'd remind you that Tehran, Baku and Almaty were all once BA destinations, and Almaty was a very popular trip.

Lou Scannon - if BA long haul folds then so does BA and the brand, which puts GB in big trouble as well (not to mention BMed, Maersk UK and BACE)

Mialo - Its the BA BALPA CC thats turning the screw on BA on the scope issue. If you want to be rid of Skyservice then ask yourself what the Airtours CC are doing to stop it.

Miss Inform-

The franchisees do not cherry-pick....
They look at what is being offered to them by BA, these being the routes that BA no longer consider viable. They then make a decision to take the route on, or not, based on it's commercial potential to the franchisee.

Sounds like a good definition of cherry picking to me.


You don't seriously believe that the function of a franchise is to pep-up an ailing route for BA & then hand it back to them, do you
No. The function of a franchise is to develop routes which cannot be viably served by the major airline using smaller aircraft. When or if the route can sustain a larger aircraft operated by the major the route returns to them. A franchise should not operate identical or even larger equipment to the major.
I dont need a comparison of pay scales, Norman Stanley Fletcher made it quite clear what he earns as a GB FO on another thread, which is more than most of my peers, both DEP and CEP.


Tinytim - against my better judgement I'll rise to your pathetic goading. If the market doesn't want our product any more (high fare, high quality, reliable, frequent service on comfortable aircraft), then where does that leave you (high fare, low quality, grossly unreliable (leading to) infrequent service on tiny uncomfortable cigar tubes)?

Hand:

Once again you have struck the nail fully home.

Tiny Tim: I've flown on those things against my will and I can't for the life of me understand how any business user faced with the choice of a BA (full-fare) franchise using them versus a full-fare proper airliner (eg MID) would ever plump for the cigar tube.

PS:

I've also in the recent past made arrangements NOT to position on the 'regional' jet - I'd rather take the train.

Well done everyone!

Over the past few years BALPA as a whole has overseen the general decline of our T & C’s and standing within the industry. The industry is recovering fast after September 11th and the budget airlines are booming. There are plenty of passengers who want to fly with airlines like BA, for many very valid reasons. There is an upcoming shortage of experienced pilots. In short we should be in a very strong bargaining position.

So what do we as a collective workforce do? Do we get together to increase our effectiveness and present a united front? No…we bicker like children and call each other names. BRILLIANT.

The airline managers must be laughing all the way to the bank.

BALPA is the only hope for the pilot workforce. The fees demanded from pilots are high and BALPA must start giving us value for money.

Remember the title of the thread everyone? GB pilots to join BA?

It makes good commercial sense to pool a body of 737 pilots and Airbus pilots into the same group to save on rostering issues and training costs etc. All I hope for is that our BALPA representatives incorporate Bid Line into the joint agreement and avoid divisive aspects such as single base agreements. Let us work together.

Hand Solo
 

I agree wholeheartedly with you re: Airtours C.C. However I am
very disapointed that BALPA the "union" do not make this more of an issue with airline management, the CAA and the UK Govt. Individual councils need the weight of the Union behind them and I am not sure they get it, except BA. I may be wrong but thats my opinion.

If that Scouse Rat, Jet A1 comes anywhere near my company the safety implications will be disastrous, I don't mind buying the big issue off of you boys every now with a bit of spare change to help you out but I see no reason why we should give you the company silver!!

Seriously though, I would look forward to a few Malaga, Moroccan lay over days.

My interest in this thread is because I rate GB as a company very much and thinking of applying to them when recruiting pilots again. From their accounts and performance I see a well run Company with good housekeeping. However, as a relative newcomer to this side of the aviation business I didn't realise that CC was short for Company Council

As a way to lighten up this thread its far more interesting if you follow my mistake and read "Cabin Crew" for CC. :confused:

PS BAs long financial mismanagement which I with other businesses watched with interest and sadness for many years, will take a lot of unravelling and time to get right. I wish Rod all the luck. He needs it.

Hand Solo,

You wrote:-

"The function of a franchise is to develop routes which cannot be viably served by the major airline using smaller aircraft. When or if the route can sustain a larger aircraft operated by the major the route returns to them. A franchise should not operate identical or even larger equipment to the major."

Well, clearly GB are not playing by your rules - they have been operating B737-300/400 & A320/321 on the same routes as BA before them, who were using pretty much identical equipment!

Also, as far as I am aware, GB have not returned even 1 such route to BA in all the time that they have held a franchise, despite achieving considerable success on many of those routes.

How do those cheeky chappies get away with it???

As a GB pilot who is delighted to work for them, I have to admit to feeling slightly unnerved by 'Big Brother' in the form of the BA Company Council breathing down our neck.

The apparent paranoia of the BA CC in identifying GB (among others) as 'the enemy within', without recognising that the real battle lies with the Low Cost Airlines at Gatwick has a familiar ring to it. This posturing is very reminiscing of Stalin purging all his key army staff immediately before facing the German onslaught, and discovering the very people he needed to fight for him had all been killed by his own hand. We could, and indeed wish to be, rock solid allies to BA in what is turning out to be a very hostile world. Why on earth do you want to attack us and not easyJet or Ryanair? That is where the real battle lies - not with us. You need every friend you can get right now, and friends come in many guises.

It is unrealistic to expect GB to shoulder some of BA's self-induced costs at Waterworld. GB is a very efficient airline who is sharing the burden of the fight in head-to-head conflict with easyJet which BA just cannot do at the moment. A number of these cheap deals that BA are offering right now are because we are operating a lean, mean operation that can support them.

Even the most ambitious GB management type wants the comany to grow to 19 Airbuses. They will directly support BA and make money on routes that you can never make work. If you carry on the way you are going, you will alienate your franchises and they will end up getting franchise deals with other companies who will see them for the value they offer.

As a last thought, the plans that are being agreed between the GB and BA CCs are just that - plans by some union mates in a smoke-filled room over beer and sandwiches. I note that buried deep within the newsletter we were sent by the GB CC on the subject was a sentence mentioning they had neglected to contact Mr Gaggero (GB's owner) to discuss the wholesale donation of all his pilots to BA. I imagine the man himself might not be best pleased at such an omission! Similarly the BA CC have not got the slightest agreement from their management on the subject. Perhaps all this talk is a bit previous.

Therefore, to all you blokes at BA - we really are on your side, and I suggest you need all the friends you can get right now

I've heard all of this before - from CFE pilots. Not surprisingly though, once they got on to the BA seniority list they couldn't stop themselves from bidding on to the 744 or 777!

So, Hot Wings, what would you rather them do.....sit down then roll over?

I am just flabbergasted at the misinformation and prejudice being displayed here. I don't think GB is biting the hand that feeds it, rather ensuring that the reputation of the national carrier is in some small way enhanced by offering as good a service as possible at a reasonable cost to the punter. So why are some (note the some) elements within mainline hell bent at wanting the penny and the bun (and the Bakery while we're at it)? If you want to fly GB routes, fly for GB......!

Hotwings
Yes, but one doesn't exactly have a lot of options if some smart alec at BA decides to move the fleet on which one operates out of your base airport. What exactly were the CFE pilots supposed to do - obediently follow the RJs to MAN & BHX?

Hand Solo
And you believe Paul Douglas?

Quick question for those in the know???

How does BA vet the standard of pilot when they introduce them onto the BA seneority list ?

Surely BA must be worried about any real or perceived dilution of standards to their much admired pilot standards.

Does/should BA only employ certain pilots who can "make the grade"?

Would TinyTim make the grade for example?

I know my answer!!!

You Arrogant, Ignorant little person
 

:rolleyes: For heavens sake, what do you mean????
I am a turboprop base trainer on the BACX turboprop fleet. I have had direct contact and involvement in training some of your so called people over the last six months or so. Shall we discuss the ones who had to be RTB'd for further training, the ones who needed to do extra training, the ones who failed the technical exams, the one's who STILL can't land an aircraft consistently????? Yes it's a bit different actually FLYING as opposed to the systems operation you practise back at BA mainline.
Pass the recruitment system, (Roars of hysterical, lego-based laughter!!!!) All you need is a contact, or relative in the system. I passed without, mind you, but decided to ignore the call when it came, having got to know the Airline Industry a little better by then.

Having been involved in training your cadets and DEPs, I have all the names, little man. Believe me, it is a well known fact that our standards have been diluted by the introduction of so-called mainline expertise.

The complex issues you mention??? Don't make me laugh! You are referring to the selfish egotistical attitude of mainline, who are unable to see anything except the preservation of their own Ts and Cs as they were relevant to a previous, profitable age. You are completely insensitive to any discussion of a subject which may force you to admit that BA mainline is no longer the Worlds Fave (if indeed it ever was outside the Saatchi offices) and no longer profitable, and hence logically that something will have to change - but it won't be you, my cuddly litle dinosaur, will it. Remember Tunguska, it is approaching again!

I grant you that your management are difficult to define as such, given that they have managed to ruin the profitability of three Regionals who used to make a lot of money, and now, they/you are starting in on the Franchisees.
You and your management deserve each other, the tragedy is that you are both dragging so many of us, - (who never wanted anything to do with you anyway!) - down with you with your spiteful, ignorant, short-sighted approach.

Go to hell, you and the horse you rode in on!

Tinytim can at least fly an aeroplane, which is more than you can say for most of the BA people we have had to adopt.

:mad:

Well THAT raised the temperature a little bit didn't it? Might I suggest we cool down un peu? And if we HAVE to discuss it on an open forum rather than private, stick to the point and be nice bunnies to each other, not like the instigator of this thread and the supporter (I am still suspicious they are not two separate people) set the scene. I really don't think there is any further point discussing in public, certainly not resorting to open abuse.

Crusin Level - there is the odd example of someone who fails BA's training and goes to work for another airline only to end up back at BA a few years later. Thats just the nature of the beast. Anyway, its easy to fail someone on a check - we all have our breaking point!

As far as failing the selection is concerned, I have met a couple of interviewers/ selectors with very big anti-DEP, anti-RAF, anti-anything but Hamble chips on their shoulders. As with any company there are some people that should have been hired and a few odd-balls that slip through the net.

With regards to the bidding, etc... of the ex-CFE pilots is concerned, I just wish that people would put their money where their mouth is. Why not just bid for 737s at LGW or follow the RJ? Many of us remember Andy Walker's anti-BA tirade in the BALPA news letter. He even went as far as to slag off our staff canteens, yet right now he's probably enjoying the fine cuisine rather than eating at Harry's keebab van around the corner. And he probably bid for Concorde!

i also agree it was a little harsh!! but the reality is, there are quite a few that had failed BA interviews and/or sims while at CFE and then presto, were BA pilots due to company merges. the same is with GB, there are a LARGE number that have failed BA selection but could also be joining through back door antics. remember, it is white collar management that are opening the door not tech operations!

If BigBrutha shaved off the handlebar moustache then looking down his nose at the rest of the world would be easier. ;)
Taking off the white gloves might give him more of a feel for the real world too...

Remember not everyone BA offers a job to takes it, and not all BA pilots are skygods. Other carriers have high standards too, maybe even higher than BA's - imagine that:eek:

Anyway, since its market value is higher why doesnt GB buy BA and make it as efficient as it is?