BA,BACX,BALPA-Conflict of interest?
 

The latest rumour doing the rounds at BACX is that the RJ's are no longer coming. This is due to negotiations between BA,BACX, and BALPA concluding that BACX will operate no aircraft larger than 70 seats and nothing out of a London airport.

If this is true thats fine. I can completely understand the mainline crews wanting to safeguard there position.

However, who is BALPA fighting for? I want RJ100's in BACX, it gives me and my colleagues greater variety of aircraft and therefore career enhancement.

Why has BALPA (who represents me in these negotiations) got any interest in these aircraft joining my company?

If I was cynical, I would say that the interests of BACX crews are not being looked after (in this instance).

BALPA most certainly has its place in our profession but I suspect a conflict of interest exists.

Redline

I have just got a newsletter from BACX CC explaining everything !............Makes VERY interesting reading.

Apparently our CC have told BA CC just where to go on Scope which is now a dead issue from CX's viewpoint!!!!

No question of any cosy deals ....far from it.

Interesting times

Hurrah for our CC
 

Our concerns about Scope.

1. If we accepted the proposal, we would be accepting that two pilots operating a CX aircraft would be doing the same job but one would be significantly better off than the other. (Without going into detail you will be aware that BA pilots enjoy better salaries, pension schemes, health care, travel and insurance benefits, bonuses preferential bidding and of course, retire at 55). We considered this to be a recipe for industrial disharmony if ever there was one. (You only have to look at the friction caused by the mixing of BAR cabin crew with our colleagues in MAN and BHX. It does not get much more stupid than that).

2. The idea of drawing any line based upon aircraft size was flawed. Whilst present market conditions might make the divisions proposed logical, who is to say that given changed circumstances it might only become economic to operate aircraft larger than 100 seats? (Look at the low cost operators - all operating 140 seaters for example.)

Yet CX would forever have surrendered its pilots' rights to fly anything larger. Referring again to the American experience, one has had the farcical situation of companies removing seats to stay within the constraints of Scope agreements. One also has to address the fact that our 146s straddle the dividing line already.



3. The idea that BA would have the right to impose its own pilots (the suggestion has been made one CX P1 for one BA P1) on each 70 to 99 seater operated by CX is highly unattractive to many of our pilots who might see “their” seat being taken by a BA pilot when they themselves either had no ambition to join BA or were otherwise not considered “suitable” to do so.

4. Many if not most of us fly in a regional airline as a matter of choice because we like the flying and the ability to live and work in a particular community. It is a lifestyle choice and for many, the prospect of operating long haul from LHR or LGW is of no appeal. The lack of appreciation of this has been a recurring theme throughout these discussions.

5. It has been made very clear to us that BA would retain the right to determine exactly which of you met their criteria as to “suitability” for transfer under the scheme into BA. In particular, they placed a substantial question mark against the ability of our turboprop pilots to meet their selection requirements. It was also far from clear that anyone from a turboprop fleet would be able to bid into BA under such a scheme.

Base training costs, Zero Flight time training qualifying requirements and historical conversion failure rates were some of the many barriers that were being held against even our most experienced pilots (thereby rendering such individuals as “unsuitable”). This is all the more extraordinary considering that BA put their own pilots, some with 250 hrs straight onto the flight-deck of medium sized jets.

6. The whole question of preservation and or extension of pension rights within the context of Scope is of itself a major and highly complex issue, which had not even begun to be considered.

Who might have benefited from Scope?

At its inception, the scheme would be open to suitably qualified jet Captains. Turboprop pilots were expressly excluded.

It is likely that the pre qualification would be at least three years jet P1. Of course anyone approaching 55 would be excluded.

A bid into BA would be a once in a lifetime bid and would be likely to have to be non-specific as to type, seat or base. (It is conceivable that a CX pilot on a 70 to 99 seater could end up flying that very aircraft he had been flying in CX but on BA terms!)

A quota system matching BA pilots into CX and vice versa would have to be devised.

(Bearing in mind that the BACC are trying to impose similar Scope deals on other franchises and, in the meantime, BA continue to recruit and train their own pilots and are likely to increase the Compulsory Retirement age, one has to ask oneself exactly where all the opportunities are going to come from? In reality it is your CCs view that the opportunities would be very few and far between.)

Our conclusions about Scope.

As a result of the debates we came to the conclusion that the proposals put to us might form the basis for developing discussions further with the BACC but that if Scope were to be effective it must be based on a partnership of two companies and not one company serving the interests of another.
In our opinion, the outline proposals put to us were seriously flawed and if the matter were to go any further we would need time to go away and starting with a clean sheet of paper, develop a concept of how we might see an arrangement working and what CX pilots might want out of it.

The fundamental principal to be established however before we could take the debate any further was that any Scope agreement “MUST OPEN UP ACCESS TO BA TO ALL, IN A FLOW BASED PURELY ON SENIORITY AND WITH NO OTHER DISCRIMINATION”.

Unfortunately this principle has not found favour with BA Management who continue to assert that they must have the right to discriminate against certain categories of pilot, in particular turboprop.

Much criticism has been made of BALPA and many of you will be very unhappy about the recent shenanigans over the election of the General Secretary and the perception that BALPA has lurched towards being seen as the British Airways Line Pilots Association again or that we are being “stitched up” with the connivance of BALPA to agree a Scope agreement which satisfies BALPA’s 3000 BA members to the detriment of our 450.

You can be absolutely certain that your CC is aware of the potential conflicts which have arisen and has vehemently asserted its right to an independent view to represent the interests of its members notwithstanding that frictions may thereby have between caused.

Most unfortunately vociferous and powerful elements within the BACC have latched onto the RJ issue as one to attach their demands for a Scope agreement and, in blunt terms, we were faced with the imposition of very short timescales within which to conclude terms.

They further told BA that if they did not make substantial progress to concluding an agreement by the end of November then no BACX RJ training was to commence and that none of our pilots, not even those displaced under FS&S would be allowed to fly the RJ 100s. (Some might see this as akin to a form of blackmail).

Previously, our understanding as to the deployment and utilisation of RJs was that up to 50 seats would be made available to our FSS displaced pilots without pre-condition, any BA pilot wishing to bid onto the fleet could do so on protected BA terms and the rest of the aircraft would be deployed once we had come to an agreement as to the terms on which they were to be flown.

Although your CC was very unhappy to learn of the package offered to BA pilots relative to CX to fly the RJ (approximately £1000 per month more than a CX pilot plus all the BA benefits of final salary pension, early retirement etc. etc.) we nonetheless felt that the overriding importance was to get our displaced pilots up and running on the fleet. Aspirational bidding onto the fleet by CX pilots was something to be dealt with later.

That is how matters were proceeding and we were awaiting information as to course dates when BACC made it clear to BA in unambiguous terms that not one of our pilots would be allowed anywhere near an RJ unless and until their demands on Scope were met.

This threat, when coupled with an unrealistically short time scale has forced your CC to go away and re-visit the fundamentals of where we consider your interests lie. We have also been considering what sort of relationship we should be looking at developing with BA consistent with the objective of securing better terms and conditions for you as well as the chances of career progression without yet further discrimination prejudice and division.

We should place on record here that your CC has made consistent attempts over the last few months to obtain four way meetings to include BA and BACX management as well as BACC in order to progress the debate. We have been persistently stonewalled and left out whilst all other parties have clearly been developing the concepts to suit their interests. It is only very recently that we were able to obtain access to this debate, after pressure from ourselves and BACC, and provide input.

We share your outrage at the “jig to our tune or else” threat from the BACC and at the same time are left wondering just what BA and CX management were doing going ahead and promising courses to you when, in reality, they had absolutely no business to do so. Our respective managements have been well aware of the industrial issues attached to the RJs since before the inception of BACX and we consider that they have to a large extent been utterly reckless in proceeding to offer the RJ to you when they knew that they might not be able to deliver on promise.

It will come as no surprise that management will now blame “BALPA” (By that, if they were honest, they would mean the BACC) for this fiasco.

In reality your CC are of the view that given the principal responsibility of your management is to manage and direct the company, the lion’s share of the blame falls squarely with them but, at the same time, we are substantially less than happy that the BACC should have latched on to this issue as a means of securing their broader industrial objectives for better terms and conditions for employment for their members and that earlier understandings have not been delivered upon.

Our response.

It serves no purpose for us to dwell on who is to blame and we have needed to find a way ahead and provide a response to the gauntlet, which had been laid before us.

The choice, which faced us, was stark.

We capitulate and accept that we will enter an agreement under duress, which makes you forever second-class citizens on inferior terms to BA (with a few crumbs of comfort in the guise of a limited number of opportunities for a few to join BA)

Or

We say, “Enough is enough”.

We are fed up with being seen as a convenient dumping ground for BA’s problems and being treated as an under-caste. The giving of final salary pension scheme and full BA terms to our BA cadets without our knowledge is nothing short of an outrage when we have some long served and loyal pilots who will earn scarcely enough in retirement to keep them off state benefits. This revelation in many respects was the last straw.

This CC will not stand by and see you made into second-class citizens. We are all pilots together working ultimately for the same company. We should be treated the same.

The message we delivered accordingly on September 30th was simply this:

“If you want BACX pilots to work together and in harmony with BA, then we should be placed on a common seniority list on common terms with our BA Brothers and Sisters”.

We are pleased to be able to report that, given our rejection of Scope, the BACC are able to associate themselves with the foregoing aspiration.


Understandably BA and BACX management as well as the BACC have all gone away to consult their colleagues and we are expecting to meet with them again in the next few days.

:confused:
I'm not sure if that should have gone out onto a general forum, but it is a damm good standpoint to take. I bet the management are seriously concerned that now all the CCs may be able to have a common goal, just like the CFE thing.

Well done the CXCC. When do we hear more?:D

I'm a BA RJ FO and i cant disagree with any of that. Dead right to take a stand. You should be joining the BA seniority list of BA T+C's, no ifs or buts.

Thank you. Very candid and informative.

That's very encouraging Hotel Mode. There was a bit more to the document than as posted, but nothing substantive.

I wouldn't like to think there was any effective difference between a CFE ATR pilot and a CX ATP/Dash8/J41 driver.

Please please lets see all of BALPA as one on this, and achieve the desired result. Who needs SCOPE then eh?

Now I may be summarising this incorrectly, but if the BACC hadn't kicked up a stink about Scope then BACX would be flying the RJ on BACX terms, instead of fighting to be on BA terms and on the BA seniority list. Given that part of Scope was preventing the RJ jobs from switching from BA to BACX terms, then as long as we find a way for BACX pilots to join the BA seniority list then aren't our CC's very close to a mutually beneficial position? Discuss.

Hand,

good point, well made !!

scope can benefit both BA pilots AND BACX pilots if it is properly put together. If we can get our BACX colleagues onto BA T's & C's, then what is wrong with that. Who is going to say no to an improvement ?? Time to get our BACX colleagues onto the BA master seniority list.
folks, this is not a CC issue, it is a BALPA issue so lets not lose sight of that fact.

Excuse me for being thick but wasn't getting all the crews operating BA flight numbers onto the BA master seniority list the goal from the beginning. Why is that such a ground breaking idea? Once CFE had been merged onto the list, albeit at the bottom which is the precedent which will be followed in every other case, there was only one way to go. This is what BA have realised and is the reason why they think integrating CFE was not that brilliant an idea (slots were good though).

Its time all this we are better than you rubbish stopped and we all realised that everyone can be better off as a result of the current situation.

"Lets get together"

Quite Amazing Strategy Hand!!!
 

The very last thing I want to do is to return to a dispute position between the CCs. Let's work together on this one, and achieve exactly the same result as was achieved with CFE. Personally, and as a note of 'good faith' if you like, I shall agree now, (and propagate the idea amongst the CX senior community) that it is right and proper we follow the CFE example of being tacked onto the bottom of the master seniority list (even though it hurts - and as long as the DOJ for redundancy purposes is recognised).

What I would like to do though, is pay homage and admiration to Hand Solo and his mates on the BACC. Fancy that!!!:eek:

They knew all along that if they proposed that only CX jet pilots with over three years on jets could get an interview to join BA, this would result in a a joint Seniority and Ts and Cs campaign!:eek:

They knew all along that if they proposed banning all CX turboprop pilots from even getting a BA interview, then this would result in a joint united approach from the relevant Cs!:eek:

They were clever enough to see that proposing what someone has referred to as 'Industrial Apartheid' was the perfect way to bring us all together!:eek:

As I said, no more stones to hurl, but please Hand (who knows, I may fly with you one day) give the credit for this approach where it is entirely due, to the BACX Company Council. They are the ONLY ones so far to come out of this whole affair with credit! And they deserve all our thanks for it.:D

Now all we have to do is get rid of our management - and most of yours too I suspect!:p

I appreciate that this has been a fairly painful process for many. (I am on the BA side with long held aspirations for a regional command, which I thought would be denied to me! So the pain wasn't all on the CX side)

It is pretty apparent, by either accident or design, that we may be moving towards the right result, ie. maintaining varied career opportunities, and improved benefits for ALL!

Well done to the BACX CC, and although I am one of BA CC's biggest critics, well done too.

I hope I detect a spirit in which both CCs can now work together to benefit the entire BA/BACX community.

Now that really would worry the 'management'

"Divide and rule?" - Not on this one!

Is not Oliver Cromwell an ATP pilot by trade?

oscarh - yes.

guys/girls,
we should be working together on this whole issue. some posts here seem to be of a 'divide & rule' or 'we're better than you' nature. well that approach does no one any good.
it is all to easy to take a short term view, but we must look beyond today and think about 2-3 years down the road.
scope is about CREATING opportunities for ALL. So to that end, if our CX colleagues join the BA list, then their turboprop pilots must come too. we had the same argument when CFE joined the BA list and i am happy to report that the exCFE pilots ARE on the BA list. quite right too.
Scope does not mean that you have to be based at LHR, it just means that if you fancy giving it a go for 4 years, then you can. You can always return if you don't like it. and if you want to stay where you are, then you can do that too but on better T's & C's.
above all SCOPE is about giving you the choice.

work together not against eachother.

divisive=divide & rule for BA/BACX managers=lost opportunities for EVERYONE.

so, having read some of the posts here, one could coceivably ask are some of them written by management to create a divide?

who knows?
lets just work TOGETHER.

:) I have to say I am completely signed up for this. Let's not get into the blame game, no profit there.
If Rob and Giles have got the same objective, that's good enough for me. The management simply cannot afford to take on the pilots, particularly when what we are suggesting is logical and sensible - and may even end up saving a fortune in synergy as we dump another tier of operational management.

A suggestion - any chance this projected amalgamation could 'exclude' our management pilots?

:D :D :D :D

Sounds great to me - only question I have is:

Does anybody know by what percentage going onto BA Ts and Cs would ACTUALLY affect BACX ? I don't believe for a minute the cries of doom from management - but it must presumably have SOME effect.
It would be interesting to know that figure, if only to rebut Management Pilots and Trainers who are all sying it would bring BACX down.:eek:

For a combined business that turns over very roughly between half and three quarters of a billion pounds a year (CX not BA) you can be quite certain that, in percentage terms , the cost of aligning wage scales and other Ts and Cs would be quite containable.

What has to be addressed either by the current board of BA( or their administrative receivers if they do not) is the profligate waste of a mangement structure which belongs to the last century.

That self same mangement also need to learn that a pilot is a pilot is a pilot. The fact that he is BA does not make him into a super hero with amazing value which makes him worth shed loads more than any other pilot.......

The solution is quite simple really for anyone who does not have a vested interest in not seeing it.

I am a happy member of BACX, fortunate enough to based where I want to be on the jet fleet.
I would like to publicly commend the BACX CC for their tireless work regarding these issues.
The way forward is to work together, and the management have to realise that BA as a company is not the be all and end all in the marketplace now. Whilst I accept that the T&C s are better than that offered by BACX, is the lifestyle. I like working in the regions, and my home life is important to me.

There is no way that any turboprop pilots should be disadvantaged by SCOPE, that is what is currently being proposed by the BA CC not their management, and there is no way that BA should have any access to BACX aircraft unless we have that recipricol arragement, whithout condition.

BA seem to forget that BACX already have the 146. With over 100 seats, are they suddenly going to demand they fly that aircraft. Or is that just an opportunity to dispatch the management to be based in Inverness ?

I commend the BACX CC, as many other posts do, because in truth, they ARE THE ONLY ONES coming out of this with any real credit.

Well done Bill and Giles

Is it my imagination or are these two airlines BA & BACX starting to gel together.

There seems for the very first time a chance that both airlines are going to start pulling in the same direction and when that happens the only way is surely up.

We at BACX are about to sign our new contracts with improved salary and conditions, just as important if not more so new scheduling agreements have come into place giving us a little bit more control over our lives.

Despite future size and shape and the affects it has had on certain individuals, I feel a lot more confident about the company and its future than I have for a long time.

HEAR HEAR HEAR !!!!!!!
 

May I too commend Bill and Giles for their stance, very well done chaps! Thank goodness you were elected and re-elected.

Whilst at it, in the general spirit of things, may I also commend the BACC who do appear to be looking at the complete picture, rather than just their part of it at last. Well done all; now we need to translate these fine aspirations into action.

1. All opportunities open to all. using a master seniority system accepting the CX go to the bottom - but staying in current ordering.

2. CX to continue with their age 60 retirement for Final Salary Pension Purposes, and Money Purchase pilots to be brought into the scheme.

3. CX pilots to maintain grandfather rights (a la CFE) for those of us who are happy where we are.

Only problem I could potentially see is where BA guys may wish to take a command with CX temporarily, or indeed post age 55. This will need some careful thought, but if all new recruits come in via CX, it should balance out in time. The overall pilot product should be a much more rounded individual than in current practise too.

Bill, Giles, Rob - any timetabling on this? :cool:

:D Fantastic work by all concerned. This is an idea that we can all get behind, and support fully - I don't care how we got here, let's move forward united.

Question - De La Farce has spent a lot of time, and invested a lot of his (and his silly mate McL's ) credibility in what has gone so far. To admit that the last, what, two years are now all a waste of time is pretty unlikely - I can already hear the "Cost too much, break the Company, never happen, impossible......" argument reverberating around the Fleet Office and the Crewroom.

I'm not asking for any negotiating secrets here, but if we all had an idea of the practical costs versus our current setup, we would be well placed to tell it like it is when flying with management or meeting them in the crewroom.:p

Master Seniority
 

Well done. Some very good points made here. Unfortunatly without the support of the BACX managment this great idea will go nowhere quickly. A joint seniority list will be brilliant for all concerned. The turnover of Pilots would drop dramatically. Just because it is quiet at the moment and nobody is leaving there are plenty of people with CV's out there who have had enough of the crumbs on over. In 98/99 the average life span of a pilot in Brymon/Bral was two years and we were always short of crew. With a master seniority list this would stopped over night.
I am a simple person and I do not understand why the BACX do not support the idea. The BACX merger was allot of hard work and the management have taken the good will of two companies BRAL/BRYMON and wasted it away. What a shame.

What an insult to disciminate against Turbo Prop pilots. Haven flown both types I can put my hand on my heart and say the Jet is allot easier to fly especially in a single engine suituation.
Come on Get Real !

- To deny Prop Pilots is ridiculous and insulting. BA have incorporated Prop Pilots before. I am surprised by their stance if this the case. Would BACX Prop guys want to come across on BA T&C's when our Prop FO's earn 18K ?

- First offer for any BA Pilots job vacancies should first go to ALL BACX Pilots before hiring from outside, that way BACX Pilots enjoy the FULL benefits that Scope has to offer(so when a larger aircraft is needed, BA would need to bring over more BACX Pilots and they do it on full BA T&C's).

- BA should retain the right to make final acceptances of who they are hiring no matter which Positions they are recruiting for just as any company would want. Although they should recruit from within first(ie. from BACX). If I went for a BA ground job or training I would have to be interviewed and accepted.

- BA Pilots that would otherwise be displaced from their current base by incorporating BACX should be allowed to stay on flying with BACX without detriment to their current T&C's should they wish and vacancies exist with the difference in Pay being paid by BA(who would have had to have paid this anyway) so as to not cripple CX.

- A Scope agreement in some form is needed to protect all our jobs from future decisons in BA on Franchising, Subsidiaries, Freighters, Alliances, Codeshares and mergers.

- If an aircraft size is required to protect us it is not a fair arguement that because only 1 aircraft is currently flying larger than 100seats that this should be used as the benchmark. And besides if BACX were to have first dibs at any new jobs, the smaller the aircraft the sooner everyone would be on Full BA T&C's and rightfully so. Why not make the aircraft seat size 14 and bring everyone onboard now ?

MM posted;
"The idea that BA would have the right to impose its own pilots (the suggestion has been made one CX P1 for one BA P1) on each 70 to 99 seater operated by CX is highly unattractive to many of our pilots who might see “their” seat being taken by a BA pilot."
Yes but this ignores the fact that BA would need extra Pilots to fly these aircraft and with Scope in Place, the seat being taken by a BA pilot would be a former BACX Pilot. This is why I have said before, Scope would be a lot more sensible if BA Pilot vacancies were 100% offered first to BACX Pilots. That way the job woud be yours, just on better T&C's.

- age 60 retirement is a sticky one. I think the retirement age will be extended for all with the 2006 legislation but you can imagine how hard it would be for some BA guys to swallow when they are being forced out at 55 on the same aircraft type. Some ex-RAF guys in BA especially.

Earth to airrage, earth to airrage.

Don't think you've read this thread through fully. There's no point in trying to pull the wool, we've seen the light and rejected your contrick out of hand - good on the CXCC ;)

Let me start by saying that I'm all in favour of what appears to be a new concensus approach on this subject. However, rumours of Scopes demise are greatly exaggerated! Scope is probably the number one priority of the BACC at this time, with the aim of ensuring all flying above [defined figure] seats is undertaken by BA pilots, so the options on the table seem to be:

1) No change. BACX stays as it is, BA stays the same but with the RJs operated from the regions by the mainline crews, which means BA has to start recruiting in a hurry.

2) Agreement of some sort reached, RJs operated by mainline/CX crews on common terms and same master seniority list.

Option 3, aircraft operated by BACX on CX terms with some mainline crews on mainline terms, appears to have been resoundingly rejected by the CX CC. It would appear that option 2 is the win/win scenario, the question is what sort of agreement can be thrashed out which is benefical to both parties. Suggestions welcome.

Oh dear.

Firstly, my friend from Tennessee has pointed out, this sort of argument just won't fly any more - with the exposure of the Scope Proposal, it ain't gonna happen.

Secondly - just what problem do you have supporting a move onto BA Ts and Cs for BACX a la CFE?
Here is an option, which, judging from the tone of this thread, everyone could get behind? How on earth do you perceive any disadvantage to the BA pilot community if all CX pilots joined the BA seniority list - especially as some people are already accepting a position at the bottom, (again a la CFE).

And finally, what is wrong with option 4 - everyone flies ALL the aircraft on BA Ts and Cs? To suggest that our Turbo Prop guys, some with over ten years seniority, would go onto the BA cadet year one salary scale just insults our intelligence:mad:

You may think Scope is not dead - well suggest to your CFE guys that their tours in the Midlands would just have to be extended for a couple more years - I can't see that working.

and as for airrage - I think you have missed the point that your BACC proposal for Scope selection was so biased and unfair, that you should have been ashamed on pure logic grounds to have suggested it in the first place.

Finally, again trying hard to remain purely logical, consider:

Why would ANY Scope be necessary if all BA and BACX pilots were on the same T and C contract. I'm sorry to be obtuse here, but I can't see the requirement. If Scope was originally about protecting mainline jobs, and by implication, and future reduction in T and C and risk of mainline aircraft being handed to a lower pay rate subsidiary, then surely, if there is no longer any subsidiary with lower rates of pay - then QED?

Explain please.

TennesseeSquire

As Mike Mercury said in his post;
"Understandably BA and BACX management as well as the BACC have all gone away to consult their colleagues and we are expecting to meet with them again in the next few days."

This Issue is far from dead. Childish rants of a divisive nature do little for your cause. Luckily most of your collegues seem better able to stick to discussing the Issue's responsibly and do not resort to such behaviour. Your views on the points raised on my previous post(which is pro-BACX in some areas and at least an attempt at a possible compromise in others) would be appreciated.

Cornflake

Scope was never my proposal. Not on the BACC.

"Why would ANY Scope be necessary if all BA and BACX pilots were on the same T and C contract. I'm sorry to be obtuse here, but I can't see the requirement. "

A Scope agreement in some form is needed to protect all our jobs from future decisons in BA on Franchising, Subsidiaries, Freighters, Alliances, Codeshares and mergers. It has never been as suggested here, a ruse by BA Pilots to steal BACX jobs. It's the regional BA Pilots who are losing their jobs or did I miss something ?

I never said nor meant to imply that Prop guys would take cadet pay, but we do have ex-CFE guys on BA contracts earning 18K.

I am all for everyone being on one contract T&C's. But how do tell a BA Regional CAPT that he can no longer fly from the regions and his "SEAT" is going to be filled by a BACX CAPT at the bottom of the BA Seniority on BA Pay ? So it is a complex affair no doubt.

Cornflake - I don't have any problem with option 4 at all, although I suspect you might given that turboprop scales in BA have historically been lower than jet scales, a situation which remains with the incorporation of the ATR fleet. In fact I don't think any BA pilot would have a problem, and I'd need some convincing that the BACC would oppose such a utopian move, but I am sure BA managament would fight tooth and nail to avoid it. Nobody has suggested that turboprop people with years of seniority would start on a BA CEP scale and comments like that only serve to inflame rather than further the debate. The idea that any deal could be succesfully negotiated that would reduce them to a year 1 CEP scale is just ludicrous!

The BA management position has always been to rid BA of the RJ. The BACX position has, to outsiders, appeared to be 'RJ flying at any price'. By rejecting a deal which, from our perspective, has at best been little more than damage limitation by the BACC, you have thrown an enormous spanner in the management works of both companies and presented them with a dilemma - neither group is prepared to accept an inferior deal. I rather consider this a win for us all.

You said Why would ANY Scope be necessary if all BA and BACX pilots were on the same T and C contract. I'm sorry to be obtuse here, but I can't see the requirement. The answer is because BACX and the RJs are only one relatively small part of the Scope package. There is still the question of expanding franchises flying identical or larger aircraft from the same bases on many former BA routes, plus the issue of GSS 744's flying freight work that could be done by our crews. Scope is about much more than just 16 RJs, which is why it remains a priority.

So I'm not worthy as Dash Trash to join the platinum club. Why? Is it 'cause I can't fly? How have I survived PLH on those dark and dirty nights; the ex-Brymon boys and girls remember them or still do them.

What a load of pompous gits the BACC must be. Shame really as all the ex or still serving BA types I've ever met have been very pleasant and level headed.

BTW, how were the CFE ATR pilots integrated? Also, my BA Dash Fleet Manager is ex BA ATP before he was B757 for BA so I'm frankly stunned, but not surprised at the attitude of BACC.

Dearest Hand,

So "your" crews should be flying the GSS 744s at STN? Can you remember historically just why they are not?

Finally, can you explain why it is that the ex-BA guys who are flying for GSS don't want to live in your perfect world?

Deadleg you're just as welcome to join 'the platinum club' as you put it as the rest of BACX. I have met most of the members of the BACC head office team. I considered them to be very pleasant and level headed, like most other BA crew. It is for that reason that I am extremely wary of any claim that it is the BACC that is responsible for vetoing any direct transition into BA for BACX prop pilots. Ask yourself, what could they possibly have to gain from this stance? Why would the BACC be concerned about historic failure rates of converting crew, especially given the fact that so many current BA crew have flown the ATP or come straight from a cadet course? Concerns such as those are the domain of BA management and accountants, and I do not believe that the BACC would entertain such a divisive and discriminatory proposal unless they were working from a bottom line dictated by BA management in the limited context of the RJ deal. Having put so much effort into trying to eliminate discriminatory pay rates within BA, why would the BACC then propose exactly the same in another company. Finally, BALPA has no say in the recruitment policy of BA, they can only negotiate for pilots once they have joined the company, which is why they are powerless to act against the 'training claw-back' which deducts £3000pa at source from each cadets salary. Given their total lack of any mandate to negotiate for anyone yet to join the company, how can they suddenly flex their muscles and dictate who should be permitted to join? BA is a business, not an old boys club, and the BACC don't have the power, or in my experience the inclination, to black ball anybody.

JW411 - Historic reasons for the formation of GSS, are just that. History. If its BA freight we want it to be flown by BA crews, just as if it were passengers, especially as the BACC have agreed to match the crew costs of GSS. If the GSS guys wanted to fly BA freight then they should have joined BA (retirees excluded, who did!)

Still enjoying Ryanair?

Get an effing life Hand
 

Hand, just to clarify, it was actually your mate airrage who started in on the:

"Would BACX Prop guys want to come across on BA T&C's when our Prop FO's earn 18K ? " theme.

So, don't try to muddy the waters. As Deadleg has pointed out, it seemed OK to assimilate the CFE turboprop guys - so why not the J41, ATP, and Dash 8 people. (I must agree with someone earlier, a prop is dramatically more difficult to fly and operate than a jet - hmmm, Hand, airrage - have YOU guys the experience of both types, 'cos I have!).
Similarly, don't get started on the wider issues of 744s, when as you know well, your posts for the past few weeks on various threads have specificaly addressed the RJ issue. Let's clarify the one before we move on to others eh? I see a point needing to be sorted in both the Franchisee and the 744 thing - but let's not forget where we are coming from - the immediate thing is BACX - who, like it or not, are part of BA, because we are owned by them.
To try and be two-faced enough now to say that the option of BACX being on BA TS and Cs is unworkable because BA MANAGEMENT WOULDN'T LET IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!
:rolleyes:

Oh come on now, you have used reams of webspace explaining exactly how us pilots can successfully overcome the dastardly management. You were all quite happy to agree, in fact to fight for CFE to come onto your Ts and Cs. You have made a case chapter and verse as why BACX should not fly anything which might ever notionally have been a BA route or aircraft, no matter how briefly if they were on a lower cost contract as such. Now it appears as though you still have a sub-agenda, no matter what happens, no-one else will ever fly a so-called mainline route without an individual interview. Good job we didn't take that line with some of your formerly redundant cadets and rejects - all mysteriously now back on full mainline Ts and Cs but still flying for us.

Well, as far as I can see, its a bit sad, that's all.

'By their deeds shall ye recognise them', as it says in the scriptures. I now have NO idea what it is you're after, except I am tempted to genuinely believe it has nothing to do with pilot workforce unity. Hell man, you couldn't do a much better job if you were management!

Get an effing life!:mad:

Oh, and airrage - YES MATE as usual, you DID miss something. There are a bloody sight more BACX pilots displaced by your/our management's FSS than there are BAR pilots. You may have conveniently forgotten it, but there was actually an agreement your BACC unilaterally had already abrogated which had guaranteed those guys seats on the RJ, regardless of ANYTHING ELSE!!!!!! :mad:

I think I'm most irritatedbecause just at a point when happily browsing this thread, and thinking hey, great, here's something we can all agree on, something which disadvantages no pilot, and which by unity we can really stick to the management, here we go again.
Giles, Bill, keep up the good work!

Just read your latest Hand, the most irritating thing is that you propagate such sheer bull****.

Either:

1. You really are making it up as you go along, in which case congrats on the imagination. or

2. You really haven't read any of the BALPA paperwork relating to the Scope issue. I can assure you (because I HAVE read it) that it is categorically the BACC who were/are DIRECTLY responsible for vetoing any such transfers from BACX to BA.

Please don't insult our intelligence!:mad: Fortunately, things seem to moving on and bypassing your point of view. Just go and read your comics like a good boy - share your bubblegum with airrage eh, there's a good chap.:)

Oh dear, this was actually becoming a meaningful thread until that Nigel. Theres another more heated one over on Aircrew Notices if you want to make an emotional outburst. The 744 franchise issue was not the core subject of this thread, apart from a brief excursion by airrage, JW411 and myself. I merely pointed out that Scope as a concept is not dead in the water as some people believed, but was actually a larger arrangement. The RJ part may be dead, but Scope as a concept is not. Pedantic perhaps, but it does help if were all using the same terminology.

As for the deal re guaranteed seats on the RJ then why not roll back to the start and read Mike Mercurys informative post. Yes, he is outraged at the stance of the BACC, but do not omit the criticism that BACX managers offered you RJ courses when they were in no position to do so. Your management knew it was not a done deal, and were fully aware that the conclusion of an all encompassing scope deal was the only way the RJ transfer was going ahead. To gamble jobs on an RJ deal they knew they might not deliver was their error, a view stated in Mikes post.

On the subject of direct transition for prop pilots into BA, I can only re-iterate my own personal views on the subject. I do not oppose the transition, nor have I ever stated anywhere that prop pilots should be subject to additional interviews (go on, search if you like, I've never said it). If the BACC have suddenly developed an interest in meddling with recruitment then I don't know why, or why they are not using that influence to help existing cadets in BA.

Nigel,

I repeat here for you a previous comment;
"I never said nor meant to imply that Prop guys would take cadet pay, but we do have ex-CFE guys on BA contracts earning 18K. "

Meaning BA's T&C's for some aircraft types may not always be better then BACX's so why would some guys want it ?

The posts have been focused on the RJ situation because that has been what people have been discussing, but you will find on this and the Aicrew Notices Section that I have continually tried to stress that Scope is a much wider Issue than the RJ and that is why I mentioned Franchising, Subsidiaries, Freighters, Alliances, Codeshares and mergers. Because that is the Issues covered by Scope, it is not an RJ agreement.

Their are some differences between CFE Integration where jobs, routes and aircraft where Integrated into one operation and BA trying to install BACX Pilots on lower T&C's onto all existing BA routes in the Regions. I do support Full Integration T&C's for BACX Pilots and a master seniority List but consideration needs to be considered when displacing Pilots from any base from either outfit.

I'm not insisting that BACX Pilots need to be interviewed or not, I merely said that we are not in a position to dictate to BA who or how BA recruit. I think we should insist however that they select(however they insist on doing it....interview or not) first from the pool of BACX Pilots(in seniority order) before outside pilots. It would be like telling BA that I don't want them interviewing Me if I go for another job or promotion(which I would of course be required to do as standard practise). You can't expect BA to agree to a Priority Pool of Pilot workforce if you also tell them that they will be unable to also make this pool of guys go through a standard Interview or whatever they decide necessary for their paperwork moguls of any new employee. It is not a statement that you may be unfit, but standard procedure in most companies (especially one hiring Pilots to fly customers)that they at least see the person they are hiring before they hire them. Did BACX not have an Interview Stage in their recruitment ?

As for the promised RJ, like Hand has said I refer you to your own Mike Mercury's extensive post about your management's shortfalls.

Finally if you care to use my name, first please use it with the same respect others show you and secondly even though I have clearly stated my name on this and many boards please leave it up to me to decide should I so wish to do so this time around. I am quite happy to use my Real name on all posts but since the majority of others here do not feel the same then I respect their wishes to abide by the Pprune anonimity protocol. Unless you are willing to post in your real name then please feel free to refer to me as airrage on this board.

Cool your jets people - this is a good example of how easily the issues can be distorted by strong feelings, of how a successfully managed debate can be completely lost because participants 'lose the heid!'

Perhaps I could identify two strands here.

Firstly, clearly there IS an ongoing scope debate, centreing around (mainly) franchisees and non- BA companies, but the core of which is mainline BA work being farmed out to lower cost operaters. These may be separate entities, partly owned, or completely owned. This, I think, is a bad thing eventually for any pilot in a BA owned Company, as it will inevitably degrade either current Ts and Cs, or create (another) effective 'B' scale, or both.

Secondly, there is the specific issue of BACX. This is not now an RJ issue. It is not an 'interview' issue, because already in BACX, if you wish for a job which is effectively a promotion (seat change, training etc etc) then you are interviewed for it.

[as a question though, a CX pilot would not normally have an interview for a chnage, say of type, say 146 to 145 if the seat were the same - is that different in BA?? Would you expect an interview if going LHS 757 to LHS Airbus??]

No, to continue, the BACX debate has moved on as far as we are concerned. In very simple terms, we want BA Ts and Cs, and we want to be on the mainline seniority list, with all rights and appurtenances that any other BA pilot would have. Forget the RJ issue, it would be automatically sorted out by success with this one.
The question for our BA debaters here is whether or not they can sign up to that aspiration, or whether the debate will once again become blurred with issues over displaced pilots. Whilst that is an awful thing domestically, we all know the removal package is very generous, we're not talking redundancy, and as my mate said earlier, we have a lot more of this category than you do anyway, and BACC already reneged on an agreement to give those chaps priority! Similarly, relating tales of whose management was at fault and when is meaningless. Having finally achieved a 4 sided table with all parties present, the objectives have now been clearly enough stated.

Either you (BACC) can move forward with the changed agenda, or you can remain gnawing the ends of older plots which are no longer relevant. The trouble is, that now everything is finally out in the light of day, there is no one else to blame, nothing else to obscure the issues with.
Quite simple, will the BACC get behind the BACX aspiration or not? This is not to say it is part of Scope - because it no longer has anything at all to do with Scope. Scope is still on the table for non-BA companies - it can be pursued alongside this BACX issue.

I for one would be most lifted to see such paragons of BA straw poll opinion as airage and Hand Solo actually get off the fence, and answer a straight question!

(a mate in BA tells me on their private forum Airrage and Hand Solo consider it their duty to represent BA opinion here on Prune, and have posted as such on the BA private forum - is that true?? Comment from other BA pilots invited?)

10kts

Agree 100% with what you say and have never posted anything opposing this view. I would like and be willing to support any Industrial action to bring BACX on BA T&C's(full stop). Having secured BA T&C's I would also like to see the BA Pilots and BACX Pilots that would otherwise be displaced stay where they are if at all possible(and why not if we secure full T&C's), displacing Pilots from any base is a lifestyle choice many would like to retain. BA will shuffle aircraft and Pilots around depending on the latest accountant that they employ, we need to ensure that we can do the best to secure all our Pilots lifestyles, regardless of outfit they fly for. As guys have indicated, due to personal reasons(family) a lot of guys do not wish to commute down to LHR everyday just because they wish the remain short-haul regardless of the relocation allowance one gets for the first couple of years.(I am not in the position of being displaced so I am not argueing for selfish reasons)

I do not know whether the BACX debate can be separated from Scope, if it can then I also support them doing so as a lot of lives are being disrupted at the moment. I agree with the logic of bringing BACX onto full BA T&C's and then argueing with one voice for Scope which I still believe is an important risk for all our careers if we fail to get an agreement. I think it is for historic reasons that BALPA collect all the Issues over a period of a few years and tend to lump them into one all or nothing negotiation which if it fails it leads to balloting. I am not always in agreement and think BALPA should tackle each Issue individually forcibly when they arise. But then we would be getting a ballot paper once a week.

"I for one would be most lifted to see such paragons of BA straw poll opinion as airage and Hand Solo actually get off the fence, and answer a straight question! "
FULL 100% SUPPORT !!!!! do not own a fence.

"a mate in BA tells me on their private forum Airrage and Hand Solo consider it their duty to represent BA opinion here on Prune, and have posted as such on the BA private forum - is that true?? "
A lot of BA guys cast very disparaging and highly insulting comments about this Forum, its anonimity and the people who post on it. Both myself and hand solo also receive a lot of abuse from our colleagues because we even bother to debate the important Issues here. Recently another colleague posted a link to this Forum and received abuse as a result. I defended his actions and tried to tell the BA community that it is important that they visit this board to openly exchange dialogue between our BACX colleagues on the important Issue of Scope. I do not or have ever claimed to represent BA Pilots Opinion whose range of beliefs are diverse, believe me. At least we are both willing to stick our necks out(including posting my real name here previously) and debate things here and do not hide behind the walls of the BA-only Forum where it is much easier to get people to agree to your point of view obviously. Not my duty, but my personal opinion it's important that we discuss these issues, a lot of wars in history could have been avoided if the average person from opposing sides had discussed things away from their leaders.

I firmly believe that Scope and it's full ramifications is a serious threat to all our jobs which is why I think it worthy to debate it here so that the idea that it is a BA Pilot conspiracy can be laid to rest. Not very effective at it it seems. I do not think our views are that divergent. There is a lot of misinterpretation of some of our posts, and a lot of that is a result of having a preconceived idea that any BA Pilot posting here must be trying to sell you a lemon.

I agree 100% with what 10kts has just said. If we can get a separate BACX deal then so be it, BALPA are probably swamped in Issues at the moment and they do try to cover a range of Issues in One go in order to combat the general reluctance of the diverse BA Pilots to support an Industrial Ballot on one Issue alone. Obviously when Integrating employees from any type of firm, certain things will have to be agreed, as you would have demanded yourselves should CAPT's from a different outfit been Integrated into BACX, especially given the range/size of aircraft type BA fly and the extremely high average level of Seniority that exists in BA. Not to say that BACX Pilots do not have their own levels of Seniority which is why CAPT's would be protected but even after 8years in BA there are only 1000 guys behind me and a much more senior gap of 2000 above me.

In conclusion I support BACX on full T&C's, my insistence on not losing a Scope agreement wholesale has never been about being anti-BACX but about the protection Scope provides and the Full range of Issues it covers. Without it the future is bleak.

So, that's it then.

We all agree.

BACX pilots on BA T & Cs, and on the mainline seniority list.

Why all the arguing? Or does somebody disagree with this aspiration?

Win win.

Wow, we've cracked it! Now all we have to do is get together behind this and drive it forward as quickly as possible for the sake of everyone's sanity!

Like I said before, that would worry the 'mis-management!'

Nigel Nearly, your insulting, puerile and frankly pathetic little rants lend nothing to this debate, and by mentioning the real name of another contributor you place yourself beneath contempt.

I would think that any BA pilot reading your little diatribe will now be fervently hoping that you stay a "nearly" nigel, as, apart from being an outstanding example of exactly why BA management appear to think interviews are necessary, you serve no purpose whatsoever.

You are the weakest link - Goodbye!

For the rest of the BACX pilot workforce, good luck with the negotiations to enable you to join the BA seniority list, on BA T & Cs, a position I would be happy to support, were I still in BA.

I am sorry the posts have become so abusive please try and keep your emotions in check, not easy I know when you feel you are being shafted. That however, is something that both sides have in common but the villain of the piece is the management not BALPA.

The row about prop pilots is largely academic. The J41 is being off loaded to Eastern. I do wish some of you in BACX could stop swallowing the management propaganda. For the record your chief pilot had all of the BAR skippers out for dinner only 2 years ago to tell them what a great job they were doing. Shortly afterwards he slipped off to Brymon and the rest is history like the Airbus at BHX.

I doubt if BALPA will sort out the situation to everyones satisfaction, least of all mine. I think its unfair to blame them for the whole mess and I think we should wait until they have produced something concrete before passing judgement.

For the record, I am a BA 737 skipper at LGW. My wife is a BA RJ skipper at LGW which means that she is ex-CFE. We have lived together through the shambolic integration over the last 18 months and are now living through 18-21 days of enforced seperation each month due to the MAN/BHX fiasco with my children becoming increasingly disturbed and upset at mum being away.

We can sort this out guys, we are on the same side, we are, after all pilots arn't we! The inane claptrap that I have been reading on this thread is quite frankly amazing. There are no crew at BA who wouldn't welcome BACX onto the master seniority list. We would welcome the increased opportunity for all. I know not everyone wants to fly out of LHR and go LH, believe it or not there are many at BA who don't! If you want to stay where you are flying what you are flying, great be happy! For those who do want a greater range of opportunities marvellous fill your boots!

You were absolutely right to reject the rediculous terms that you were confronted with. I don't know where they originated but they didn't come from the BA line community so don't put the blame here. I would hope that should you all get onto the BA master seniority list your T's and C's would improve and so would your standard of living. I can't see a problem with that.

Lets pull together and improve everyone's lot. If we all put pressure on our relative sections of BALPA who knows we may even achieve it.

On a personal level I hope we get this thing sorted out soon. The RJ crews at LGW are having a dreadful time of it all due to the managements barefaced attempt to use them to put pressure on BALPA to accept the BA terms for scope. The management are avoiding pissing off the main section of BA at LHR in the process, cynical no! Be aware of the leviathan that you would be joining sure, but don't be put off. Things will improve, it is down to all of us to see that they do.