Chris Darke to be re-elected!!! Vote

[IMMELMAN]

I don't see where you get the idea this issue is not known about. .Please read the latest 'Airwaves'. .Nomination is until 01 April - how auspicious. .Nominations considered 05 March - now that does seem odd - 05 April would make more sense. .Announcement of nominations - 02 April - there does seem to be a 'cock-up' on dates here. .If election necessary - 22 April-17 June - that seems fair enough. .It says if you have any queries, contact Gillian Pole - so, if you have a problem - do what it says. .I was with BA for 19 years and, to be frank, it did seem that BALPA was owned by BA. .I think BA are about the last employer you have to worry about - the real 'nasty bastards' have been at it for years - BA is only just learning. .The man for the job should be just that - it makes no difference who he works for but I do suggest that a BA person may well not be fully au fait with what a real, nasty employer gets up to - unless, of course, he has non-BA experience. .On numbers, I guess BA still is the lion's share but the rest are growing!. .Strange to say, the job we are talking about does not have to be a pilot, or ex-pilot - we would like him to be but please consider just about any business you can think of - including politics - are the leaders/directors/MPs., etc people from that industry? Very, very rarely - it can often be 'the wood from the trees' scenario. I have often protested about such people 'not knowing the job/what they are talking about', etc but, I have to admit, they are not doing that job - they are running a business/enterprise/whatever - that usually calls for totally different skills - hard to admit, but it's true. .However, no reason why a BA Captain couldn't do it, and do it well - equally, no reason why he/she should be BA, either - also, no reason why they need to be a pilot at all. .If you are concerned, then take an active role - '.... or get off the pot' comes to mind. .The personal bit is not really that clever - we all form views about people we don't know - how often that perspective changes if we take the trouble to get to know them - see what I mean?. .If your views are that strong - get along to your council and put yourself forward for nomination. .You can tell I've just got back from the pub but, even so,there is a democratic process - use it!. .Talk of Mugabe, etc.,really is a little OTT - we are all supposed to understand CRM, etc - I don't think views expressed in such a way would give me much confidence in a tight corner - it's pub talk, isn't it?. .Talk to anybody who has had an individual dispute and see if BALPA membership helped them. My guess is, yes!. .Don't put that at risk, please - the dynamics of large-scale situations we now face are a very different kettle of fish.There will always be losers and winners in this sort of scenario but, overall, BALPA has looked after us over the years - I do not detect any deterioration in representation - but a good, steady progress over time against all the factors that have had to be dealt with. .OK - enough from me - just my views - but if you reall want to help and really have grievances, then get stuck in - I'm sure you would be welcomed <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

[Hot Wings]

Immelman - you may feel that BALPA has looked after you but there are many members who are angry about the lack of leadership from the top of BALPA, the constant deterioration in Ts+Cs and the financial state of our union. Your attitude of not wanting to "rock the boat" misses the point that, as members, we are entitled to a say in how our union is run. CRM does not involve sitting quietly in the corner doing what you're told (well, that depends upon one's vintage!). . .. .Also, BALPA members do not have to hold office to voice an opinion but we can communicate our opinions to our reps and that is why the BA CC have withdrawn their support for Chris Darke. Our voices have been heard but I am not convinced that this is occuring at other airlines.. .. .Ideally, there should be a choice of candidates for the post of Gen Sec and the members should have the opportunity to study election manifestos and vote accordingly. The re-election of Chris Darke because of a lack of opponents would be a travesty.

[Stampe]

I believe its only a very small part of the BA constituency that is opposing Chris Darke I,m afraid we won,t be seeing the likes BOAC again and getting at the general secretary will not change the market forces acting upon our industry.My own company council yesterday enthusiastically proposed Chris Darke for re-election.The last few years have seen great successes for our CC. in improving the lot of our members,this has in some ways been facilitated by Chris and he has been addressing areas of the Association that clearly need reform.You may be working for a part of the industry which whilst still an excellent airline is in decline as are many other airlines.Chris Darke is not the cause of your uncertain future and subsequent disapointment.BALPA now envelops most of the industry with for the first time ever the BA membership in the minority,here lies the future!!.

[IMMELMAN]

Hot Wings - I am not disputing what you say, I am saying if things are not right and you feel strongly enough, do something about it. Other airlines' pilots also see Airwaves so they do know about the election. I also do not like un-opposed returns to office but if nobody comes forward, what does CD do? Jump ship? Not very realistice is it? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> On CRM actually, the old style used to be to hurl abuse at the other poor sod - I am suggesting that these days one does speak up but tends to avoid 'slime-ball'and similar terms of endearment( not that you said that ) - well, hardly ever, anyway.Terms and Conditions have to be negotiated - not demanded and they also have to match market conditions. BA has, unfortunately, taken too long to grasp that - Micawber, and all that - and if you, like I, believe that Sep 11th was used as a smoke-screen by airlines, in the same way as certain government officials who got sacked for it, you will agree that BA discovered, just like others, that this was their opportunity to try to get the numbers to add up again.The low-cost jobbies won't survive long-term - remember Laker and all that - but by god they do some damage to the 'stayers' in the meantime. So, to survive - to keep our jobs, we do need to be flexible - BA want to survive, so do we - that's why strikes don't happen much these days - confrontation does nobody any good. Weakness, perceived, in our leadership may not be exactly what it appears - it may also be wisdom. However, a democratic organisation gets what it deserves - so it's up to us to try to get the right people to represent us - but don't imagine that a table-thumper will do the trick - we need a diplomat, above all, who can negotiate and reach mutually acceptable compromises - if you get any agreement that is not a compromise, it will surely be short-lived. .Well, how sad am I to spend all this time? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

[Hand Solo]

So we need a diplomat and not a table thumper? Well it was certainly diplomatic of CD to endorse and accept BA pilots last pay deal without going to the inconvenience of asking them about it. CD may well be doing fine things in other companies, but in BA the past few years have seen nothing but erosion in the T&Cs of flight crew. This has nothing to do with the lack of profitability as every other department, and particularly the more militant one that we fly with, have seen very real and significant gains over that period. In BA the spoils go to the noisiest, not the most professional or productive or indispensable. CD has been given his chance by BA pilots and he's delivered nothing. We all understand that BA aren't the majority in BALPA anymore, but we are the biggest minority by a long chalk. That means we expect to have our concerns addressed. Although we now represent only 40% of the membership I suspect we contribute a significantly higher proportion of the membership fees, and if we're bankrolling BALPA so they can improve conditions across the industry as a whole then we expect to see some payback for ourselves, otherwise we might as well just leave and form our own union.

[Hot Wings]

Stampe - hypothetically, if all the BA members left BALPA, what sort of future would the union have? And how much would the Gen Sec get paid?. .. .Immelman - "weakness...may also be wisdom", you're not a spin doctor for Stephen Byers are you? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .I am not surprised at these typically British attempts to pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator. We are in a global market place. What is wrong with learning from ALPA and AAPA and aiming for the Ts+Cs that our colleagues across the pond enjoy? We should aim high and not at our own feet! Anyway, I suppose it was worse during the Blitz. Still, musn't grumble. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[BOAC]

The manifesto for the SINGLE opposer will be out shortly. This is NOT a 'BA' thing. It is about a lot of things that affect all pilots, including the alleged perilous state of BALPA's finances.. .. .When you have a chance to read the proposal, calmly and rationally, and see what the man is offering to do for BALPA = you, I think many of you will see that it has a lot of merit. . .. .The thing that is annoying a lot of people now is the 'rubber-stamping' of a solitary applicant, whether or not he has been good/bad/indifferent etc etc. Democracy does have a place.. .. .Give the opposer a fair chance, for everyone's benefit. At least then it will have been a competition and not a 'fait accompli'.

[knows]

Quote from above "In BA the spoils go to the noisiest, not the most professional or productive or indispensable. CD has been given his chance by BA pilots and he's delivered nothing" . .-- I just love this! It's 100% true!

[Brae_Cwynd]

Clearly, a number of the previous posts are from non BALPA members. Otherwise, they would have received a letter outlining the election timetable. To suggest that this election was somehow to be secret is ludicrous.

At the last BALPA Annual Delegate Conference ( BALPA at its most democratic ), a motion critical of Chris Darke was put to the assembly. Just about every delegate spoke and 99% spoke in favour of Chris Darke. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of Chris Darke and he received a standing ovation at the end. Only one person voted against - John Frohnsdorff.

John who? many of you will ask. A BA longhaul pilot due to retire from BA later this year and who lives in France in order to hide from the UK taxman.

By all means let there be an election as that is what democracy demands. However, Chris Darke has the overwhelming support of the ADC delegates and that needs recognition in a democracy as well.

[Boeingman]

Just to keep the record straight, John abstained in the vote. There were none against.

[M.Mouse]

Brae-Cuynd was this the same ADC motion which was fleetingly mentioned in the ADC lose leaf report that informed us all that further details would be available on the BALPA website?

Eventually when somebody on the BA BALPA Compuserve forum asked when these details would be published it transpires that it was felt 'least said soonest mended' and nothing was in fact ever reported.

Funny that for my 1% I cannot find out exactly happened at the ADC. If CD is so overwhemingly supported then why not actually publicly say so?

BA representatives have in the past 12 months or so vastly improved there communication with BA members and it was long overdue. The representation over several (and two very notable issues in particular) was a disgrace. From my observations a shake up of the whole manner in which BALPA is managed is long overdue. If CD is re-elected all well and good. But whatever the outcome it will be a loud wakeup call.

Whether CD is re-elected or not there is, rightly or wrongly, a large number of people dissatisfied with CD and, more to the point, his leadership of BALPA.

For the sake of factual accuracy two people abstained at the ADC John Frohnsdorff and Richard Mawby.

Finally, I fail to see what relevance John Frohnsdorff's legitimate right to live where he chooses or the fact he is about to retire has. It was a brave decision to stand as a 'stalking horse' in order to give voice to a large body of opinion far from satisfied with BALPA's golf club style of management.

You may disagree with what is happening but how about leaving personalities out of the debate?

[airrage]

BALPA Fear and the GS Elections(PART 1)

BALPA FEAR and the General Secretary Elections

The main reason for this lengthy post is to vent my feelings on the coming GS elections(or recent elections depending on publication), to reassure non-BA BALPA members the nomination of John Frohnsdorff (a BA BALPA rep nominated with overwhelming BACC support)for General Secretary(GS) is not a BA pilots conspiracy to put one of their own in place at the top of BALPA and highlight some of the reasons why an election is vital to all of our futures as UK pilots. It is important to mention that the following is not meant to in anyway to reflect negatively on the hard work and daily achievements of our local council BALPA reps who do a tremendous job with little thanks, but rather to examine the effectiveness of the higher echelons of our union.

For those still reading.......

A lot of debate has been stirred up recently on the Internet pilot bulletin boards with regard General Secretary Elections. Most pilots will have probably not have even taken noticed of the surreptitiously coded BALPA letter that arrived through the mail outlining that the GS position actually was up for re-election(a 5-year event)and the deadline rapidly approaching should anyone dare want to nominate anyone else other than the incumbent Chris Darke. The letter started off by admitting that it had originally been sent out by e-mail and was only sending it out via regular post begrudgingly at the insistence of some members who thankfully understood the importance that 100% member notification of elections are a necessary pre-requisite in any democratic process(even Mugabe realised this point). It then proceeded to apologise to those who had received the message already via e-mail, not to those like myself who had not received it in the first place, implying that this notification letter was all just an unnecessary waste of resources. The letter then named the BALPA Rules with regard nominating a GS candidate(Rule 28, 24 Appendix 1)which I suppose one could look up in their BALPA Association Rulebook(sent at time of joining-which I'm sure most pilots have kept...NOT) rather than detailing in the letter itself(which of course would have been yet another unnecessary burden). And if a reader was still not put off of the idea of having a GS election by this point, the letter outlined the timetable to be followed; only 5weeks from the notification letters date to nominate a candidate(it could take some of us this long to find that rulebook outlining how to do that in the first place)along with various other hurdle dates and the occasional comment such as, "Announce nominations or result if only one candidate" "If an election is required to run between these dates".

The tone of the afore mentioned letter and recent postings on the Internet(unverified) of comments made by the Chairman and Vicechairman that they "FEAR" a GS election could break apart BALPA as a result of non-BA BALPA members withdrawing their support if a BA council nominated GS candidate should be elected, have led me to believe that BALPA do not in reality want to hold such elections as they may have to face up to the fact that a large number of it's members are in fact dissatisfied with it's recent track record and an election could in fact be the spark that ignites a desired total BALPA shake-up of it's existing management. As for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman's comments about this possibly breaking apart the union, I think it sounds like we need to hold elections for their positions as soon as possible as well.

Why some in BA might be miffed by BALPA's recent track record and if our experience is anything to go by, why other non-BA members should take note?
My own history is as a cadet trained BA pilot graduated 91. Laid off on graduation due the Gulf war for 4years(which I luckily spent flying elsewhere). I re-joined BA in Apr95 as a 737co-pilot at EOG(on their BALPA agreed terms and conditions which were much less than those cadets who joined straight in to BA in 91). After a few months in, BALPA agreed to the BA BEP initiative which was backdated to the 1stApr95(18days prior to my joining BA). This basically reduced my pay for my first 6years(i.e. year 3 was now 20K instead of 30K). Some have put this BEP earnings loss at a figure ranging anywhere from 50-70K of over the first 7years. It also introduced new entrant pay scales in BA. Those affected in BA by these reduced BEP wages now total a third of the BA workforce.

Everyone here needs to realise that it has been weak leadership in BALPA and nothing else that has been the cause of us losing every pay deal/conditions in recent history. Recently BALPA failed us even when they had 95% ballot support for strike. It was their "FEAR" then that the support might collapse should the pay deal be drawn out, and this might subsequently cause BALPA to collapse(sound familiar) that caused them to fall at the first hurdle. Is this protecting our 95%voted interests or the union for the unions sake? What about leadership? It was their job to maintain the support not weigh it up personally. At that time, if they had done their job and reassured those concerned pilots calling in that a strong front remained instead of worrying about how it might affect the union, it would have been BA that would have collapsed. I imagine it was only a worried minority that called the BALPA office and the vast majority sitting at home quietly awaiting strike action if necessary were only informed there was problems after it had all been called off. Is it too much to ask that BALPA lead strongly from the front once we have made our wishes known(95% !!!!!!!). They shouldn't be leaking stories of "FEAR" out to the troops but the exact opposite. If they are too conservative and fearful to take a stand and lead from the front then they shouldn't have run as a BALPA rep in the first place. We don't want or need people like this at the head of our union. It doesn't mean they have to be pig-headed but they do need a little fibre(much lacking recently)and charisma to lead the troops when needed, especially if it's in the best interests of the members to do so, of course there will occasionally be risks associated. You don't get anywhere in life without sticking your neck out once in a while.

Why is BALPA the only union BA are not scared to confront. Look at the recent "Transport for F.Engineers redundancy" debacle....our union buckles and the transport drivers just turn around and say NO.(I am not going to debate the virtues of either approach, just to state how ineffective our union can be to others). You can name any other union in BA and management are scared of them and don't even ask a second time if the first response is NO! CC...loaders...drivers....cargo...etc. Pilots....no problem, we are already working legal Max hrs/year, paid 40% less than N.American colleagues(ignoring cost of living differences) and they still try to squeeze us for more when some BA divisions(remain nameless)use work to rule to secure overtime, get paid even when they don't show up(often up to 40% of the workforce absent)and BA well aware of this fail to stop it. No, instead just ask the pilot's to give up something else. Give me a break, wake up everyone.

It is BALPA's job to carry out the members wishes, which might include having something as trivial to them as a G.S.election. If the union actually faces breaking up over something this trivial, if I was a BALPA rep I would be quickly working behind scenes to reassure local council reps so as to prevent any divisions before anyone else found out how weak we really are. I certainly wouldn't be trying to rally members by "FEAR" to prevent a democratic process. If you elect another GS candidate or don't vote for Chris Darke, non-BA BALPA members will resign and the union might collapse financially. Sounds like we need a whole raft of elections to lance this festering boil. We need to weed out these "FEARFUL" BALPA reps no matter how good they are in other areas. If they aren't strong enough to rally us when the going gets tough but instead mutter about how worried they are, then they should do themselves and us a favour and step down.

Continued PART 2..............

[airrage]

BALPA Fear and the GS Elections(PART 2)

PART2........

Yes but is the General Secretary to Blame ?
Many people have stated that one cannot blame Chris Darke(CD) personally for the degradation of UK Pilots pay and conditions over the past 10years(the fact that degradation has occurred is generally not in any doubt) and why should we need to elect someone else. I agree it is not desired or credible to try to appropriate blame to any one individual in BALPA to our degrading T&C's, but as established in the role of GS, surely he is the person "ultimately responsible". The only thing possibly questionable is how he has managed to secure a 45% pay rise between 96-00 whilst the pilots T&C's he is enrolled to protect continue to lose ground whilst increasing productivity. Blame for blames sake is not constructive, but weeding out weakness is. With the coincidental timing of the G.S.'s re-election it is wholly appropriate to examine the past 10years of his leadership and examine whether we are happy with his results or whether other suitable candidates should be considered.

Why a GS Election is not a BA BALPA Member plot and ways to avoid division.
Many non-BA members will question the fact that the only other candidate for GS(JF) comes from within the BA fold(despite his only goal is to remain in office only until such time as a suitable replacement can be found). It is important to state categorically that BA members are not trying to put a BA minded individual at the head of BALPA. Many companies recently brought into BALPA will be happy with the progress to date of having BALPA recognised in their firm(aided by recent changes to UK union law)and will have many unpleasant fresh memories of not having a union. However it is important in the upcoming election process to set aside pre-conceived notions of BA pilots and realise it just might not be a case of "spoilt BA pilots expessing sour grapes" but in fact be rooted in the extended time and history that we have experienced under present BALPA leadership. The elections will affect us all over the next 5years.

There is no reason for the GS election to cause a split as some scare mongers will have you believe and it this is the very type of BALPA Conservatism that has thwarted all our recent pay negotiations and is the root of the problem. This is the reason things must change if we ever expect an improvement to our current situation.

Saying that, there are ways to avoid the mistrust by non-BA members of BA members intentions:
In the run-up to the GS elections, JF could name a professional head-hunter organisation which he agrees to hire immediately on his election to provide BALPA with 2-3 possible candidates for the GS position, final selection to be decided by balloting ALL BALPA members. After this one and only act, JF will then immediately stand down and an interim board consisting of ALL local council reps will act as Gen Sec should any action be required. Professional Head-hunters would have an extensive list of major players and extremely qualified candidates to put forth immediately and the balloting of BALPA members to chose between them could happen with a week of JF's election. Using a professional head-hunter org.would remove any justified suspicions from Non-BA members and conspiracy theorists as to any GS appointments as well as provide us with the best people on the market.

The election does not have to be divisive, the question is, is an election/change necessary at the top of BALPA.......unless you're satisfied with the last 10years the answer is YES. Don't try to read too much into what might or most likely not happen after we have decided an election is necessary, especially from scare mongers. If a simple election can break apart BALPA(stunned that anyone within BALPA org would even profess to this) then we should be asking how we have let it get into this shape in the first place and what can be done to strengthen it NOW. The time of Conservative insecure inaction needs to be put solidly behind us. We have muttered under our breaths for long enough.

At the end of the day we donate 1% of our career earnings to BALPA to carry out the wishes of it's members, if BALPA is unable to deliver on the wishes of the majority of it's members(i.e. 95%)then what good is it really and why am I donating my 1%? We don't keep the union running just because we need a union, we keep the union running because it supposed to be effective. If it ceases to be effective then we seriously need to consider alternatives. Legal coverage and insurance we can get elsewhere at a fraction of the cost, strong collective bargaining and leadership is what the extra we pay is supposed to cover.

As for the idea that having a General Secretary election might cause angst amongst BA and non-BA Balpa members, and that division could break apart BALPA(given the success of recent recruitment of non-BA members becoming a much large part of our union), I would like to know if this is in fact the case, what the purpose of focusing on increasing BALPA membership over the past few years if it has in fact weakened our collective bargaining position. So that we could have a bigger union, and our union leaders could have more street cred down at the pub and help propel them into greater positions when they eventually leave BALPA? So we could stuff our coffers to afford more staff to admin the greater number of members, even though we are now less effective? To collect more revenue to cover up BALPA's poor Financial Situation? These are serious questions we should all consider. What strategy was there for increasing membership if our union leaders now tell us we risk breaking it apart by having a simple election for the top position in our union, whilst still officially following a policy of increasing membership?

The whole point of this letter is to ask whether we exist to support the union or whether the union exists to support us. Lets not let BALPA become a living breathing monster that requires massive attention to survive yet fails on it's purpose for being. The union as an organisation cannot be allowed to become more important than the purpose for what it was set up in the first place.

I'll pre-empt the..."but we are BALPA, and it is up to us". Yes this is very true, and this is why we have elected people to represent our wishes, not to make deals or compromises without our consultation. My point being that recently those representing us have not shown the leadership or direction some of us have hoped for(at least not in securing the pay we all feel we deserve). This reinforces the need for new leadership from the top down and in doing so, perhaps a new guiding principle of operations for BALPA, a guiding Principle based on strong leadership for securing it's members desires through collective bargaining. We are BALPA, BALPA is us. 95% of pilots in BALPA voted for either a pay rise or we would go on strike a few years back. If we are indeed BALPA then why did a strike not occur when the pay rise didn't appear. Unless the remaining 5% were in fact our reps.

If BALPA is up to us afterall, then let the elections decide

If BALPA as an entity has become more important than it's members desires and proves ineffective in delivering on those desires then I for one will be looking elsewhere for effective support and leadership in the very near future(TGWU?), and the recent UK union recognition laws(50%+ employee vote equals mandatory union recognition by the firm)so helpful in aiding BALPA's growth over the past couple of years, could possibly prove just as effective in it's subsequent downsizing.

I for one do not want to read the moaning on pprune 5years from now about how could things have gotten so bad, especially from those who fail to objectively review the alternatives available without a preconceived bias.

Good Luck, and remember it's All of our futures(not prejudices)that is at stake !!!!!!

[next in line]

Airrage,

The decision on whether BA pilots will go on strike is taken by the BA cc reps after consultation with the line community, not by CD or the NEC (although it IS the NEC which gives the 'authority' - never refused).

You will almost certainly have the opportunity to go on strike this year as BA are adamant that the work currently being done by pilots on the Master seniority list is to be transferred to its subsidiary - BACE.

Your reps are adamant that the work must remain and so a punch up is inevitable since BA believes that BA pilots are a collection of windbags - good at complaining but reluctant to take action. We will all have a chance to stand up and be counted and you can count on me, despite having only a few years to go.

If this transfer of work is accpetable to the line comunity, then it can hardly objct when the EOG work is transferred in a few years time followed by the transfer some years later of the LHR SH work, etc.........

JF has many talents but attending meetings until they finish is not one of them - he is always sloping off early from cc meetings; goes with living abroad I presume.

[airrage]

Next in Line;

Not trying to pick apart your post just want my viewpoint to be clear.

You say..
"The decision on whether BA pilots will go on strike is taken by the BA cc reps after consultation with the line community, not by CD or the NEC (although it IS the NEC which gives the 'authority' - never refused). "

Does not a 95% strike vote count as clear consultation with our BA cc reps? Why was this not carried out as it surely was the will of the majority ? Nowhere in my post did I ever blame CD or the NEC directly, but the need for a change of BALPA's present fearful corporate culture is clearly apparent(unless you are pleased with the last 10years of degrading T&C's, hardly a reason for overwhelming support of present management). That change starts at the top-down since at the bottom of the rung(the local reps)do seem to be effective in covering the smaller local issues.

You also say;
"You will almost certainly have the opportunity to go on strike this year .."
That is not the end goal for which I protest. If it becomes inevitable to attain what is righfully ours then so be it, but I do not want to be counted as someone who rallies the group for a senseless strike. Change is necessary and I am willing to take things to their end-game(which is almost certainly not necessary as BA management as a selling point in Institutional briefings admit that they have a pilot workforce sub-mkt rate.) What I want is equality of standards with our peers(peers meaning the major International carriers). By attaining equality (40% less than N.American)this will also have a knock-on beneficial effect to other pilot groups pay within the UK.

JF's choice of residence is not my concern. Aside from not actually running to stay in the GS office(but only to find a suitable alternative), the fact that he has the financial intellect to save 1000's on taxes whilst probably improving his standard of living, only supports my belief that he is the kind of shrewd individual that we need at the moment. Whether he follows like a sheep to the slaughterhouse of the inland revenue or choses individually to protect his wealth is not of my concern, though as a capitalist rather than a communist, I can't help but respect his choice.

[airrage]

Looks like theres a few dissatisfied BALPA members on this board, the Poll is not going so well for CD.

[next in line]

Airrage,

We agree in that the rates of pay for BA pilots should move closer to those of BA's competitors, preferably US competitors and not Aerolineas Argentinas, also a competitor!

If I could just comment on one part of your message:

<<That change starts at the top-down since at the bottom of the rung(the local reps)do seem to be effective in covering the smaller local issues. >>

The bottom rung is not the local reps but the general members, ie, you and your chums. The 'top' - at least in the BA section - is the BACC. This body has to be absolutely CERTAIN that the BA piot community will go on strike if necessary before calling for a strike.

95% voting 'yes' is a huge number but the reps have to be absolutely sure that 95% will not turn up for work before embarking on action. Anyway, if I recall correctly, most of the objectives from the last ballot were met, including the introduction of FHR into EOG, about £10k extra for a 737 captain. No doubt you will find some items which were not introduced to your irritation but going on strike for the missing items needs 92% to feel the same way as you do!

Because I believe that the election of JF will cause harm to the professional standing of our Association - a General Secretary who knows b all about running a Union, and who doesn't stay for meetings - I regret that I will not be voting for him; in fact, I will vote for CD instead!

[BlueUpGood]

So sad to see that pure emotional rhetoric may scupper the chances of an improvement in the future. Can I point out the following.

I am with BA.

It is NOT as those on the outside percieve it.

I am actively seeking to LEAVE BA as many are doing / have done.

John Frohnsdorff is standing to oppose Darke simply to get him removed. He is proposing to hold office if elected for as long as it takes to hold another election to find a lasting replacement.

He does not wish to take ANY of the salary associated with the post.

He is giving up his valued and hard earned pending retirement to make things better for YOU.

Until another candidate is prepared to stand, I strongly urge you and all our colleagues to support him, or put up another viable candidate.

PLEASE see past you prejudice and deal in fact.

[airrage]

next in line.....

Where you comment about the bottom rung being us and not the local reps I think I pre-empted your comments in my previous post. I refer you to my previous post(don't want to reprint it again) in particular the paragraph beginning;
" I'll pre-empt the..."but we are BALPA, and it is up to us".

you say..... "95% voting 'yes' is a huge number but the reps have to be absolutely sure that 95% will not turn up for work before embarking on action. "
So what are you proposing, that once BALPA has recieved our strike ballot results(95%) they should then carry out another ballot asking how many guys are really serious about their first vote. And then they can then run a third ballot asking how serious we where on the second ballot, etc, etc. This is what my post(Part 1+2)is on about when I talk about leadership. It is not up to BALPA to make personal assessments about what they think might or might not happen(the FEAR factor to which I refer)but once they have received our mandate(95% or less)it is their job to MAKE IT HAPPEN! No wonder BA are never worried about a pilot's strike if our union is scared to act on such a majority vote. What would have happened if we would have had 100% in support, would BALPA have to still go away and wonder if we really mean it, and worry that some might fold early. If they are worried that a few might cave in then they should be rallying the troops and reassuring the weakest links, not telling us how scared they are that the strike or BALPA might collapse. If the union collapses it is because it fails to deliver the wishes of it's members, if it cannot deliver on it's members wishes then why are we giving 1% of our money away? So CD can drive a nice car? The union must be effective, and to be effective they need to show leadership in order that they can carry out our wishes.

You also say....
"Anyway, if I recall correctly, most of the objectives from the last ballot were met"
I could fill the server of pprune explaining why this was NOT the case but experiencing it first hand I can reassure you that this was not the case. BALPA was allowed to declare the victory and it was in their interests to tell the members that all was acheived, rather than admit ineffectiveness and failure. Co-pilots at EOG recieved about 11% more for 10% more work(actually at a loss if those same hours had been worked on the old pay....overtime), the increase in the CAPT's wages(longevity) was sufficient to fill the increasing GAP in numbers of people bidding for EOG Commands(BA needed to do something to encourage bidders and their tactic proved a success, but this was not as a result of BALPA's actions). In fact BA had proposed introducing longevity into EOG months before the pay negotiations to solve their shortage problems but actually delayed doing so for months so that it could be seen as a concession to the negotiations. Other so called BALPA victories included;
- a repeated promise(from pay deal negotiations 2yrs previous) to look into a bidding system for EOG(installed 5years late).
- New Entrant lower wages slipped in at the second round, which I think they have done quite well out of over the past few years of recruitment(a third of BA pilots now on this wage).

The list goes on but it is hard to realistically call it a success. I remember sitting at a BALPA meeting pre-strike where BALPA showed various overhead slides at BA's pay proposals and had a jolly good laugh about it and showed how it was actually a loss in pay. Anyone else who attended might remember. After the strike vote the only difference was BA reduced the annual hrs by about 5 from their proposal, they introduced longevity(surprise surprise, no more CAPT shortage)and NEW Entrant lower wages. I opposed this at the time based on our projected retirement rate meant we would soon have a lot of angry colleagues.

Your continued personal vindictiveness towards JF I will not comment on except to say you continue to ignore people telling you that JF is not actually running to stay in the GS office. He is not benefitting personally from this at all. In fact he is sticking his neck out a lot further than any of our BALPA "Leaders" have done since I've been in this union and will probably incurr only a lot of thankless work in doing so. Perhaps he lacks the FEAR gene that is required to rise to the top of our union.

Good luck with your CD vote, if the poll on this board is anything to go by though I wouldn't run down to Ladbrokes betting your wages on his victory.

[rubik101]

Two points.

1. If my somewhat limited memory serves me correctly, since CD became Gen. Sec. we have scarecly heard a word of dissent from him. From the the ivory tower he inhabits at great expense to the membership, he failed spectacularly to move to prevent the massive lay offs caused by BA's heavy-handed move on Gatwick.

2. If anyone thinks that in the present climate that BA will continue to wield it's big stick in the same way as it did in the past, then they only have to look at the pitiful attempt by BA to muscle in to the Low cCost market to see they have cocked up in a big way recently and don't look as if they know quite where to go in the future.