Chris Darke to be re-elected!!! Vote

[M.Mouse]

First we have the disgraceful letter from the BALPA chairman which was very cleverly worded to try and influence people to vote for CD and now we have the letter to Britannia members allegedly from the Britannia CC chairman explaining how wonderful CD is and by the way don't forget to vote for the candidate that you think is best!

I have never seen such disgraceful propaganda being published by those that should know better to try and influence a quite legitimate election.

There seems to be a deliberate drive to make this election be seen as a BA plot against non-BA BALPA members.

What are they afraid of? That the cosy gravy train is being exposed perhaps?

If the election contest is seen to be free and fair then the majority verdict will be accepted with good grace but the level of anger being generated by the underhand tactics so far will lead to
mass resignations by BA members.

That will benefit nobody except perhaps the employers.

One only has to look at how damaging the formation of CC89 as a breakaway from BASSA for BA cabin crew was to see what might happen.

[unwiseowl]

And I wonder who gets to count the votes''

[Hand Solo]

Its OK if you say sorry!

I see Mervyn has sent us all another letter explaining how he wasn't really a naughty boy. Its lucky that our association sought legal advice on the matter and the NEC decided he was in the clear after all! Still, with 7000 members and two letters sent first class to each he's only wasted £3780 of our associations funds on his folly, so thats alright then.

[M.Mouse]

You couldn't make this up!

Apparently Mervyn Granshaw's letter did not contravene the law nor BALPA rules.

Allegedly he admitted he had obtained a legal opinion on the proposed letter before it went out............on the advice of Chris Darke!

Add a legal fee to the postage costs.

[airrage]

Dear MERV,

Thanks for spending even more of our money demonstrating once again not only your arrogance towards the membership, but your ignorance toward a fair election process. It would have been a more gracious thing to have sent nothing, than waste our money(again) trying to justify what was obvious to all BALPA members, your election rigging attempt. A the very least it should have been a letter issued by the lawyers concerned , not another MERV free CD RANT.

Besides, an apology would have been preferred stating that although no laws were broken he had shown an error in judgement by sending out such a letter prior to an election and was sorry for upsetting the membership. His one line JF plug about being a fully paid up member has done little to redress the imbalance of the 2page CD plug received previously.

The fact that a legal case may have been difficult to prove(which I doubt in the first place) does not lessen the fact that in all practicality the letter was an outrageous faux pas. How many people here think former Pres.B.CLINTON, "Did not have sex with that women", or did not try drugs because he "didn't inhale".

I also am slightly cynical without info regarding which lawyer's were in fact consulted. How many members here would be satisfied if it was in fact a BALPA Association lawyer that had found that there was no breach of Rule24 of it's own Assoc.Chairman? Nothing like Investigating your own crimes is there. It would be a bit like getting Hilters's SS to Investigate whether to prosecute for war crimes.

My faith in our Union HEAD OFFICE(not local CC's) is detriorating rapidly after this last MERV Special Update. Three questions;
1. When is Merv up for Re-Election ?
2. Can we really say that "an irregularity(or maybe BALPA's lawyers consider this a regularity for this Union, hence the legality issue) has not occurred that could materially affect the Ballot Results." (Rule 24)
3. Who here thinks our Clintonesque(Non-Inhaling, celibate) Assoc.chairman Merv should resign?

[Hot Wings]

Airrage - when is Merv up for re-election?!!! I'm choking on my cornflakes! Is BALPA a union or a sitcom? A prolonged sweep with a very large broom is required at New Road.

[The Zombie]

What a joke this has become......!!

My 1% (over 12 yrs now) is a 'small' price to pay for the support and valuable representation that our union offers.

However, I too have expressed my views over this election comunication to New Road and that is what you all should do.

Do not complain on this forum. Give them a telephone call today.
Tell them what you think.

Ps. I'll vote for John. He's a pilot too !!

[airrage]

I have started a POLL called "What to do about MERV". Go there and let your opinions be known. Results will be forwarded to BALPA on the 1st of June.

What to do about MERV

[next in line]

It is now becoming clear what is driving this. Two years ago, some of the BA Long Haul council made themselves look fools by resigning over an issue - the 777 bunk affair. They alleged that CD went behind their backs and entered into negotiations with BA. What actually happened was that in an effort to move matters forward, CD asked the BA CC chairman (ex LHCC) if it would be worthwhile having an off the record exploratory meeting with BA. The Chairman agreed and asked his scheduling reps to come up with some ideas. MR and SM are now on the NEC and are seeking revenge.

IS - aka Captain Angry - is obsessed with the GS' salary and bores MAN FOs silly with his views; they are all delighted that they have been directed to LHR and no longer have to listen to him expressing his anger which has got worse since he became a rep. IS attempted to get the ADC to agree with his views on the GS but was not successful. MR and SM teamed up with IS to get elected to the NEC and the first two were successful.

JF is upset that his beloved Pensions Consultant has been given the heave ho and blames the GS. Despite being a nice chap, J has been stitched up by MR SM and IS who all have personal agendas to prosecute.

[Boeingman]

Thanks next in line . At long last some facts. The conspiracy theorists have been running riot.

There are a few people out there shooting themselves in the foot. I think their attention could be focussed better elsewhere, like getting a decent payrise for their members. Merv and CD are on their side, after all is said and done.

[airrage]

As far as the BA LH CC resigning I believe it is because the reps wanted to have a financial penalty in place if BA did not implement their promises of the agreed 777 final-stage rest facility in place by a certain date. The BA rep's refused to budge on this issue as they know historically BA promises mean nothing unless a fianancial motive exists for them to do so(Penalty).

CD signed the agreement against the wishes of the reps. Result: The 777 has now been in BA about 6-7years and Boeing has yet to receive the go-ahead to begin production of the final-stage rest facility agreed which would take over a year to get onboard the first aircraft. HHMMMM......you decide.

The general Secretary Elections are not and have not ever been about a BA plot, anyone who has read the past posts in full will realise this(see my lengthy post on page3). It is important that we pilots stay together as a group and try not to descend into a anti-BA rant and figure out whats best going forward.

If you re-read my posts you will find that I do not post anti-Darke messages, in fact my first post stated;

"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."

So I am not anti-Darke but I do express extreme discomfort with BALPA's head Office attempts to avert our unions Democratic processes;
1. First by attempting to not notify all members properly that his position was due for re-election. What is the justification for not sending out a letter, cost ?.........then how can they not discipline Merv Granshaw for then sending out 2 separate letters supporting CD's Election ?
2. MG sending out his first letter.
3. MG sending out his second letter.

1+2 above point load and clear that BALPA had no intention of running a fair Election and intended for CD to be re-instated with NO fuss. #3 above shows an unapologetic arrogance for it's members that smacks of maintaining the status quo of a cushy head office. Remember this is OUR union and we want it run democratically, not like some elite private society.

It's all our future's so lets not confuse the issues.

[M.Mouse]

airrage

Although we are on the same side your verbosity and the pointless thread you started about Mervyn Granshaw make you sound and seem ridiculous.

[XFO1-11]

M Mouse,

I think Airrage is expressing frustration at antics interfering with a fair election.

Can you really blame him?

Regards,
XFO1-11

[Hand Solo]

It wasn't a few members of the Long Haul Council that resigned, it was all of them! Wasn't it something along the lines of the reps said to CD "Do not under any circumstances sign this agreement" and CD came back and said "Oops, I signed the agreement". Whats the point in having a GS if he goes against the clearly stated instructions of the people he is supposed to represent? How would you like it in your airline if you sent CD to the board saying "Do not do x,y,z" and he came right back saying "Ooops, just signed all your rights away!"?

[next in line]

Hand Solo

Not all the LHLC resigned - 4 remained deciding that continuing to work on behalf of their colleagues was more important than trying to make a point.

The financial penalty that airrage mentions was doomed not to succeed due to the number of volunteers willing to fly long range without an acceptable bunk. stage 2 is currently in place - as agreed - and is considered acceptable by those who use it - again, no shortage of pilots bidding for these long range flights! I agree that the Overhead rest facility is indeed not installed due to Sept 11th and the airline's financial state (the excuse for everything these days including not sending printed timetables to FOs and EOs but only to captains and chief stewards) but BA wants it more than the pilots since the current facility reduces the number of first class seats availabe for sale!

CD does not sign agreements off his own bat. MO, the chairman at the time, was of the opinion that since the LH reps who were present at the meeting (but in a separate room although kept fully consulted on the developments as they arose) were happy with the arrangements including the stage 2 bunks which are currently in place, then it was quite acceptable to sign an agreement.

This was the final meeting, a 'Standing Conference'. If agreement had not been made, then BA were at liberty to do what they wanted. It was felt that as 777 pilots were falling over themselves to do the work - without a proper bunk - then BA would go ahead reasoning that pilots would not go on strike over lack of a bunk, a view that was being continually expressed to various reps from the line community.

No rights were signed away. In fact, an agreement was made which introduced a standard of bunk which is acceptable with an overhead unit(OCRF) to be installed which, btw, will have rest seats fitted which are not stressed for take off and landing which results in the extra pilots being on the FD for take off and landing which results in the jump seats NOT being available for the captain's and FO's wives, sorry, spouses (the current arrangements having rest seats in the cabin for the spouses)! Some pilots are now telling their reps to delay the OCRF as long as they can!

[XFO1-11]

Next in Line,

I have been asked to place the following on the forum by MR who is not on PPruNe.

Regards,
XFO1-11


Assertion: "Not all the LHLC resigned - 4 remained deciding that continuing to work on behalf of their colleagues was more important than trying to make a point"

Facts: Incorrect - all but one of the LHLC resigned: although a small number
subsequently withdrew their resignations under pressure from the BALPA 'establishment'. However most of those now say that in retrospect they wish they had not withdrawn their resignations and are appalled at the way the 'establishment' refused to run the re-election that the BALPA Rules required on the basis that 'they would get the same team back so it was better to muddle through for nine months until the next 'calendar' election was due in the hope that
memories would dim'.

Assertion: "The financial penalty that airrage mentions was doomed not to succeed due to the number of volunteers willing to fly long range without an acceptable bunk"

Facts. Not sure fully what is meant here; but the LHLC position always was that should an acceptable deal not be reached through the 'formal/normal' BALPA
negotiating processes, then all the facts were to be placed before the 777 membership
and it would have been for the 777 members to decide in a democratic referendum
whether or not the BA proposal was acceptable. In the event CD and MO brokered a deal
which allowed BA to go back on areas already agreed with the 777 reps during local level negotiations (and recorded in agreed minutes of the meetings), allowed BA to go back on commitments made by the 777 Chief Pilot's in newsletters on the issue (ie his and
Mike Jeffery assurance that the overhead flight crew rest would form part of the agreement "....as your Director is committed to investment in crew facilities.....), and which fell well short of the BACC position which had been debated at length and agreed the
Thursday as CD and MO reached the substantially inferior deal on the following Monday.


Assertion: "....the excuse for everything these days including not sending printed timetables to FOs and EOs but only to captains and chief stewards....."

Facts: "These days" nobody gets a printed timetable because they are no longer produced.

Quote: "CD does not sign agreements off his own bat"

Facts: Mike Jeffery had approached CD about the urgent nature of an agreement on 777 Bunks so that already delayed decisions could be implemented on route splits between 744 and 777 fleets and the next bid packages produced. Under pressure from MJ, CD agreed to holding a 'Standing Conference', ie the end of the negotiating machinery between BA and BALPA. On its own this was rather 'irregular' because the issue was still at local level between BA and BALPA (hence the 777 reps acting at that stage on BALPA's behalf) and the next step would have been to elevate it to Head Office (where the BACC Chairman and others come in). Then if there is no agreement, it goes to Standing Conference and the GS and DFO come in. At that final level, there is an element of the GS having the potential to act "off his
own bat". What happened here is that the GS did exactly that (in aassociation with the BACC
Chairman) but only after allowing the BA DFO (MJ)to pressurise him into agreeing to elevate
the issue to a level within the negotiating machinery where it had not arrived by the
due process.

Assertion: "MO, the chairman at the time, was of the opinion that since the LH reps who
were present at the meeting (but in a separate room although kept fully consulted on the developments as they arose) were happy with the arrangements including the stage 2 bunks
which are currently in place, then it was quite acceptable to sign an agreement"

Facts: There are very serious errors here. The issue went like this:- 1. MJ wanted a Standing Conference (SC) to bring the issue to a head: despite the fact that the BA/BALPA machinery had not been exhausted - which is how you should get to a SC 2. He contacted CD and 'demanded' one and CD tried to obliged - but could not get an
'official team' at such short notice. However he did get a 'team' of sorts, but it did not include any 777 reps (or any others from the LHLC) nor the BACC Chairman or Vice-Chairman so was given the status of an 'interim SC' with the plan being to have a full SC on the Monday after availablities were resolved over the weekend. 3. At that 'interim SC' a document headed "Draft Proposals for the Handling of Long Range Trips on the 777 Fleet" was "agreed in principle". In the document was the clause "BALPA suggested 2X NCP payment per trip, BA responded with 1.5X NCP per trip" 4. Such a concept of EXTRA pay for operating the sub-standard 1a Bunk was 180 DEGREES REMOVED from the policy the LHLC was pursuing and also BACC policy - and this aspect of
777 Bunks policy had been endorsed by the BACC the day before the 'interim SC'. What the LHLC and BACC wanted was normal payments for those who flew the trips and protection for those senior enough to get the trips but who did not think they could rest adequately in the 1a bunk and therefore dropped the trips (NB the 1a bunk was agreed as having
shortcomings and hence BA's willingness to negotiate on this area). 5. Before the the full SC started on the Monday, the LHLC part of the BALPA team met with CD and MJ to voice their disquiet at these "draft scheduling proposals", and the rest of the morning was spent with CD and MJ going between the BA side and the LHLC reps getting the scheduling back into line with LHLC/BACC policy. Which is how the issue was finalised and operated. 6. The meeting then turned to the various stages up to the final Overhead Flight Crew Rest. CD brought to the LHLC reps BA's proposed agreement. This was then amended so it reflected areas which had already been agreed at local level and minuted in agreed minute as such; and also amended using words from Alan stealey's newsletters to incorporate the commitment he had made in newsletters into any agreement. 7. The SC then resumed WITH ALL THOSE INVOLVED ATTENDING THE FULL SC (ie including the full LHLC team - contrary to the assertions above). Discussion went on for some time but the BA side would not agree to its previously agreed points or promises/commitments being
'firmed up' into a formal agreement so the LHLC part of the BALPA team foun itself unable to agree. There was then an adjournment. 8. In his subsequent report to the NEC (explaining why all but one of the LHLC had
resigned) CD confirms this, he writes ".....The BALPA team then adjourned to consider the
negotiations.....". He then goes on in the document "After a long discussion and in spite
of the reps., the BACC Chairman and the GS agreed to tell the company that there was an
agreement based on the Friday and concluded on the Monday", ie he did do it off his own bat in association with the BACC Chairman (who was acting contrary to the position of the BACC a few days earlier). CD then goes on to write "There was no clear view from
the reps what they would do after rejection". THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE BECAUSE THE LHLC REPS MADE CLEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF ON THE FLEET THAT WAS INFERIOR TO PROMISES TO THE THE FLEET BY ITS CHIEF PILOT IN NEWSLETTERS
WITHOUT A BALLOT OF MEMBERS ON THE FLEET SIGNIFYING THEIR ACCEPTANCE. There can be no doubt about this position because the IRO (Chris Aikens - and it would be worth anyone asking him why he resigned from BALPA and posting it here)in the BA section had taken legal advice from the BA lawyers as to whether or not it would be legal to run a ballot within a
specific group of the pilot force - and the answer was yes.

Assertion: ".....777 pilots were falling over themselves to do the work - without a proper bunk - then BA would go ahead reasoning that pilots would not go on strike over lack of a bunk......."

Facts: If that's what the 777 pilots wanted by ballot, the LHLC would have happily accepted it - but what they could not be party to was an agreement allowing BA to go back on agreed/declared positions without reference to the affected members

Assertion: "No rights were signed away."

Facts: The agreement 'signed away' positions already agreed or promised in newsletters.

Assertion: "... with an overhead unit(OCRF) to be installed which, btw,
will have rest seats fitted which are not stressed for take off and landing
which results in the extra pilots being on the FD for take off and landing
which results in the jump seats NOT being available for the captain's and FO's
wives, sorry, spouses (the current arrangements having rest seats in the cabin for the spouses)! Some pilots are now telling their reps to delay the OCRF as long as they can!'>"

Comment: Really - in which case one assumes you must be a rep. How about having the courage to declare who you are and just where you have got all your duff gen. Every "fact" above can be substanstiated with full documantation - some of your errors are so serious, eg regarding the conduct of the SC and how the LHLC reps were involved, that you should reconsider your attitude to the whole issue

[airrage]

Nicely researched XFO, it's important mis-information does not get accepted as fact by someone acting in the Know. It's funny that someone apparently supporting CD should actually be the one to bring up this prime example of CD proceeding with an agreement with little regard for the CC reps stated objectives or the negotiation process. His henchman Merv G, shows equal ability in authoritarian practises. But then I suppose that's just me being cynical, like I really have a lot to gain by this Election.

Unlike MG however, I would like to take this time to apologise.....
I admit to overeacting in wanting due notification and a fair General Secretary Election process, as if it's even important to vote for the head of our pilot's union given their great results over the last decade. And then to overact to the Chairman's letter who was clearily annoyed at having an Election forced upon him by a few pesky members. To top it off, I then overacted to our Chairman's unapologetic second letter, declaring himself clear of wrongdoing(at our expense) by doing something as rash as holding a Democratic POLL asking how many people think he overstepped his position. For this I am truly guilty.

Edited 6 May.
I stand corrected, Poll still stands, just moved.Go to Poll

I am also guilty, as a humble pilot, of questioning why it seems the top of our union not-so subtley tried to suppress the democratic process by not notifying us by letter that the GS position was up for re-election. Costs ? - then why can the chairman then send each member a letter(2times)off his own back without reprimand(surely MG's letters were not as important as notifying members that the position of head of our union was up for re-election?). Just when I thought that perhaps I was just imagining a conspiracy to re-instate CD, I received MG's 1st letter confirming my first suspicions.

I have been trying to show people that those at the top of our union are comfortable with the status quo. The status quo being an ever-increasing membership and personal pay whilst decreasing real pay and conditions for the pilots they represent. Ask yourself what I have to gain by saying I feel us pilots are being duped. I am not a rep and never have been. But some people were to gain if CD was re-instated, the status quo. Why have I arroused such anger just for wanting a fair election and a head office who realises I might want to know when the position for head of my union is up for re-election in case I have the audacity to actually vote given 1% of my earnings go to the union ?

At the end of the day, we are all Pilots whatever outfit. When are we as a group going to take back our rightful status from the airline's CV-builders, beancounters and those in BALPA's head office who have failed to protect us over the past 10years.

[beaver eager]

airrage you say,

I am also guilty, as a humble pilot, of questioning why it seems the top of our union not-so subtley tried to suppress the democratic process by not notifying us by letter that the GS position was up for re-election.

How long has "notso" been at the top of our union then? And does he even know?

Seriously though, whilst airrage is by his own admission guilty of significant over-reaction to these events, I can only applaud his efforts in highlighting what cannot be seen by any fair minded individual who is capable of thinking clearly, as anything other than an attempt to[list=a][*]Avoid drawing attention to the fact that an election was due to take place in the first place.
[*]Following the failure of the above strategy, to influence the result by using members' money to send out propaganda from a senior official endorsing his favoured candidate and besmirching the opponent.[/list=a]

This is not good. Balpa had (again, by its own albeit tacit admission) a severe 'democratic deficit' some years back which it had until recently worked hard to overcome... It seems that there is still much work to be done in this direction at the very top of the organisation.

If this behaviour were allowed to continue, ordinary members with smaller axes to grind than airrage (or maybe just less time on their hands) will simply show their feelings by cancelling their subscriptions. We would then all be the losers because whatever state the union can allow our terms and conditions to sink to, without its continued existence, the management will just have a field day.


Oh! And just to correct the incorrect correction from earlier that was presented on behalf of MR as "fact"...

Facts: "These days" nobody gets a printed timetable because they are no longer produced.

May I refer readers within BA to the communication dated 3rd May entitled "BA Timetables - note from Lloyd" which states clearly the correct position with regard to the issue of paper timetables... Captains and Senior Cabin Attendants only. i.e. One each side of the locked flight-deck door, to facilitate the answer of in-flight queries by connecting passengers.

[airrage]

Yes me again.

It is worth copying one of my other posts from different thread with regard the possibility of BA pilots leaving BALPA en-mass if dissatisfaction continues and joining another union. It is a serious worry but a definite possibilty.

UK union recognition laws changed this past year. Now, If 50+% of employees vote in favour of a union it has to be legally recognised by the firm involved(used to great affect by BALPA to increase membership over the past year). So if for instance more than 50% of BA pilots voted in favour to say bring the TGWU (who run BASSA our cabin crew union, plus our transport drivers, plus cargo) BALPA would cease to be the official union in BA. BA could still choose to acknowledge BALPA but it would cease to be effective within BA with less than 50% support. Just food for thought of course, but something people should keep in mind when they throw around anti-BA sentiment. At the moment the higher input per employees of BA-BALPA union subscriptions help fund some of the services that would not be around should these BA subscription funds be diverted elsewhere(in facts some say BALPA would be in financial trouble, CD and MG would have to take a pay cut perhaps). The attitude of our union head office of late also inches the yet untested numbers closer or over the needed 50%.

Time for another POLL ? (joke)

[BOROUGH COUNCIL]

This thread is getting a bit long. Can we start a new one with a name like: "New size and shape for BALPA about to be released", or "BA members approach ALPA to replace BALPA"

BALPA is top heavy and sadly the head-man gets the blame, from me anyhow. Remember how Air Canada just got up one day and left CALPA for ALPA. I wonder if ALPA knows what a longhaul heavy Captain is worth?