View Poll Results: Do BACC have the best interests of CitiExpress at heart with their Scope Clause ??
Yes
32
15.92%
No
73
36.32%
Nope, only their own wallets!!!
96
47.76%
Voters: 201. This poll is closed
The BA Scope Clause.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they fought for us to be on equal T+C's because we were joining the mainline seniority list. I think we would all love for BACE pilots to join the seniority list and get BA terms and conditions because then we'll all be pulling the same way.... But BA arent that stupid.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few pages back, Airage, was considering the problems for BA should one of the f BA franchise aircraft end up with a serious incident and the negative impact of pictures of a BA coloured tail. There is another viewpoint.
People at GB are very concerned about such an incident. The chances of it happening with a BA mainline aircraft are approx 20+ times more than with a GB aircraft: (250 aircraft in BA, 11 aircraft in GB). The public watching tele won't appreciate the differences in the two separate companies. So, problems that eminate from BA mainline can affect GB in a very big way.
In a similar vein - once the public get wind of the fact that they can't guarantee particular flights because of impending militancy, bookings will plummet, just like they did a few years ago when BA cabin crew took strike action. This matters to the small airlines and their staff, because they know that it is the passengers that ultimately pay the wages and keep things going. I'm not convinced that the vocal element in BA flight crew have taken this obvious fact on board. The hostile element in BA, make many in GB very nervous about Scope. Why swap a regime of good Balpa versus Company industrial relations for a hot bed of problems which are unlikely to ever be resolved.?
People at GB are very concerned about such an incident. The chances of it happening with a BA mainline aircraft are approx 20+ times more than with a GB aircraft: (250 aircraft in BA, 11 aircraft in GB). The public watching tele won't appreciate the differences in the two separate companies. So, problems that eminate from BA mainline can affect GB in a very big way.
In a similar vein - once the public get wind of the fact that they can't guarantee particular flights because of impending militancy, bookings will plummet, just like they did a few years ago when BA cabin crew took strike action. This matters to the small airlines and their staff, because they know that it is the passengers that ultimately pay the wages and keep things going. I'm not convinced that the vocal element in BA flight crew have taken this obvious fact on board. The hostile element in BA, make many in GB very nervous about Scope. Why swap a regime of good Balpa versus Company industrial relations for a hot bed of problems which are unlikely to ever be resolved.?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Roman Empire
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurrah for common sense.
Rhythm Method.
May I just say that you have made more sense than most, and I liked your post. I note that BACC members/supporters like airrage and Hand Solo have not replied to it.
It is a pity that BA are represented by such d1ckheads, because I refuse to believe that your average BA line guy is like that. The trouble is, from all I have heard, they ARE fairly representative of the BACC.
Oh well, it has been bad enough being fu#ked over by our management, it hurts a bit more being done by other pilots.
Now, about my RJ course..........
May I just say that you have made more sense than most, and I liked your post. I note that BACC members/supporters like airrage and Hand Solo have not replied to it.
It is a pity that BA are represented by such d1ckheads, because I refuse to believe that your average BA line guy is like that. The trouble is, from all I have heard, they ARE fairly representative of the BACC.
Oh well, it has been bad enough being fu#ked over by our management, it hurts a bit more being done by other pilots.
Now, about my RJ course..........
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In my own head.........
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said, well said. Don't expect a quick reply from dear old airrage anyway. Like many mainliners, he has so much time off he runs a Taxi Company in his spare time! If he succeeds in achieving the strike he encourages so much, then he'll be depending on the taxi a bit more than at present I think!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest Data
Recent trip over the water to the sim, courtesy of long haul, spoke with some other BA positioning crew. Longhaul view seems to be contrary to what has been posted here; they reckon a lot of their profitability is diverted to the feeder side of the business - that is, existing BA mainline shorthaul.
Guys wished us luck, and thought that the future of the entire Company probably lay in a reversion to the BOAC / BEA type of setup, and that obviously BEA never had been, and could not be as profitable as the old BOAC model. Hence, clearly, something in the cost structure had to be changed. Interestingly, as the conversation progressed, I found we agreed on most things, including the fact that the lower PILOT cost base of BACE really made little difference to the whole thing. However, what DID make a difference was the BACE Company setup. Our management may have difficulty working out whether to raise the toilet lid sometimes, but they are overall mega costless compared to BA. So, (he reckoned) the takeover of shorthaul would effectively cause a huge huge cull in Waterside, and basically eventual prosperity for all.
And all this from a BALPA member in BA as well!!
The only problem that I can see is I don't believe Waterside mangement would ever allow themselves to be made redundant - that has always been the problem. Oh well, nice to see some common sense and to meet some REAL BA people instead of the Mr Angries who seem to delight in winding everyone up for kicks.
Maybe I WILL bid for longhaul after all!
Guys wished us luck, and thought that the future of the entire Company probably lay in a reversion to the BOAC / BEA type of setup, and that obviously BEA never had been, and could not be as profitable as the old BOAC model. Hence, clearly, something in the cost structure had to be changed. Interestingly, as the conversation progressed, I found we agreed on most things, including the fact that the lower PILOT cost base of BACE really made little difference to the whole thing. However, what DID make a difference was the BACE Company setup. Our management may have difficulty working out whether to raise the toilet lid sometimes, but they are overall mega costless compared to BA. So, (he reckoned) the takeover of shorthaul would effectively cause a huge huge cull in Waterside, and basically eventual prosperity for all.
And all this from a BALPA member in BA as well!!
The only problem that I can see is I don't believe Waterside mangement would ever allow themselves to be made redundant - that has always been the problem. Oh well, nice to see some common sense and to meet some REAL BA people instead of the Mr Angries who seem to delight in winding everyone up for kicks.
Maybe I WILL bid for longhaul after all!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I have already my views clear here for those who have been willing to actually read the Posts, so no need to rehash it again and again to those who seem to want to maintain a Divisive atitude to BA Pilots. If you re-read my original Posts you will not find divisive, abusive or vulgar posts which has been the resultant response from some. In fact a quick read of the last few pages by anyone outside either company might startle some into hearing the arrognace and abuse being shown against the BA guys despite the actual content of the BA guys posts.
Of the many issues I raised;
- BA Pilots are actually losing their jobs in the Regions not stealing others.
- how if BA Pilots were all bullies then the ex-CFE/BRAL, etc guys wouldn't have had nearly as easy a ride of it to date, especially with regards FSS job losses, lose of jobs in the regions and Grandfather rights. Being a massive majority meant 0 wishes of the joining few could have been crushed by one ballet of 3300 BA Bully Pilots if we had indeed been as described here by some.
- Scope protecting all our jobs from future non-UK labour
- how being in a large company(3500 Pilots) means that it works for the majority of Pilots(whether you were taken on by BA directly or TAKEN over, junior or senior, LH or SH)but it doesn't work for all of the Pilots all of the time. I have been at the short-end of the stick 4times in 8years already. It's not a BA Pilot Vs non-BA Pilot thing, so try not to take it so personal.
- Why are you guys not discussing this in the privacy of the Official BALPA Forum instead of airing this on a Public Forum ? Are a lot of the guys complaining about BALPA here actually even Members at all, is that why you chose this Forum ?
TINYtims unconstructive response was
"I honestly think that some of you BA boys are so inflated with your own self importance that you genuinely believe that if you repeat the self justifying drivel about the benefits of Scope to BACX etc often enough then we will believe it. "
Can anyone verify whether tinytim is actually a Pilot in any of the Companies being discussed or is just enjoying the thrill of getting anyone to respond to his Posts(unfortuantely I have some doubts).
I don't see any point in continuing to participate in any debate with people(not all people here, apologies to those who do not fit this description here) who aren't willing to debate the points logically but just shout rhetoric or abuse. tinytim if you can explain logically how becoming part of BA, and subsequently the Scope agreement is detrimental to your longterm future as a Pilot then I will be glad to hear it. I haven't heard anything yet that would justify all the abuse flying BA Pilots way when a lot of consideration of the concerns of the Pilots coming onboard (from Firms that have been TAKEN OVER)have often been dealt with before those of Pilots already in BA(ie. job losses in the regions).
Perhaps you would prefer BALPA to sign a LHR-only Scope agreement and we could let you guys in the Regions fight your own battles with European market forces and BA outsourcing Pilots to the lowest bidders, then where would you stand ? But doing that would make BA Pilots the selfish idiots you accuse us of being.
Of the many issues I raised;
- BA Pilots are actually losing their jobs in the Regions not stealing others.
- how if BA Pilots were all bullies then the ex-CFE/BRAL, etc guys wouldn't have had nearly as easy a ride of it to date, especially with regards FSS job losses, lose of jobs in the regions and Grandfather rights. Being a massive majority meant 0 wishes of the joining few could have been crushed by one ballet of 3300 BA Bully Pilots if we had indeed been as described here by some.
- Scope protecting all our jobs from future non-UK labour
- how being in a large company(3500 Pilots) means that it works for the majority of Pilots(whether you were taken on by BA directly or TAKEN over, junior or senior, LH or SH)but it doesn't work for all of the Pilots all of the time. I have been at the short-end of the stick 4times in 8years already. It's not a BA Pilot Vs non-BA Pilot thing, so try not to take it so personal.
- Why are you guys not discussing this in the privacy of the Official BALPA Forum instead of airing this on a Public Forum ? Are a lot of the guys complaining about BALPA here actually even Members at all, is that why you chose this Forum ?
TINYtims unconstructive response was
"I honestly think that some of you BA boys are so inflated with your own self importance that you genuinely believe that if you repeat the self justifying drivel about the benefits of Scope to BACX etc often enough then we will believe it. "
Can anyone verify whether tinytim is actually a Pilot in any of the Companies being discussed or is just enjoying the thrill of getting anyone to respond to his Posts(unfortuantely I have some doubts).
I don't see any point in continuing to participate in any debate with people(not all people here, apologies to those who do not fit this description here) who aren't willing to debate the points logically but just shout rhetoric or abuse. tinytim if you can explain logically how becoming part of BA, and subsequently the Scope agreement is detrimental to your longterm future as a Pilot then I will be glad to hear it. I haven't heard anything yet that would justify all the abuse flying BA Pilots way when a lot of consideration of the concerns of the Pilots coming onboard (from Firms that have been TAKEN OVER)have often been dealt with before those of Pilots already in BA(ie. job losses in the regions).
Perhaps you would prefer BALPA to sign a LHR-only Scope agreement and we could let you guys in the Regions fight your own battles with European market forces and BA outsourcing Pilots to the lowest bidders, then where would you stand ? But doing that would make BA Pilots the selfish idiots you accuse us of being.
Last edited by airrage; 19th Sep 2002 at 11:04.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airrage, Bluffy (Our forum moderator) has confirmed who I am and, like it or not, I am as entitled to my opinions as you are to your own.
Abuse me if you will, but that makes your arguments no stronger.
Unfortunately for those of your view, my opinions, however unpalatable to you and some of your colleagues, are entirely representative of the way many - if not the majority - think in BACX. (You might be very surprised and not a little worried if you knew who I actualy was.) At the end of the day our people will have a vote on whether or not to sign a Scope agreement and they need wooing not shouting at.
Your CC has now upped the anti by rejecting a reasoned proposal to get our (otherwise redundant) guys flying the RJ on secondment to you and is saying "Unless by the end of November you make substantial progress to signing a Scope agreement by the end of the year then you can forget any CX pilot flying any RJ.ever"
Id say that attitude has now blown the chances of an accomodation on Scope out of the water. BACC are acting like total demagogs, calling the shots and telling us what and when we are to agree something that many are not particularly interested in anyway.
The attitudes I project are as a result of the provocation by yourself and others which is ensuring that we do not have a future together.
Further, Balpa stands to be massively damaged since, largely as a result of its manipulation by your colleagues, it is not seen as impartial by many of our members who will vote with their feet if it does not take control of the situation and stop your CCs bully-boy tactics dead.
Abuse me if you will, but that makes your arguments no stronger.
Unfortunately for those of your view, my opinions, however unpalatable to you and some of your colleagues, are entirely representative of the way many - if not the majority - think in BACX. (You might be very surprised and not a little worried if you knew who I actualy was.) At the end of the day our people will have a vote on whether or not to sign a Scope agreement and they need wooing not shouting at.
Your CC has now upped the anti by rejecting a reasoned proposal to get our (otherwise redundant) guys flying the RJ on secondment to you and is saying "Unless by the end of November you make substantial progress to signing a Scope agreement by the end of the year then you can forget any CX pilot flying any RJ.ever"
Id say that attitude has now blown the chances of an accomodation on Scope out of the water. BACC are acting like total demagogs, calling the shots and telling us what and when we are to agree something that many are not particularly interested in anyway.
The attitudes I project are as a result of the provocation by yourself and others which is ensuring that we do not have a future together.
Further, Balpa stands to be massively damaged since, largely as a result of its manipulation by your colleagues, it is not seen as impartial by many of our members who will vote with their feet if it does not take control of the situation and stop your CCs bully-boy tactics dead.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TinyTim,
"Airrage, Bluffy (Our forum moderator) has confirmed who I am and, like it or not, I am as entitled to my opinions as you are to your own.
Abuse me if you will, but that makes your arguments no stronger. "
You missed the point TT, You are the only one shouting abuse and foul language on this Forum, I haven't, have a re-read over the past few days. Another complete avoidance of any relevant point whatsoever, do you see why people don't bother contributing to this thread or stop out of sheer desperation. Why not start a 'poor abused me' thread if all you want to do is moan and ask for sympathy, I thought you guys wanted to discuss the Issue at hand ?
As for walking out of BALPA, what % of you guys are presently BALPA members ? No-one seems to want to answer this question whilst they curse about BALPA not looking after them.
It is BALPA's job to represent the will of the majority of it's Pilots. Given that you are outnumbered by about 10-1, seems to me they are doing that !
"Airrage, Bluffy (Our forum moderator) has confirmed who I am and, like it or not, I am as entitled to my opinions as you are to your own.
Abuse me if you will, but that makes your arguments no stronger. "
You missed the point TT, You are the only one shouting abuse and foul language on this Forum, I haven't, have a re-read over the past few days. Another complete avoidance of any relevant point whatsoever, do you see why people don't bother contributing to this thread or stop out of sheer desperation. Why not start a 'poor abused me' thread if all you want to do is moan and ask for sympathy, I thought you guys wanted to discuss the Issue at hand ?
As for walking out of BALPA, what % of you guys are presently BALPA members ? No-one seems to want to answer this question whilst they curse about BALPA not looking after them.
It is BALPA's job to represent the will of the majority of it's Pilots. Given that you are outnumbered by about 10-1, seems to me they are doing that !
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Airrage, let me get this straight.....
YOU tell us what we can and cannot fly.
YOU tell us the terms on which we can and cannot fly them
Now YOU tell me what is and is not relevant!!
I am running out of space for the nails my friend!!
YOU tell us what we can and cannot fly.
YOU tell us the terms on which we can and cannot fly them
Now YOU tell me what is and is not relevant!!
I am running out of space for the nails my friend!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinytim the only coffin your building is your own I'm afraid if you cannot see how Scope will protect all of us, including you now and in the future. Without Scope, BALPA will be unable to have any power in ANY Negotiations of YOUR Pay/T&C's/job security because without Scope BALPA will be unable to prevent BA from going out and hiring "tiny-tito" from the Ukraine just because he will work for less than tinytim from the UK.
I do not want to fly "your aircraft" or "your routes"(which is a debatabe point in the first place) and neither do 99.9% of any other BA Pilot who have more than 2years in BA. Scope is attempting to keep scheduled BA services flown by BA Pilots(of which you are now apart of). To argue against this premise is a bit suicidal or misguided I think.
I am not trying to sell Scope to you like some used Car Salesman, I am trying to explain to you that if you intend to have any sort of successful career in BA(longer than 1-2years) and wish to arm BALPA with the TOOLs necessary to Protect your rights and Pay then Scope is without question. The arguement against Scope I'm afraid is very weak in this context and fortunately the majority of BA Pilots will realise this.
I have no wish to shoot petty comments back and forth. I am not telling you what you can/cannot fly or the terms to do so. I am telling you that if you want to be able to protect what you can/cannot fly, and the terms for the forseeable future, then you will support Scope. You are right about something, a simple vote will decide this matter and I have no doubt which way that vote will go, so your dramatic coffin will not be needed and will not be seen as a credible threat by any of the other more than 3200 BA Pilots.
The sooner you accept that you are now part of BA so anything that is good for BA Pilots is now good for you as well the better. Change your name to Bigtim from Big Airways and broaden your viewpoint to include the whole BA Pilot workforce and the whole of your BA career.
I do not want to fly "your aircraft" or "your routes"(which is a debatabe point in the first place) and neither do 99.9% of any other BA Pilot who have more than 2years in BA. Scope is attempting to keep scheduled BA services flown by BA Pilots(of which you are now apart of). To argue against this premise is a bit suicidal or misguided I think.
I am not trying to sell Scope to you like some used Car Salesman, I am trying to explain to you that if you intend to have any sort of successful career in BA(longer than 1-2years) and wish to arm BALPA with the TOOLs necessary to Protect your rights and Pay then Scope is without question. The arguement against Scope I'm afraid is very weak in this context and fortunately the majority of BA Pilots will realise this.
I have no wish to shoot petty comments back and forth. I am not telling you what you can/cannot fly or the terms to do so. I am telling you that if you want to be able to protect what you can/cannot fly, and the terms for the forseeable future, then you will support Scope. You are right about something, a simple vote will decide this matter and I have no doubt which way that vote will go, so your dramatic coffin will not be needed and will not be seen as a credible threat by any of the other more than 3200 BA Pilots.
The sooner you accept that you are now part of BA so anything that is good for BA Pilots is now good for you as well the better. Change your name to Bigtim from Big Airways and broaden your viewpoint to include the whole BA Pilot workforce and the whole of your BA career.
Last edited by airrage; 19th Sep 2002 at 20:25.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not off the thread/topic I promise;
I've been in BALPA most of my (aviation career) working life and I used to work for Dan Air.
Like most Dan Pilots, we paid our subs and were happy with the protection & representation BALPA gave us. Then in 1992 BA bought Dan Air from David James (for a fiver?). Most of us were down the road, some (737-300/400 pilots) kept jobs but on reduced, compared to Dan Air, terms and conditions in EOG/EGO.
I've experienced first hand how BA CC deals with and regards non BA mainline BALPA members and to suggest that BA CC are looking after BACX BALPA members interests in my experience is not true.
The whole Dan/BA episode led to the formation of the IPA when some of the previously staunch BALPA members realised who's interests BALPA were really looking after and I some years later compensation was paid to redundant ex Dan Air pilots after litigation, but I can't remember from who.
I've been in BALPA most of my (aviation career) working life and I used to work for Dan Air.
Like most Dan Pilots, we paid our subs and were happy with the protection & representation BALPA gave us. Then in 1992 BA bought Dan Air from David James (for a fiver?). Most of us were down the road, some (737-300/400 pilots) kept jobs but on reduced, compared to Dan Air, terms and conditions in EOG/EGO.
I've experienced first hand how BA CC deals with and regards non BA mainline BALPA members and to suggest that BA CC are looking after BACX BALPA members interests in my experience is not true.
The whole Dan/BA episode led to the formation of the IPA when some of the previously staunch BALPA members realised who's interests BALPA were really looking after and I some years later compensation was paid to redundant ex Dan Air pilots after litigation, but I can't remember from who.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KJ - you are wrong yet again!
Kevin, (aka airrage) a lot of us know exactly who you are, and more importantly which questions you are not answering.
1. I note no reply to the entirely reasonable and logical argument put forward by Rhythm Method.
2. You don't actually comment on the points put forward by Tinytim, all you do is tell him how wrong he is.
3. You KNOW what he says about scope is correct, accurate and current, but you are too arrogant (or maybe honest) to even deny it. You just continue to bluster.
Finally, do you really believe that BA pilots in general will try industrial action over scope. (I laughed so hard I nearly wet myself!) Come on, BALPA aren't even sure they can get you all out over salaries!!!!!! You know, and we know, that if you don't at least throw us a few scraps (by your standards), then management will just call your bluff - like they did last time. I have to say, astonishingly, I find myself almost in sympathy with BA management; it must be a grim business negotiating with blockheads like you and Han Solo. As to OUR BALPA membership, I believe the figure to be currently around 75%, though it could be higher. Most of us don't post on either our Company forum, or the BALPA one, because we quite like the concept of anonymity - not like you eh, KJ ??
As TT also said, unfortunately for you, most of us here in BACEX feel the same way, and your puerile rambling utterings do nothing but antagonise more of us daily.
Personally, (fortunately) I've never had the bad luck to meet a BA pilot with your outlook, whereas I know most of our blokes DO think like me, TT, and the other BACEX guys who have posted on here. If in any doubt - just check the straw poll at the top of this thread!
Finally, DO try and follow some sort of grammatical logic.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that what is good for BA pilots is good for me - but ONLY if I am to be offered the same Ts and Cs. Oddly, you have not addressed this point at all, though it has featured several times. You or Solo mentioned the amount of BA guys who want to come and fly our RJs - now you say this is only 0.1%, which by my maths correlates to 3.2, or possibly 3.3 pilots in total. This will equate to roughly one quarter of an aircraft crewing roster (given 5 crews per aircraft), so I suppose you can fly one of our RJs on Wednesday morning. You and I both know that there are around fifty BAR guys alone, not to mention the ex- CFE blokes.
You are obviously some kind of BACC hothead Mr J, but we have all listened to posturing from management in general, and BA in particular so we are well able to detect the rich odour of bull**** !!!
And hear hear for faq. Yes, memories are long, (not that they need to be) and we have a number of ex-Dan guys with us (and bloody good they are too!). You in BACC have a form sheet as long as my elbow - sorry, we flatly do NOT believe you have ANY, never mind our best interests at heart. In fact, heaven help me, for my current medium to long term future, I definitely prefer BA management. At least they need me to fly their aeroplanes, ALL their (regional) aeroplanes - whereas your intention is obvious !
1. I note no reply to the entirely reasonable and logical argument put forward by Rhythm Method.
2. You don't actually comment on the points put forward by Tinytim, all you do is tell him how wrong he is.
3. You KNOW what he says about scope is correct, accurate and current, but you are too arrogant (or maybe honest) to even deny it. You just continue to bluster.
Finally, do you really believe that BA pilots in general will try industrial action over scope. (I laughed so hard I nearly wet myself!) Come on, BALPA aren't even sure they can get you all out over salaries!!!!!! You know, and we know, that if you don't at least throw us a few scraps (by your standards), then management will just call your bluff - like they did last time. I have to say, astonishingly, I find myself almost in sympathy with BA management; it must be a grim business negotiating with blockheads like you and Han Solo. As to OUR BALPA membership, I believe the figure to be currently around 75%, though it could be higher. Most of us don't post on either our Company forum, or the BALPA one, because we quite like the concept of anonymity - not like you eh, KJ ??
As TT also said, unfortunately for you, most of us here in BACEX feel the same way, and your puerile rambling utterings do nothing but antagonise more of us daily.
Personally, (fortunately) I've never had the bad luck to meet a BA pilot with your outlook, whereas I know most of our blokes DO think like me, TT, and the other BACEX guys who have posted on here. If in any doubt - just check the straw poll at the top of this thread!
Finally, DO try and follow some sort of grammatical logic.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that what is good for BA pilots is good for me - but ONLY if I am to be offered the same Ts and Cs. Oddly, you have not addressed this point at all, though it has featured several times. You or Solo mentioned the amount of BA guys who want to come and fly our RJs - now you say this is only 0.1%, which by my maths correlates to 3.2, or possibly 3.3 pilots in total. This will equate to roughly one quarter of an aircraft crewing roster (given 5 crews per aircraft), so I suppose you can fly one of our RJs on Wednesday morning. You and I both know that there are around fifty BAR guys alone, not to mention the ex- CFE blokes.
You are obviously some kind of BACC hothead Mr J, but we have all listened to posturing from management in general, and BA in particular so we are well able to detect the rich odour of bull**** !!!
And hear hear for faq. Yes, memories are long, (not that they need to be) and we have a number of ex-Dan guys with us (and bloody good they are too!). You in BACC have a form sheet as long as my elbow - sorry, we flatly do NOT believe you have ANY, never mind our best interests at heart. In fact, heaven help me, for my current medium to long term future, I definitely prefer BA management. At least they need me to fly their aeroplanes, ALL their (regional) aeroplanes - whereas your intention is obvious !
Last edited by Hulkomaniac; 19th Sep 2002 at 22:00.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maximuss - sorry to disappoint but the reason I haven't replied to rhythm methods post is that I have actually been working. Yes I know you think nobody in BA works, but you're wrong.
Rhythm method - when CFE joined BA they did just that. They joined the BA seniority list, bringing with them aircraft and routes. BA BALPA worked hard to ensure that they were brought in on the same T & Cs as other EOG pilots, with the exception of the ATR which is a unique case and has pay rates similar to the former BA turboprop routes. BACE on the other hand, are not joining BA. They are bringing nothing to this particular party. They are removing 16 RJs from the mainline fleet, removing 16 RJs worth of pilot positions from mainline and displacing almost all the pilots at BHX, MAN and the LGW RJ fleet. That is a very different situation from the CFE integration.
As the Rider of the Purple Sage mentions in a subsequent post, PILOT costs are not a key factor in profitability but the lack of overheads is. Fine (though I caution against listening to anyone whos been on long haul for too long, they get some very strange ideas). Ideal solution is to keep the RJs as mainline aircraft crewed where possible by mainline pilots, but all seconded to BACE. It has a precedent as all BAR pilots are actually mainline but seconded to BAR. BA certainly wouldn't be able to fully crew these aircraft with the incumbent pilots, so go to BACE, who then provide the remainder of the crew (and, probably, the majority) and they fly on BAR T & Cs. So whats wrong with this? It's a bit like the current deal, the aircraft stay in mainline, BACE crews on the RJ get a pay hike, stable rosters, more time off. So why can't this happen? Its because certain elements from BACE (on this forum at least) just can't wait to get their hands on the RJs and they'll fly them for peanuts, no matter who it screws in the long run.
Rider of the Purple Sage - yes I'm sure lots of long haulers do believe money is diverted to subsidise the flat-earthers in short haul. Im sure they think we should be out of short haul all together, despite the fact that Rod says it would ruin the company and deprive long haul of customers. Little snippet of info on how BA attributes revenue - all connecting flights are allocated ticket revenue on the basis of the proportion of total miles flown. Hence you fly EDI - LHR -JFK, going rate (APEX) for EDI LHR is £69, going rate (APEX) JFK - LHR is about £180. BUT, mileage wise, EDI - LHR is 300 miles, LHR JFK is 3000 miles, so of £249 revenue, long haul get £226.36, short haul get just £22.63! So who's subsidising who? And why was EOG paying Concordes fuel bill for so long (Concorde being classed as a short haul aircraft within BA of course).
To answer some of Tinytims points - Firstly, there has never been any secret in the fact (at least not from our side) that the BAR/BACE scope issue is not a stand alone issue. It has always been subject to larger, all encompassing scope agreement, but that element was completed early due to the imminent closure of the regional bases. There is no question of any CE guys flying the Rj on 'secondment' to BA as effectively they would be on a mainline aircraft on inferior terms, which is exactly what we fought to avoid with CFE. Could you also explain why your chaps will otherwise be redundant, and why your management have sought to secure peoples jobs on the basis of an unsigned, unagreed deal which might or might not have been constructed? As to the 'accomodation' on scope, you are rather overstating your hand here. Posession is nine tenths of the law and right now we posess the aircraft. There's not really an accomodation to be reached as such with BACE, its to be reached between BA and BA BALPA. If and when its decided to let the aircraft go then what you do with it is up to you subject to the terms of the scope deal between us and BA. I dont think BALPA will be massively damaged by this, BACE are large but not a huge element of BALPA and I suspect the financial contribution of the BACE community is at least one if not two orders of magnitude less than BAs. You don't need me to tell you that money talks. Finally to address your questions to airrage, I don't care what you fly below 100 seats, but if BA want you to fly anything bigger than that (and right now you don't apart from your five 146s) it should be as part of the BA seniority list on the superior BA T & Cs. The pilots for these aircraft have to come from somewhere, why not from BACE with a big pay rise?
Hulkomaniac - thanks for your contribution, I admire your ability to structure an argument without resorting to personal abuse. Firstly do not draw comparisons to the last strike situation which was sold out by Chris Darke (whatever happened to him?). I think the overwhelming victory by JF illustrated the increased mood of militancy amongst BA pilots. Lets face it, if the companys going to go bust it won't be because of us, so we might as well take what we can now before they give it to the CSDs. Secondly, I agree entirely with your comment that:
I am perfectly prepared to accept that what is good for BA pilots is good for me - but ONLY if I am to be offered the same Ts and Cs.
As the RJs switch to the regions many pilots will take advantage of being 'unfrozen' on type to go long haul or move to LHR. 50 or so BAR guys are staying plus some ex-CFE, but as you state, thats not enough to crew the operation and we still have a recruitment ban in place. So, why aren't your company council pushing for you to fly the RJ on our terms? There's never been a better time.
Rhythm method - when CFE joined BA they did just that. They joined the BA seniority list, bringing with them aircraft and routes. BA BALPA worked hard to ensure that they were brought in on the same T & Cs as other EOG pilots, with the exception of the ATR which is a unique case and has pay rates similar to the former BA turboprop routes. BACE on the other hand, are not joining BA. They are bringing nothing to this particular party. They are removing 16 RJs from the mainline fleet, removing 16 RJs worth of pilot positions from mainline and displacing almost all the pilots at BHX, MAN and the LGW RJ fleet. That is a very different situation from the CFE integration.
As the Rider of the Purple Sage mentions in a subsequent post, PILOT costs are not a key factor in profitability but the lack of overheads is. Fine (though I caution against listening to anyone whos been on long haul for too long, they get some very strange ideas). Ideal solution is to keep the RJs as mainline aircraft crewed where possible by mainline pilots, but all seconded to BACE. It has a precedent as all BAR pilots are actually mainline but seconded to BAR. BA certainly wouldn't be able to fully crew these aircraft with the incumbent pilots, so go to BACE, who then provide the remainder of the crew (and, probably, the majority) and they fly on BAR T & Cs. So whats wrong with this? It's a bit like the current deal, the aircraft stay in mainline, BACE crews on the RJ get a pay hike, stable rosters, more time off. So why can't this happen? Its because certain elements from BACE (on this forum at least) just can't wait to get their hands on the RJs and they'll fly them for peanuts, no matter who it screws in the long run.
Rider of the Purple Sage - yes I'm sure lots of long haulers do believe money is diverted to subsidise the flat-earthers in short haul. Im sure they think we should be out of short haul all together, despite the fact that Rod says it would ruin the company and deprive long haul of customers. Little snippet of info on how BA attributes revenue - all connecting flights are allocated ticket revenue on the basis of the proportion of total miles flown. Hence you fly EDI - LHR -JFK, going rate (APEX) for EDI LHR is £69, going rate (APEX) JFK - LHR is about £180. BUT, mileage wise, EDI - LHR is 300 miles, LHR JFK is 3000 miles, so of £249 revenue, long haul get £226.36, short haul get just £22.63! So who's subsidising who? And why was EOG paying Concordes fuel bill for so long (Concorde being classed as a short haul aircraft within BA of course).
To answer some of Tinytims points - Firstly, there has never been any secret in the fact (at least not from our side) that the BAR/BACE scope issue is not a stand alone issue. It has always been subject to larger, all encompassing scope agreement, but that element was completed early due to the imminent closure of the regional bases. There is no question of any CE guys flying the Rj on 'secondment' to BA as effectively they would be on a mainline aircraft on inferior terms, which is exactly what we fought to avoid with CFE. Could you also explain why your chaps will otherwise be redundant, and why your management have sought to secure peoples jobs on the basis of an unsigned, unagreed deal which might or might not have been constructed? As to the 'accomodation' on scope, you are rather overstating your hand here. Posession is nine tenths of the law and right now we posess the aircraft. There's not really an accomodation to be reached as such with BACE, its to be reached between BA and BA BALPA. If and when its decided to let the aircraft go then what you do with it is up to you subject to the terms of the scope deal between us and BA. I dont think BALPA will be massively damaged by this, BACE are large but not a huge element of BALPA and I suspect the financial contribution of the BACE community is at least one if not two orders of magnitude less than BAs. You don't need me to tell you that money talks. Finally to address your questions to airrage, I don't care what you fly below 100 seats, but if BA want you to fly anything bigger than that (and right now you don't apart from your five 146s) it should be as part of the BA seniority list on the superior BA T & Cs. The pilots for these aircraft have to come from somewhere, why not from BACE with a big pay rise?
Hulkomaniac - thanks for your contribution, I admire your ability to structure an argument without resorting to personal abuse. Firstly do not draw comparisons to the last strike situation which was sold out by Chris Darke (whatever happened to him?). I think the overwhelming victory by JF illustrated the increased mood of militancy amongst BA pilots. Lets face it, if the companys going to go bust it won't be because of us, so we might as well take what we can now before they give it to the CSDs. Secondly, I agree entirely with your comment that:
I am perfectly prepared to accept that what is good for BA pilots is good for me - but ONLY if I am to be offered the same Ts and Cs.
As the RJs switch to the regions many pilots will take advantage of being 'unfrozen' on type to go long haul or move to LHR. 50 or so BAR guys are staying plus some ex-CFE, but as you state, thats not enough to crew the operation and we still have a recruitment ban in place. So, why aren't your company council pushing for you to fly the RJ on our terms? There's never been a better time.