The BA Scope Clause.

[Nosferatu]

One simple question...................

Wow, this is the most interesting thread I have ever started.
Lots of impassioned and logical debate, and a lot of very relevant and accurate points from all sides.

Personally, I entirely empathise with the BA point of view, and, I must say, I totally agree with the BACEX point of view, (I am one after all). Iam disappointed there is an inability for both sides to meet in the middle.

However, if I accept that airrage and his chums REALLY do have our best interests at heart, and REALLY do know best about everything, given their great experience with BA management, may I ask the following question:

When BA did exactly the same thing with CFE, ie taking over a profitable regional, there was the same debate between BA and CFE pilots. Not all CFE guys by far wanted anything to do with BA, but like us, eventually had no choice. There was a difference though. BACC didn't bleat about scope; they insisted CFE guys went straight onto BA Ts and Cs. They won their case. Whilst all CFE guys were not enamoured of their new employer, at least everyone was brought into the fold.

Can someone then explain to me why BACC are not trying to get the same for us? After all, there is no difference that I can see? Why are they openly trying to shut us OUT of the mainline empire, rather than bring us on board.

Honest answers on a postcard to BACEX Manchester please?

[airrage]

"However, if I accept that airrage and his chums REALLY do have our best interests at heart,"
I think the situation is just a compromise between groups of people, not trying to have anyone's own interest at heart.

"Can someone then explain to me why BACC are not trying to get the same for us? After all, there is no difference that I can see? Why are they openly trying to shut us OUT of the mainline empire, rather than bring us on board. "
I believe they are not trying to shut you out of mainline, but they are trying to shut out anyone operating BA aircraft on inferior T&C's. So when you do operate a BA aircraft it is on Present T&C's. Besides I doubt you really want to operate BA aircraft for less pay than what they offer now ?

I don't know the inricasies of the differences between CFE and Now. Probably a combination of the following; Size of intake, timing of PAY/PENSION/SCOPE negotiations, CFE didn't involve the replacement of BA jobs as in the Regions - it just brought in New Pilots on their own Planes to fly bigger aircraft required them bidding across under BA contract !!

[Nosferatu]

Well there's a first!
airrage says :
'I don't know the intricasies of the differences between CFE and Now.'

That must be the first time airrage has EVER been known not to know the answer to something!

and : 'I believe they are not trying to shut you out of mainline, but they are trying to shut out anyone operating BA aircraft on inferior T&C's.'

So, by definition, since we are on inferior Ts and Cs, you are trying to shut us out. Sorry airrage, that is disingenuous and worse, duplicitous. Your evasive answer is an answer in itself.

[airrage]

Nosf,

Think you missed out the rest of my quote. I am not on this board to try and sell you SCOPE and am unable to describe the contract in specific details(like yourself) just to provide another prospective and to tell you SCOPE is not designed as an RJ Policy(the world, BA and SCOPE is much bigger than the tiny world you are determined to remain, in despite my efforts to try and get you to look outside the box). At the end of the day the BACC will decide this Issue and whether you believe it or not, it will have the sole purpose of benefiting and protecting ALL BA Pilots(ex-BRAL/CFE inclu.)

I gain nothing from whatever side your opinion eventually falls on. Unfortunately, there are far too many people here willing to criticise posters and far too few able to contribute positively to the debate. Thank-you to those of you who have managed to discuss this sensitive Issue sensibly.

To conclude, SCOPE is about;

1. COMPROMISING to acheive a FAIR Integration of Pilots given recent TAKEOVER's;
- BRAL/CFE CAPT's retain seats(with stipulation BA don't try to then introduce a larger aircraft - 757,747, etc which would disadvantage those BA Pilots with decades Seniority awaiting Commands)
- BA CAPT's/Pilots through secondment don't have to uproot families from the Regions having worked for years subsidizing BA to fund these bases future.
- 100 seat AC size limit to prevent BA trying to reduce PAY/T&C's from that which exists as present for those aircraft types in BA or expand low-paid outstations to 100% of ALL BA ops.

2. Future Negotiations
Without SCOPE BALPA will be unable to Negotiate from strength if BA can just turn around and OUTSOURCE(not just to BRAL, but the rest of the BIG WORLD !!!!!). Without the power of BALPA Negotiations BA will walk all over ALL of US. Even with your little experience in BA surely you can agree on this !

Continue to believe that this is a BA Pilot Plot to rob you of your precious little RJ if you want, the truth is staring you ALL in the face that the Issue is much bigger than that and could AFFECT all our careers in BA and subsequently the UK. If you don't think BALPA are trying to protect us ALL from the Nasty BA manager's ask your own Reps.

Anyway, nice to see a couple of Pilots with B@ll@cks actually starting to discuss SCOPE on the BALPA Forum.

[Hand Solo]

Well I'll have a go at explaining it. When BA wanted to merge CFE, CFE brought a fleet of aircraft of comparable size to many of BAs (737-500 springs to mind), plus some ATRs. That means CFE would be flying aircraft which were roughly equivalent and interchangeable, and BA management wanted to fly them interchangeably on BA routes ex-LGW. Thats is why the BACC insisted that CFE people were brought onto our seniority list, and with that comes the BA T & Cs.

The BACE deal is entirely different. The BACE deal does not bring a fleet of comparable aircraft to fly interchangeably with ours. The BACE deal sought firstly to boot all BA pilots out of the regions, then to transfer an entire fleet of aircraft out of BA to be flown exclusively by pilots of a subsidiary and hand over all the routes to that subsidiary. In short, the intention of the deal was to enure there was no further BA presence in the regions. In this instance the BACCs first priority must be to look after the interests of the BAR pilots who wish to stay in the regions and the ex-CFE who wish to stay on the type. They have gone some way to acheiving this (despite howls of protests from BACE on this thread).

On the subject of merging or somehow incorporating BACE on the BA T&C, then I suspect this could only be done for those who fly the RJ as (ATR excepted) BACE don't fly any type which is of similar size to, our interchangeable with, any BA type. Furthermore, universal incorporation into the BA seniority list (which would be at the bottom) would undoubtedly lead, after an initial protected period, to quite a few mainline BA crew bidding onto regional bases at the expense of your people who would be junior. I suspect this would not go down well at BACE where most FOs would see regional command prospects disappear for some time. So, as far as I see, the only place where we could reasonably merge seniority/ T & Cs is on the RJ, which is effectively an entirely new fleet. This then brings into question the BACE contracts, as if you fly an RJ on BA T&Cs you'd probably have to go onto a BA contract, which again means going to the bottom of the seniority list and retiring at 55. Also, if for any reason the RJ left the regions to be replaced by a yet smaller aircraft, which was below whatever level of seats scope decides on, then you could look forward to be directed down to London as a junior FO.

In my opinion a way for this situation to have been handled better would be for the RJs to swap to the regions on BAR T&Cs, those who wanted to fly them can stay and those who don't (which is many) leave, leaving the regions short of crews. The gap is then filled by internal recruitment from subsidiarys of those who wish to work on BA T&Cs but on the BA seniority list with the associated down sides. Unfortunately it is not possible to press for BA T & Cs whilst there is no intention to merge with the BA seniority list, and from the opinons expressed on this forum it seems that there is little interest in doing that from most BACE pilots.

[Cornflake]

Not a bad effort at explaining things overall. You will understand, though, that as we ALREADY operate aircraft with in excess of 100 seats, the logic (other than that of the power of the majority vote) is a little strained.
Having experienced your BA management now for a year or so, I completely understand where you are coming from, and I completely support your aspirations to resist any degradation to mainline Ts and Cs. It is a well known and indisputable point that BA have slipped a long way from the top of the remuneration ladder. It has also become clear to us that your management are not to be trusted in any area at all, and frequently change their minds having already agreed things. Thus, no argument again.

Where does that leave us? Hopefully just mopping up the detail. So much of what you say makes absolute sense. But if you want to be both fair, and expect to work harmoniously with us, then you have to accept that our development into more and more of the thinner routes -
(how thin is profitable is a beancounter thing, the numbers change on a daily and person to person basis)
- is probably not going to change. What happens when the RJ/146 are retired, and a replacement is sought? On my understanding, if it has more seats than an RJ, then its BA, if less, then BACX. Problem is, of course, that by then there will not be many regional BA pilots left, and for sure the Company is not going to want to pay the hotac bills.

This has got to be resolvable, all it really takes is BACC and BACX CC agreeing, and BEING straight with each other. It doesn't help when we find that BACC are up to BA management tricks, and not telling us all the details. Yes yes, I know, whose interests are you acting in primarily blah blah blah. However, remember we are now chained together with BA financial shackles. If one of us stumbles, he will bring the other to his knees.............
If one of us is deliberately tripped up - well you don't have to be a rocket scientist do you?

I suggest a Scope limit of 120 seats, which should keep us all happy. I also suggest BA mainline recruitment out of BACX, not as a right, but as a primary interview pool for those who want it, with standard interview terms applying. I also suggest a way into BACX at age 55, for those from mainline who want it, clearly as DE Captains, again subject to interview. This should allow career aspirations or not to be fully explored without any writing of blank cheques - but don't forget we're already saving BA line guys from the dole queue flying with us right now! I suggest joint pressure on our Pension future, or we will be picked off at leisure.
I suggest, in fact, that the synergies of the two pilot groups are HUGE - we help no-one but the BA management dorks by all this squabbling.

[airrage]

Conrnflake.......not so corny or Flakey;

"Not a bad effort at explaining things overall. You will understand, though, that as we ALREADY operate aircraft with in excess of 100 seats."
How many, I honestly don't know ?

"I also suggest BA mainline recruitment out of BACX, not as a right, but as a primary interview pool for those who want it, with standard interview terms applying."
AGREED. In fact I think we should be all on the same Seniority List, swapping in and out Purely on bidding(No need for a recruitment division, one less Office). Obviously GF rights for CAPTs would be lost if someone wanted to go fly aircraft in excess of Seats of #seats agreed. Over-55 would be a nice option for some, although in a few years it will be mandatory in BA as well.

"we help no-one but the BA management dorks by all this squabbling. "
AGREED. Finally someone who realises the enemy is not the BACC but the BA mgmt.

[oscarh]

Whilst you are all squabbling about the management of the airline by the employer, the share price has gone as low as 89.5 pence today.
It´s really time to belt up and get on with it chaps or there´s gonna be b@gger all to get on with.
I address this particularly to the Important Ones at Waterworld. Sell the bloodey offices, they are nothing but a shameful illustration of what´s wrong.
For Cripe´s sake take a leaf out of the fat Greek´s world and buy a few prefabricated buildings. Close whole departments, permanantly. Outsource. Learn fast or it´s all too late and then we will all be sorry.
As for some of the pilots on this thread, you amaze me and probably many others as well with your pointless bickering. Airrage in particular. you would have looked good in a toga, playing a violin.
Whatever the current rate is for any particular job, live with it because it´s far better than the dole. If you can cram a few MORE seats into an aircraft and sell them, do it and don´t give a b@gger for any ridiculous SCOPE arrangement. That way is surely Luddism and we do not have the luxury of even contemplating such archaic practices.
Wake up chaps, it´s already after 11pm.

[Tinytim]

Nice one OscarH.

Two things are certain

We aint seen nothing yet on BA share prices

One or two smiles will be wiped off one or two faces this time next week

Airrage I salute you....Go make your horse the emperor of all you survey..........You've done a grand job.

[JW411]

oscarh:

You have just posted about the most sensible reply that I have read in years on PPrune. Everywhere you look on the forums at the moment it is doom and gloom for the future of BA and yet the good old faithfuls are still banging on about who should be allowed to fly what and to where and for whom and with how many seats.

It must be a great relief to them know that whilst they are arguing about SCOPE, the pension fund is in great shape, the BA share price is doing incredibly well, the Company is making huge profits and that dear old Tony has promised that, whatever happens, he will make sure that BA survives.

Sadly, under EU trade legislation he simply does not have the power to ensure that BA will survive in the shape and size that the party faithfull might think. The Belgian government made the same sweet noises to SABENA.

Wake up chaps before it is too late.

You guys are in a survival situation and you had better realise it fast!

[Hand Solo]

Aaah, good to see JW411 pop up again with his usual bitter anti-BA tirades! Still flying Go/Ryanair on your domestic positioning sectors (instead of the fictitious BA 'business' class)? Any bad experiences to report? Does anybody else remember the quote from phoney Tony that he wouldn't let BA go under, because I consider myself a bit of a newshound and I certainly don't remember Tony saying that either directly or implicitly.

Oscarh - this will amaze you but nobody is more acutely aware of just how much c*** BA is in than its pilots who frequent this forum (who are mostly shareholders as well). Thing is, sticking a few more seats on the aircraft (which will probably remain empty) won't save us. Downsizing to RJs on inferior terms won't save us. Only MASSIVE manpower and cost reductions from the companys bloated, inefficient, militant departments, followed by aggressive advertising and sales campaigns and a commitment to improve customer service levels would set us in the right direction. I console myself with the entirely rational thought that if we're going to sink under the weight of our £5 billion debt then theres nothing I, or the whole Flight Ops dept collectively, can do thats going to make one iota of difference. This thing is much bigger than all of us put together, and a whole careers worth of dedication from me won't make as much difference as one day of clear thinking, realism and determination from the board. If the companys demise is inevitable then I'm minded to take what I can now before theres nothing left.

[JW411]

Hand Solo:

Indeed I am alive and kicking. Since my last reply I have made three more journeys on Ryanair. Two were on time and the third was 40 minutes late which is still better than my last experience with your lot.

I resent the "fictitious business class" jibe. It said business class on my ticket and I was seated in Row 6 (as best as I can recall). The only thing that was "fictitious" about BA1438 was the quality of the service that I was given.

[Hand Solo]

Doesn't alter the fact that there is no business class on UK domestic sectors and as a man so concerned about saving his employer money perhaps you should have questioned why they were burning money paying 'business class' fares for a non-existent product? Still, glad to see you are enjoying Ryanair and they too, are sometimes late.

[oscarh]

Hand Solo,
You have to go a bit further before you can amaze me chum.

[Sheepslagger]

So why are BACC pushing for 70 or 100 seats to be the limit when we already fly 110? If we had, say 120 as someone else said, at least then we would have career progression without challenging BA mainline too obviously?

[airrage]

I have asked before but how many 110-seaters do you fly, and how many sub-100 ? I am not being sarcastic, I just want to know so I can get an idea of the importance of the point you raise.

[Fourpuffs]

We have four with 100 seat plus capacity, though only one actually has over 100 seats currently fitted.

(The managements last great idea was to increase yield by taking seats OUT, and inputting bigger ones. Yield and load factor and bums on seats all fell!)

We have one which has a sub-100 seat capacity, and is configured(obviously) as such.

Hope this helps; but we would like to see the RJ Fleet as the pinnacle of BACX aspiration, if it cuts at 100 seats, then since we already have some 100+ it will inevitable be seen as being done down! On the other hand, can't really see why 120 as such would hurt mainline. There's a serious CRM issue as well, crewing up with such hugely disparate salries is one thing, crewing up with bad feeling over scope mixed into the flight deck is something else!

As well as that, from what I read about LGW and LHR, if BACC 'protect all jet jobs here, then the question becomes a bit irrellevant. And I must say I agree with you, LGW and LHR must be kept for mainline, otherwise that really would let in the outsourcing and scale B crap to all our detriment.

Any further thoughts?

[airrage]

Fourpuffs

Thanks for the response. I imagine the LOADS will eventually determine the aircraft size despite BALPA's best efforts. You have to admit it's stretching it a bit to argue that the BACC are trying to downsize your aircraft size if you only have 1 presently with over 100 seats compared to the total number of aircraft you fly.

Anyway, hope they resolve the SCOPE, Pension and Pay Issue soon so we can get back to being Pilots talking about flying and good places to go downroute.

[Nigel Nearly]

I hope so too. Speaking personally, it's a function of the PERCEPTION that BACC are going to stop us flying any more 146/RJ types. I know it wouldn't actually stop us flying our existing 5 hulls, but it would be seen as a very good move to at least agree that this particular size of a/c could be used by our guys. I concede your points about Gatwick and Heathrow - but surely compromise is the answer. Conceding 120 rather than 100 seats isn't going to affect the next generation of regional jets anyway, as we had always been told they would be 70 to 100 seats at the biggest. In the meantime, whilst we (honestly) sympathise and understand about the forced moves (we've got some too!!) we can't see how letting BACE have access to the RJs is REALLY going to affect anyone's mainline career significantly, now or in the future.

I'm glad some of the heat has come out of this debate, and lets hope all the BALPA reps can sort it out soon!

[Hand Solo]

As a pure point of information, allowing franchises/subsidiarys to fly 120 seat aircraft may cause problems because the A319 only seats 126 and the 733 seats roughly the same. We also have a few A318s on order (that we don't seem to be able to get out of) which have less than 120 seats.