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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take the point, so why not 111 seats, or a figure which allows the BACX pilots the feeling they have actually achieved SOMETHING by being part of BA,
(ie an increased size of 146/RJ Fleet until the intro of the Emb 170)
without hazarding any mainline jobs. Whilst completely understanding and agreeing your bottom line over mainline Ts and Cs, I can't quite see that the whole future of mainline pilots depends on keeping BACX pilots off any current or future BA aoc aircraft types. I mean, practically, though BACC could easily enforce the various histrionic threats made on here about any CURRENT mainline aoc types, just suppose that BA ended the RJ leases, and moved the BA pilots appropriately to other bases, whilst at the same time, BACX entered into new, probably cheaper leases on similar aircraft? This would be outwith any BALPA action, provided the pilot moves were structured cleverly enough not to be deemed constructive dismissal. It may be a little farfetched too; however, consider the Emb 170 and its competitors. 70 to 120 seats, BRAL and Brymon were always going to be getting a lot of these, and after the current market turns, you can depend on it happening. What do you suggest then? Change your scope clause? Suggest none but mainline pilots can fly a jet anywhere there are mainline pilots. I don't think so.
Again, compromise is surely the thing rather than wanting everything one's own way? If all parties feel they have gained most of what they want, then it is a good agreement. If some parties feel it is not a negotiation, but rather just a completely negative and dictatorial order or command, then there will be no harmony - which is to none of our advantages.
Ball bouncing into your court sir!
(ie an increased size of 146/RJ Fleet until the intro of the Emb 170)
without hazarding any mainline jobs. Whilst completely understanding and agreeing your bottom line over mainline Ts and Cs, I can't quite see that the whole future of mainline pilots depends on keeping BACX pilots off any current or future BA aoc aircraft types. I mean, practically, though BACC could easily enforce the various histrionic threats made on here about any CURRENT mainline aoc types, just suppose that BA ended the RJ leases, and moved the BA pilots appropriately to other bases, whilst at the same time, BACX entered into new, probably cheaper leases on similar aircraft? This would be outwith any BALPA action, provided the pilot moves were structured cleverly enough not to be deemed constructive dismissal. It may be a little farfetched too; however, consider the Emb 170 and its competitors. 70 to 120 seats, BRAL and Brymon were always going to be getting a lot of these, and after the current market turns, you can depend on it happening. What do you suggest then? Change your scope clause? Suggest none but mainline pilots can fly a jet anywhere there are mainline pilots. I don't think so.
Again, compromise is surely the thing rather than wanting everything one's own way? If all parties feel they have gained most of what they want, then it is a good agreement. If some parties feel it is not a negotiation, but rather just a completely negative and dictatorial order or command, then there will be no harmony - which is to none of our advantages.
Ball bouncing into your court sir!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
A professional Mediator told me that a successful Compromise is acheived only when both parties leave the table Dissatisfied. Judging from this thread I think we are just about there with the current SCope Clause.
We have to remember that SCope also deals with Franchising, Subsidiaries, Freighters, Alliances, Codeshares and mergers. If the aircraft size is such that BA have a huge flexibility in various aircraft-types available then you can sure as heck bet they will use all the tricks in the book to avoid using a BA Pilot on BA T&C's to fly as many BA routes as possible with outsourced Pilots(not necessarily ex-BRAL always).
If Scope however is agreed and BA do require more or larger aircraft, then they will also need a greater # of Pilots which would have to be employed on BA T&C's....these Pilots I would like to see come directly from your crews and I'm sure that is the intention anyway. Perhaps that is what BALPA should also be trying to secure with SCope, a 1st refusal for any new employment in BA. That way you guys can all be 100% sure that it is YOUR future you are securing with the Scope deal. Why not give your CC Reps a call to push home this point.
A professional Mediator told me that a successful Compromise is acheived only when both parties leave the table Dissatisfied. Judging from this thread I think we are just about there with the current SCope Clause.
We have to remember that SCope also deals with Franchising, Subsidiaries, Freighters, Alliances, Codeshares and mergers. If the aircraft size is such that BA have a huge flexibility in various aircraft-types available then you can sure as heck bet they will use all the tricks in the book to avoid using a BA Pilot on BA T&C's to fly as many BA routes as possible with outsourced Pilots(not necessarily ex-BRAL always).
If Scope however is agreed and BA do require more or larger aircraft, then they will also need a greater # of Pilots which would have to be employed on BA T&C's....these Pilots I would like to see come directly from your crews and I'm sure that is the intention anyway. Perhaps that is what BALPA should also be trying to secure with SCope, a 1st refusal for any new employment in BA. That way you guys can all be 100% sure that it is YOUR future you are securing with the Scope deal. Why not give your CC Reps a call to push home this point.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a good riddance to bad rubbish.
Can we please now get on with our lives.... either on the same terms or apart........ but not on the basis of some ridiculous agreement which has CX strung along with inferior conditions like a compliant poodle waiting for its owner to slip it a few biscuits if it "behaves" itself.
Can we please now get on with our lives.... either on the same terms or apart........ but not on the basis of some ridiculous agreement which has CX strung along with inferior conditions like a compliant poodle waiting for its owner to slip it a few biscuits if it "behaves" itself.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: venus
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank the Lord for that.
Now let´s get back to WORK.
Operate on schedule, give our passengers the best flights we possibly can. Appreciate that they have a choice and interact accordingly.
Now we have despatched the antideluvian idea of SCOPE, is it too much to hope that our company will strip off the dead layers of Water World et al?
As we seem to be unanimous on this one, could we not bring some of our collective influence to bear?
It´s our future, remember.
Now let´s get back to WORK.
Operate on schedule, give our passengers the best flights we possibly can. Appreciate that they have a choice and interact accordingly.
Now we have despatched the antideluvian idea of SCOPE, is it too much to hope that our company will strip off the dead layers of Water World et al?
As we seem to be unanimous on this one, could we not bring some of our collective influence to bear?
It´s our future, remember.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't put the Plane before the tug guys. I agree Scope (well Scope as far as CitiExpress is concerned) is in its death throes maybe but the ball is in BACC's & BA Management's court now. We're still waiting to hear arn't we? Unless we get what we're asking for: Common Terms and Conditions for all and a joint master seniority list then scope will still be around albeit in some form of compromise.
I don't know about you but whilst i celebrate and applaud the stance taken by of our BACX CC and remain optomistic, I will wait with baited breath as to the response that must surely be in the post.
I don't know about you but whilst i celebrate and applaud the stance taken by of our BACX CC and remain optomistic, I will wait with baited breath as to the response that must surely be in the post.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Eastern Seaboard
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to spoil the party, but I believe that a gentleman from BA, who is the LGLC Chairperson, and also the Scope Team Rep, has gone on the record contradicting the BACX newsletter, and then denying the agreement over the redirection of the 50 displaced guys. He has then apparently gone on to say, most interestingly, that seemingly the BACX CC CANNOT reject Scope, since it is not our agreement, but rather one being agreed between BA and BACC!!!Water gets even muddier now.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno who the man you quote is but.....
An agreement requires the consent of all parties to it otherwise it ain't "an agreement".Scope was about a consensus between all parties to it.
If Johnny important thinks that all he has to do is satisfy the BACC and carry on expecting BACX to be compliant then....boy I suspect he's in for a shock.
One thing all this has done is to unite and mobilise Cx pilots (as well as others ) against BA treating categoriers of its pilots as second class.
The result would be a balot for Industrial action by any CX pilot expected to work with one on better terms. Can't see any mainline pilot crossing a picket line in those circumstances....
An agreement requires the consent of all parties to it otherwise it ain't "an agreement".Scope was about a consensus between all parties to it.
If Johnny important thinks that all he has to do is satisfy the BACC and carry on expecting BACX to be compliant then....boy I suspect he's in for a shock.
One thing all this has done is to unite and mobilise Cx pilots (as well as others ) against BA treating categoriers of its pilots as second class.
The result would be a balot for Industrial action by any CX pilot expected to work with one on better terms. Can't see any mainline pilot crossing a picket line in those circumstances....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well against my better judgement I'll respond to Tinytim. Scope is a deal between the BACC and BA, relating to the deployment of our aircraft and the use of the BA brand on aircraft of a certain size. The RJ deal is a very, very small part of Scope. An agreement does require the consent of all parties to it, but BACX is not one of those parties. BACX have no more means to veto an internal BA agreement than they have to veto pay agreements between BA and the BACC. If agreement is not reached then the RJs remain in BA, they won't be transferred to BACX and any further debate on the subject is irrelevant.
If agreement is reached between BACC and BA, then the way is open for BA to transfer those aircraft to BACX, and how they crew them is between BA (subject to the terms agreed in Scope) and BACX. If you choose not to play ball with BA at that stage, then more power to you. BA must find a way to crew them to make the transfer work and they'll probably have to do it on your terms, whatever they may be, but at that stage the negotiations will be entirely between BACX and BA.
The key point of this is that these negotiations are not tri-partisan at any stage. Its all very well stamping your feet on this forum about how you will derail the whole process, but it blindly ignores the fact that currently you are not actually in the process. It may be an unpleasant truth, but it is the truth nonetheless. When the BA/ BACC part of the negotiation is concluded, then you get to negotitate the best deal for yourselves.
I have noted your comments about BA treating certain categories of its pilots as second class. For the record, in 'another place' there is unanimous support for the principle that all BACX pilots should be treated equally, regardless of current aircraft type. Furthermore there is an absolute refutal by a member of our negotiating team of the claim that the BACC have stipulated that CX prop pilots must be handled differently from jet pilots. It is stated that the BACCs position is, and always has been, that all CX pilots must be treated equally in any merger/transfer situation. It is BA management alone who are setting the terms for any transfer into mainline.
If agreement is reached between BACC and BA, then the way is open for BA to transfer those aircraft to BACX, and how they crew them is between BA (subject to the terms agreed in Scope) and BACX. If you choose not to play ball with BA at that stage, then more power to you. BA must find a way to crew them to make the transfer work and they'll probably have to do it on your terms, whatever they may be, but at that stage the negotiations will be entirely between BACX and BA.
The key point of this is that these negotiations are not tri-partisan at any stage. Its all very well stamping your feet on this forum about how you will derail the whole process, but it blindly ignores the fact that currently you are not actually in the process. It may be an unpleasant truth, but it is the truth nonetheless. When the BA/ BACC part of the negotiation is concluded, then you get to negotitate the best deal for yourselves.
I have noted your comments about BA treating certain categories of its pilots as second class. For the record, in 'another place' there is unanimous support for the principle that all BACX pilots should be treated equally, regardless of current aircraft type. Furthermore there is an absolute refutal by a member of our negotiating team of the claim that the BACC have stipulated that CX prop pilots must be handled differently from jet pilots. It is stated that the BACCs position is, and always has been, that all CX pilots must be treated equally in any merger/transfer situation. It is BA management alone who are setting the terms for any transfer into mainline.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS ...nothing within that with which one can really disagree.
Excuse me for reminding (if memories are a bit short) but it was your CC who said "sign up or else". Nothing very tripartisan about that.
You can agree what you like with BA, but if it involves our pilots
being forced to work alongside guys and girls on better Ts and Cs that is where any agreement you reach will fall over. That is the nub of the issue. It is not about wanting your RJs (which most of us are not bothered about anyway).
This now brings into focus your cadets and your BAR cabin crew with whom we are expected to work. Like it or not we are already involved.
Excuse me for reminding (if memories are a bit short) but it was your CC who said "sign up or else". Nothing very tripartisan about that.
You can agree what you like with BA, but if it involves our pilots
being forced to work alongside guys and girls on better Ts and Cs that is where any agreement you reach will fall over. That is the nub of the issue. It is not about wanting your RJs (which most of us are not bothered about anyway).
This now brings into focus your cadets and your BAR cabin crew with whom we are expected to work. Like it or not we are already involved.
Hand Solo:
I apologise for taking so long to respond to your last reply but I have been away for a week.
GSS: You and I are in total agreement on this subject. There is no doubt in my mind that BA freight should be moved by BA crews in BA aircraft. I absolutely abhor the practice of flagging-out.
Sadly, now that the GSS aircraft are G-registered and operating on a UK AOC, I feel that you have as much chance of changing the situation as you would have in trying to push butter up a badger's a**sehole with a red hot needle.
I simply cannot understand why the combined might of the BACC and BALPA were incapable of stopping this unfortunate situation when the thing was still N-registered.
It must also be quite galling to you to see your ex-BA mates bury their ideals (if they ever had any) and go to work for such an organisation.
At least the rest of us out here can rest assured that your own high morals would never allow YOU to work for the likes of GSS and that we can be confident in the thought that you will retire from BA at the age of 55 and live happily on your pension in the countryside.
Ryanair: I realise that this subject is off-topic but you did ask me how I was getting on. Since last we spoke, I have had one Ryanair experience and it was not a particularly happy one. The flight left 90 minutes late due "late inbound which previously was delayed by fog in Germany". No doubt Ryanair's propensity to operate from non-CatII/III airfields had something to do with it. Fortunately, the delay didn't matter to me.
When the flight did happen it was good. The aircraft was a 738 and it was around 2/3rds full, clean and quite comfortable. On arrival, the baggage appeared promptly.
I counted 14 "suits" (potential business class punters) on the flight.
GO: Once again, I have since had one GO experience. The flight was full and pushed back on schedule. Sadly this promising start was not to last.
Within minutes of PRGU the two comedians in the front had changed the climate pertaining in the cabin from comfortable to that of Bahrain in the summer. It really was bad.
Layers of clothing were being shed all round, overhead punkah louvres were being opened to no effect and the ladies were frantically fanning themselves with safety cards.
I saw the senior girl make two calls to the flightdeck and finally she strode into the flightdeck to have a confrontation.
I could not help thinking that the Junior F/O's (for as such was he described by his boss on the PA) experience of climatic matters probably consisted of studying diagrams of air-conditioning packs and temperature controls in ground school.
If the young man in question was actually flying the aeroplane at the time and the guy in the left seat was responsible, then I apologise profusely. In which case, the man in the left seat has not had his hands on the controls on the other side of the cockpit for a very long time.
It could not have been a runaway pack for there was no evidence of the dreaded gray smoke.
On the credit side, I was totally mesmerised by the lovely young creature on the other side of the aisle. I have never witnessed so many layers of clothing being shed. Sadly, she stopped before it got really interesting or indecent.
Normality was restored after 20 minutes. The flight arrived on time and baggage delivery was prompt.
I was unable to count the "suits" for everyone was in a state of undress but I guess that they were between 15 and 20 (which you may well get back after this experience)!
Business Class: I have a slight feeling that you regard me as someone who seldom travels in business class. This is not so.
For example; I have travelled business class (return) across the pond 5 times in the last 2 years. One of those journeys was made on BA (744 westbound and 777 eastbound - I found the 744 sector more comfortable). The other 4 journeys were made on European carriers.
The service on all flights was pretty good and there was very little to choose between them. If pressed, I would have to say that the best experience I had was with the late-lamented Such A Bloody Experience Never Again - the service was excellent.
If I have to travel a long way I shall continue to insist upon business class but, despite the last two experiences with Ryan and GO, I relly don't think I would have done any better with the likes of BA in business class for relatively short flights.
This is the market that you have to try to recapture or get out of completely.
I apologise for taking so long to respond to your last reply but I have been away for a week.
GSS: You and I are in total agreement on this subject. There is no doubt in my mind that BA freight should be moved by BA crews in BA aircraft. I absolutely abhor the practice of flagging-out.
Sadly, now that the GSS aircraft are G-registered and operating on a UK AOC, I feel that you have as much chance of changing the situation as you would have in trying to push butter up a badger's a**sehole with a red hot needle.
I simply cannot understand why the combined might of the BACC and BALPA were incapable of stopping this unfortunate situation when the thing was still N-registered.
It must also be quite galling to you to see your ex-BA mates bury their ideals (if they ever had any) and go to work for such an organisation.
At least the rest of us out here can rest assured that your own high morals would never allow YOU to work for the likes of GSS and that we can be confident in the thought that you will retire from BA at the age of 55 and live happily on your pension in the countryside.
Ryanair: I realise that this subject is off-topic but you did ask me how I was getting on. Since last we spoke, I have had one Ryanair experience and it was not a particularly happy one. The flight left 90 minutes late due "late inbound which previously was delayed by fog in Germany". No doubt Ryanair's propensity to operate from non-CatII/III airfields had something to do with it. Fortunately, the delay didn't matter to me.
When the flight did happen it was good. The aircraft was a 738 and it was around 2/3rds full, clean and quite comfortable. On arrival, the baggage appeared promptly.
I counted 14 "suits" (potential business class punters) on the flight.
GO: Once again, I have since had one GO experience. The flight was full and pushed back on schedule. Sadly this promising start was not to last.
Within minutes of PRGU the two comedians in the front had changed the climate pertaining in the cabin from comfortable to that of Bahrain in the summer. It really was bad.
Layers of clothing were being shed all round, overhead punkah louvres were being opened to no effect and the ladies were frantically fanning themselves with safety cards.
I saw the senior girl make two calls to the flightdeck and finally she strode into the flightdeck to have a confrontation.
I could not help thinking that the Junior F/O's (for as such was he described by his boss on the PA) experience of climatic matters probably consisted of studying diagrams of air-conditioning packs and temperature controls in ground school.
If the young man in question was actually flying the aeroplane at the time and the guy in the left seat was responsible, then I apologise profusely. In which case, the man in the left seat has not had his hands on the controls on the other side of the cockpit for a very long time.
It could not have been a runaway pack for there was no evidence of the dreaded gray smoke.
On the credit side, I was totally mesmerised by the lovely young creature on the other side of the aisle. I have never witnessed so many layers of clothing being shed. Sadly, she stopped before it got really interesting or indecent.
Normality was restored after 20 minutes. The flight arrived on time and baggage delivery was prompt.
I was unable to count the "suits" for everyone was in a state of undress but I guess that they were between 15 and 20 (which you may well get back after this experience)!
Business Class: I have a slight feeling that you regard me as someone who seldom travels in business class. This is not so.
For example; I have travelled business class (return) across the pond 5 times in the last 2 years. One of those journeys was made on BA (744 westbound and 777 eastbound - I found the 744 sector more comfortable). The other 4 journeys were made on European carriers.
The service on all flights was pretty good and there was very little to choose between them. If pressed, I would have to say that the best experience I had was with the late-lamented Such A Bloody Experience Never Again - the service was excellent.
If I have to travel a long way I shall continue to insist upon business class but, despite the last two experiences with Ryan and GO, I relly don't think I would have done any better with the likes of BA in business class for relatively short flights.
This is the market that you have to try to recapture or get out of completely.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very pathetic really! Can I blame BACC for trying to shaft BACX employees in order to protect themselves? no not really, but please spare us the lengthy attempts at justification! All it does is antagonise further.
Now, the way I see it, BACXCC look after our interests at BACX, so;
Tell BA we want nothing to do with the RJ's they have on offer.
Had their offer of them not come along, we would still, sooner or later, have acquired bigger aircraft.
Why do we really want aircraft with all these strings attached? Go get some from the open market, in that way BACC can go and get st####d.
I stongly suspect, that left to the market forces, we would see a few available RJ's before long anyway!
As for possible scope! You can't really argue with that logic, surely not! It appears to me, a realistic expectation, that BA pilots be prevented from flying smaller aircraft in the region's. And the idea that they should be allowed access to the turboprop fleet without starting at the bottom of the seniority list, well, that's just ludicrous!!
Now, the way I see it, BACXCC look after our interests at BACX, so;
Tell BA we want nothing to do with the RJ's they have on offer.
Had their offer of them not come along, we would still, sooner or later, have acquired bigger aircraft.
Why do we really want aircraft with all these strings attached? Go get some from the open market, in that way BACC can go and get st####d.
I stongly suspect, that left to the market forces, we would see a few available RJ's before long anyway!
As for possible scope! You can't really argue with that logic, surely not! It appears to me, a realistic expectation, that BA pilots be prevented from flying smaller aircraft in the region's. And the idea that they should be allowed access to the turboprop fleet without starting at the bottom of the seniority list, well, that's just ludicrous!!
