BA & BACX terms and conditions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA & BACX terms and conditions
This is meant to be educational, not controversial.
I work for BACX and frequently meet BA pilots, for whom I have total professional respect.
The last three I have met appear to be under the impression that T&Cs at BACX are similar to those at BA. So, for the record, a clarification of one or two misconceptions:
1 - BACX pilots have no entitlement to bid onto BA aircraft.
2 - BACX pilots are not on the BA seniority list.
3 - However, BA pilots can/do/ and have bid onto BACX RJ100/BAE146 aircraft belonging to BACX.
4 - FDP at BACX is £1.50 per hour and has been for over 10 years. It does not increase with duty hours.
5 - Brymon pilots (half the BACX pilot community) will experience their 4th consecutive pay freeze in April 2004. The rest of the pilot community will experience a 3rd consecutive pay freeze.
Many BA pilots are unpleasantly surprised by the above and are genuinely keen to help BACX obtain better T&Cs. I hope this psot will rally support from other BA pilots who are not aware of the true situation at BACX.
All support welcome.
I work for BACX and frequently meet BA pilots, for whom I have total professional respect.
The last three I have met appear to be under the impression that T&Cs at BACX are similar to those at BA. So, for the record, a clarification of one or two misconceptions:
1 - BACX pilots have no entitlement to bid onto BA aircraft.
2 - BACX pilots are not on the BA seniority list.
3 - However, BA pilots can/do/ and have bid onto BACX RJ100/BAE146 aircraft belonging to BACX.
4 - FDP at BACX is £1.50 per hour and has been for over 10 years. It does not increase with duty hours.
5 - Brymon pilots (half the BACX pilot community) will experience their 4th consecutive pay freeze in April 2004. The rest of the pilot community will experience a 3rd consecutive pay freeze.
Many BA pilots are unpleasantly surprised by the above and are genuinely keen to help BACX obtain better T&Cs. I hope this psot will rally support from other BA pilots who are not aware of the true situation at BACX.
All support welcome.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've no doubt most BA pilots would welcome improved T&Cs from BACX pilots, but a major barrier to our assistance is your company councils desire to hold a gun to our head everytime an opportunity for working together arises. A gun which invariably backfires. A classic example of this is the RJ100 fleet. As I'm sure you recall this was a BA fleet which was removed from mainline and sent to the now defunct regional bases. The price BA paid for BA BALPAs agreement to the closure of a whole fleet and two bases was that some BA pilots would be able to stay on the base/fleet of their choice. This was a particularly good deal for BA management and also meant BACX got 16 RJ100s they wouldn't otherwise have. In return, BA BALPA offered to negotiate a deal by which some BACX pilots would have direct access to mainline. It wasn't all, but it was a foot in the door and better than nothing. Instead of seizing this opportunity, the BACX company council tried to veto the deal between BA and the BACC whilst demanding unrestricted access to mainline for all BACX pilots. Perhaps a noble ambition if you're in BACX, but a totally unrealistic negotiating position. The result of this posturing was nothing at all for BACX. Now the BACX CC are again lobbying for unrestricted mainline access whilst simultaneously trying to push the BA secondees out of their positions.
We'd like to help you guys improve your T&Cs and have an effective two way street so that all BACX and mainline pilots can come and go between the companys, but you've got to stop your reps trying to stab us in the back the moment we look away. Your pay freeze is unsatisfactory, but the BACC now have a wealth of experience in benchmarking against our European competitors, plus the right contacts to get the information. Perhaps sharing that could be a starting point in helping you guys build a strong case for better T&Cs. Building bridges rather than fences is only going to be beneficial for us.
We'd like to help you guys improve your T&Cs and have an effective two way street so that all BACX and mainline pilots can come and go between the companys, but you've got to stop your reps trying to stab us in the back the moment we look away. Your pay freeze is unsatisfactory, but the BACC now have a wealth of experience in benchmarking against our European competitors, plus the right contacts to get the information. Perhaps sharing that could be a starting point in helping you guys build a strong case for better T&Cs. Building bridges rather than fences is only going to be beneficial for us.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't doubt for a second that BACX T&Cs require improvement. Also, I have no objection in principle to BACX pilots having access to BA mainline fleets. However, they cannot have their cake and eat it. If they want full access to mainline, we want full access to BACX.
I write as an ex BAR 737 and Bus driver who wants to go back for a command at BHX on the BA Regional network. Just for interest, when the existing secondees took their positions, I was frozen on type at LHR and unable to bid.
I write as an ex BAR 737 and Bus driver who wants to go back for a command at BHX on the BA Regional network. Just for interest, when the existing secondees took their positions, I was frozen on type at LHR and unable to bid.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey,
I hear what you say (and other versions of it). I'm going to get our Balpa rep to either address what you say (here) or tell me how and what the state of play was.
You make a serious point and only the facts will do from BACX Balpa. Watch this space.
I hear what you say (and other versions of it). I'm going to get our Balpa rep to either address what you say (here) or tell me how and what the state of play was.
You make a serious point and only the facts will do from BACX Balpa. Watch this space.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being ex Dan Air and ex BACX I have the following observations:
When Dan was taken over by BA, those on the 737-300/400 got the chance of SIM assesments and those that performed got jobs. Many of the more senior pilots were on other fleets, 737-200, 146,727, 1-11 etc. They were down the road, seniority mattered not. However, the more sensible Dan managment saw this coming and managed to get themselves on the 300/400 and were employed by BA. We were all BALPA members, there were to my knowledge, no discussions that included Dan's CC. They were as my friend, who was on the Dan CC at the time, said the other day, 'frozen out'. The IPA was born out of this fiasco, set up by disillusioned (with BALPA) pilots like Sam Bee.
Fast forward to BACX. BACX was bought by BA to provide cheap labour in the regions. BA have a history of buying regional companies for cheap labour and/or LHR slots that started back with BEA and progresssed through Dan, City Flyer and now BACX. BA were not interested in regional bases, or small aircraft, and those were desposed of in all the take overs I have mentioned. In BACX's case, as the regional bases shut and pilots became surplus, the number of surplus pilots about equaled the number required for the RJ. So it should have been a fleet and base change for most pilots, but no loss of job. Except that the BA CC insisted on mainline slots on the RJ, about 80 if memory serves correct. So 80 mainline pilots found themselves on the RJ, some on their first command whilst a similar number of BACX pilots were effectively redundant. They were not all made redundant, but the options offered to them were so poor that most either chose to leave or ended up being forced to move to the new owners of the ex BACX turbo prop's on vastly reduced T & C's whilst the TUPE regulations were neatly side stepped by both BACX and the other party. It didn't matter how senior one was, if one was no 1 on the seniority list and the only available slot was an DHC FO job 'cos that was all that was available, that's what you got.
So the point of all this is, had BA not seconded pilots to BACX it is almost certain that no BA pilot would have lost their job and certainly no BACX pilot either. Since BA did second their pilots to BACX, in some cases command (on the RJ) slots were created for BA pilots, in the meantime many BACX pilots were down the road. Some are still out of work, I spoke to one the other day. I think I'm right in saying the BACX CC were not consulted at all whilst the RJ negotions went on. They were frozen out according to the former BACX CC Chairman (familiar?). But the BACX managment all found themselves on the RJ or 146 (famiiar again?). The displaced IOM pilots are a case in point, most of them get bounced in to Loganair on the ATP, the managment transfer to the 146, even if they currently fly the ATP.
BALPA exists to serve BA pilots. They serve BA pilots first and foremost (rightly), anyone else's CC or other BALPA member gets steamrollered. A cosy relationship exists between BA and it's CC (whatever that tripe in the bi monthly BALPA rag might say) and when other parties become involved, thay are allways dis-advantaged.
When Dan was taken over by BA, those on the 737-300/400 got the chance of SIM assesments and those that performed got jobs. Many of the more senior pilots were on other fleets, 737-200, 146,727, 1-11 etc. They were down the road, seniority mattered not. However, the more sensible Dan managment saw this coming and managed to get themselves on the 300/400 and were employed by BA. We were all BALPA members, there were to my knowledge, no discussions that included Dan's CC. They were as my friend, who was on the Dan CC at the time, said the other day, 'frozen out'. The IPA was born out of this fiasco, set up by disillusioned (with BALPA) pilots like Sam Bee.
Fast forward to BACX. BACX was bought by BA to provide cheap labour in the regions. BA have a history of buying regional companies for cheap labour and/or LHR slots that started back with BEA and progresssed through Dan, City Flyer and now BACX. BA were not interested in regional bases, or small aircraft, and those were desposed of in all the take overs I have mentioned. In BACX's case, as the regional bases shut and pilots became surplus, the number of surplus pilots about equaled the number required for the RJ. So it should have been a fleet and base change for most pilots, but no loss of job. Except that the BA CC insisted on mainline slots on the RJ, about 80 if memory serves correct. So 80 mainline pilots found themselves on the RJ, some on their first command whilst a similar number of BACX pilots were effectively redundant. They were not all made redundant, but the options offered to them were so poor that most either chose to leave or ended up being forced to move to the new owners of the ex BACX turbo prop's on vastly reduced T & C's whilst the TUPE regulations were neatly side stepped by both BACX and the other party. It didn't matter how senior one was, if one was no 1 on the seniority list and the only available slot was an DHC FO job 'cos that was all that was available, that's what you got.
So the point of all this is, had BA not seconded pilots to BACX it is almost certain that no BA pilot would have lost their job and certainly no BACX pilot either. Since BA did second their pilots to BACX, in some cases command (on the RJ) slots were created for BA pilots, in the meantime many BACX pilots were down the road. Some are still out of work, I spoke to one the other day. I think I'm right in saying the BACX CC were not consulted at all whilst the RJ negotions went on. They were frozen out according to the former BACX CC Chairman (familiar?). But the BACX managment all found themselves on the RJ or 146 (famiiar again?). The displaced IOM pilots are a case in point, most of them get bounced in to Loganair on the ATP, the managment transfer to the 146, even if they currently fly the ATP.
BALPA exists to serve BA pilots. They serve BA pilots first and foremost (rightly), anyone else's CC or other BALPA member gets steamrollered. A cosy relationship exists between BA and it's CC (whatever that tripe in the bi monthly BALPA rag might say) and when other parties become involved, thay are allways dis-advantaged.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bat.Man
What a crock of sh1t you spout.
The jobs at MAN and BHX were BA jobs, the aircraft were BA aircraft. How can any redundancies result from that at BACX?
Jeez .... you're obviously well balanced ... with an enormous chip on each shoulder. Grow up.
What a crock of sh1t you spout.
The jobs at MAN and BHX were BA jobs, the aircraft were BA aircraft. How can any redundancies result from that at BACX?
Jeez .... you're obviously well balanced ... with an enormous chip on each shoulder. Grow up.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can confirm some of what Bat.man says.
I was on the 737 -200 (200,300 and 400 were one fleet with one fleet manager) when Dan was bought by BA.
The chief pilot at DAN just happened to be on the 737-200, but not Fleet Manager.
When a group of us on the 737-200 went to the Aer Lingus simulator to get our 737 EFIS rating which took 10 days and was paid for out of our redundancy money - guess who asked to join us- the old Chief Pilot. We assumed he was being given the push, like the rest of us on the 200 fleet, and was welcomed as a last minute addition to our little privately organised course. He signed the cheque and paid his share of the costs.
We subsequently found out that he had neatly moved across to become Chief Pilot at BA(EOG), as he was now 'qualified' on all the 737 types.
I was on the 737 -200 (200,300 and 400 were one fleet with one fleet manager) when Dan was bought by BA.
The chief pilot at DAN just happened to be on the 737-200, but not Fleet Manager.
When a group of us on the 737-200 went to the Aer Lingus simulator to get our 737 EFIS rating which took 10 days and was paid for out of our redundancy money - guess who asked to join us- the old Chief Pilot. We assumed he was being given the push, like the rest of us on the 200 fleet, and was welcomed as a last minute addition to our little privately organised course. He signed the cheque and paid his share of the costs.
We subsequently found out that he had neatly moved across to become Chief Pilot at BA(EOG), as he was now 'qualified' on all the 737 types.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're very poorly informed bat.man. 80 mainline pilots on the RJ? The figure is barely a quarter of that. BACX CC 'frozen out'? Well explain to me why they should have any say on how BA deal with the closure of two BA bases and the transfer of a BA fleet of aircraft.
No BACX pilot has lost a job because of the transfer of the the RJ fleet, but an awful lot have kept theirs because of the addition of 16 aircraft to their company. As for the 'cosy relationship between BA and their CC', well now I know your just making it up.
'round midnight - I eagerly await your reply. It will be interesting to hear the version from 'the other side' as it were, rather than the usual chinese whispers.
No BACX pilot has lost a job because of the transfer of the the RJ fleet, but an awful lot have kept theirs because of the addition of 16 aircraft to their company. As for the 'cosy relationship between BA and their CC', well now I know your just making it up.
'round midnight - I eagerly await your reply. It will be interesting to hear the version from 'the other side' as it were, rather than the usual chinese whispers.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey :
I think you will find there are almost exactly 60 'mainline secondees' flying the RJ100 with BACX. (Albeit only 21 vacancies for people 'bidding in', the other 39 people effectively remaining in a job they had previously occupied in one form or another!)
bat.man :
By my calculations, that still leaves approximately 100 jobs that were 'gifted' to BACX, along with 16 aircraft, 2 bases, and a very extensive route network, by a very generous parent company!
My, my, what kind of a predicament would BACX be in if they hadn't been thown the 'expansion' lifeline??
But are they grateful??
'round midnight :
If you think it was BA pilots, or BA BALPA who objected to you becoming mainline pilots, and those RJ jobs remaining mainline jobs, I think you are wrong!
You should be looking elsewhere for people to blame.
Even now, BA pilots want mainline T & Cs for BACX pilots, in return for access to the regions.
Incidentally, if you really want to make your post educational, and not controversial, try to get the most basic facts correct!
In other words, you probably already know that your assertion that BA pilots can/do/and have bid into BACX is not true.
Under the current arrangement, not one single mainline pilot can EVER bid into BACX at ANY time in the future. Once the current crop of secondees move on, those jobs are 'gifted' to BACX forever.
Unless of course BACX have a desire to operate other 100 plus seat aircraft, in which case, I hope to hear even more from BALPA!
I think you will find there are almost exactly 60 'mainline secondees' flying the RJ100 with BACX. (Albeit only 21 vacancies for people 'bidding in', the other 39 people effectively remaining in a job they had previously occupied in one form or another!)
bat.man :
By my calculations, that still leaves approximately 100 jobs that were 'gifted' to BACX, along with 16 aircraft, 2 bases, and a very extensive route network, by a very generous parent company!
My, my, what kind of a predicament would BACX be in if they hadn't been thown the 'expansion' lifeline??
But are they grateful??
'round midnight :
If you think it was BA pilots, or BA BALPA who objected to you becoming mainline pilots, and those RJ jobs remaining mainline jobs, I think you are wrong!
You should be looking elsewhere for people to blame.
Even now, BA pilots want mainline T & Cs for BACX pilots, in return for access to the regions.
Incidentally, if you really want to make your post educational, and not controversial, try to get the most basic facts correct!
In other words, you probably already know that your assertion that BA pilots can/do/and have bid into BACX is not true.
Under the current arrangement, not one single mainline pilot can EVER bid into BACX at ANY time in the future. Once the current crop of secondees move on, those jobs are 'gifted' to BACX forever.
Unless of course BACX have a desire to operate other 100 plus seat aircraft, in which case, I hope to hear even more from BALPA!
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 10th Dec 2003 at 16:34.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well here we go again with all the confrontational stuff.
Carnage Matey : I like your tone regarding CX pilots and the problems we all face. I agree with much of what you say regarding BACX CC and personally I and several others in CX believe the CC have at times been emotive and frankly immature.
Many BACX people are hurting and at the same time I fully understand mainline desire to be able to work in the regions. I firmly believe all this bad blood is pointless as it is commercial reality that is shaping the situation. European short haul has rapidly become low cost driven and we are ALL begining the catch up game. As a result I believe its inevitable that further dramatic change will occur in the future for both companies (BA short haul and CX).
I do not believe CX will succeed in the longer term with its present direction but I also I dont believe the present operation at Gatwick can continue as it is in the long term either. We all know it if we look around, Joe Public first concern is the price of the ticket followed by the convience. The VAST VAST majority of people and now business would rather not pay extra for the "frills" on a shorthaul flight. Whats the point when your only in the aeroplane for an hour or two.
Long/Medium haul is different, the frills really do make the difference when your sat in the aeroplane for so long. Ok the club lounge may appeal to some and there will always be people who think they are safer with BA but this is not enough long term.
Open your eyes everyone, BA shorthaul (mainline and CX) is in steady decline due to the competitive realities. On many former BAR routes CX is now carrying 20,30 people. BA used to need 737's on these !!
It is not CX stealing BA routes its the competition !
Some of my fellow CX employees are living in a different world if they think their terms and conditions should be improved right now. If mainline pilots want to work in the regions then they should be allowed but they would have to be payed a CX salary on CX Ts and Cs. I am not being confrontational, its commercial reality. In return if there are Mainline vacancies Cx people should have some sort of avenue in.
This is just the start. I only hope the unions allow the companies to change so that we can all keep are jobs and have careers.
Carnage Matey : I like your tone regarding CX pilots and the problems we all face. I agree with much of what you say regarding BACX CC and personally I and several others in CX believe the CC have at times been emotive and frankly immature.
Many BACX people are hurting and at the same time I fully understand mainline desire to be able to work in the regions. I firmly believe all this bad blood is pointless as it is commercial reality that is shaping the situation. European short haul has rapidly become low cost driven and we are ALL begining the catch up game. As a result I believe its inevitable that further dramatic change will occur in the future for both companies (BA short haul and CX).
I do not believe CX will succeed in the longer term with its present direction but I also I dont believe the present operation at Gatwick can continue as it is in the long term either. We all know it if we look around, Joe Public first concern is the price of the ticket followed by the convience. The VAST VAST majority of people and now business would rather not pay extra for the "frills" on a shorthaul flight. Whats the point when your only in the aeroplane for an hour or two.
Long/Medium haul is different, the frills really do make the difference when your sat in the aeroplane for so long. Ok the club lounge may appeal to some and there will always be people who think they are safer with BA but this is not enough long term.
Open your eyes everyone, BA shorthaul (mainline and CX) is in steady decline due to the competitive realities. On many former BAR routes CX is now carrying 20,30 people. BA used to need 737's on these !!
It is not CX stealing BA routes its the competition !
Some of my fellow CX employees are living in a different world if they think their terms and conditions should be improved right now. If mainline pilots want to work in the regions then they should be allowed but they would have to be payed a CX salary on CX Ts and Cs. I am not being confrontational, its commercial reality. In return if there are Mainline vacancies Cx people should have some sort of avenue in.
This is just the start. I only hope the unions allow the companies to change so that we can all keep are jobs and have careers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor,
Thanks for taking the time to participate in this thread.
I wasn't aware from my intial posting that I was looking for anyone to blame. In fact, I'm not at all into the blame game.
I realise I have a good job and that in the present climate that is an advantage I have over many other pilots here and abroad.
Whilst I do not control the way this thread develops, and therefore you may think this is about blame, my intial intention was to rectify a basic misconceptions about BACX T&Cs which I have encountered in some mainline pilots.
The thread has become confrontational because a blame game based on past negotiations and activities has surfaced. I was hoping the thread might become more constructive and address how errors of the past might be rectified and a mutually beneficial solution found. Maybe that will happen, once all parties have vented their frustration and anger at each other?
So moving on. I stand corrected on the future ability of B.A mainline to bid onto the RJ. I have checked this info and I have heard two diametrically opposite answers on this particular fact, therefore I will err on the side of caution and agree with your assertion. I apologise for not checking my facts more correctly from the outset.
Do you disagree or challenge any of the other points I make?
I will certainly address them.
Carnage matey:
I haven't forgoten you. I have most of the answers at hand, but I'm not in a position to set out my response here until tomoorrow.
safe flying to all.
Thanks for taking the time to participate in this thread.
I wasn't aware from my intial posting that I was looking for anyone to blame. In fact, I'm not at all into the blame game.
I realise I have a good job and that in the present climate that is an advantage I have over many other pilots here and abroad.
Whilst I do not control the way this thread develops, and therefore you may think this is about blame, my intial intention was to rectify a basic misconceptions about BACX T&Cs which I have encountered in some mainline pilots.
The thread has become confrontational because a blame game based on past negotiations and activities has surfaced. I was hoping the thread might become more constructive and address how errors of the past might be rectified and a mutually beneficial solution found. Maybe that will happen, once all parties have vented their frustration and anger at each other?
So moving on. I stand corrected on the future ability of B.A mainline to bid onto the RJ. I have checked this info and I have heard two diametrically opposite answers on this particular fact, therefore I will err on the side of caution and agree with your assertion. I apologise for not checking my facts more correctly from the outset.
Do you disagree or challenge any of the other points I make?
I will certainly address them.
Carnage matey:
I haven't forgoten you. I have most of the answers at hand, but I'm not in a position to set out my response here until tomoorrow.
safe flying to all.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'round midnight
You are absolutely right, we ALL have more to gain from this by acting in a co-ordinated fashion. There are advantages for CX pilots, and also for mainline pilots.
Your misunderstanding is perfectly understandable, as, in some ways, was my rant.
Access to mainline is probably the only answer to improving T & Cs for BACX. At the moment, to all intents and purposes, BA and BACX are two entirely separate companies, and BA pilots can have no influence on your salaries.
The BACXCC shouldn't be sending petitions to Rod Eddington, demanding unfettered access to mainline. (Which I have no doubt will prove utterly futile!) They should be creating the conditions for full integration.
Just because BACX and BA shorthaul are competing against the cheap thrills operators, doesn't mean they can't pay well.
It's no coincidence that the market leaders in 'no frills' give the appearance of paying market leading rates of pay to their pilots!
On a slightly different tack, I am rather worried about the future existence of BACX in ANY form!
Take care
You are absolutely right, we ALL have more to gain from this by acting in a co-ordinated fashion. There are advantages for CX pilots, and also for mainline pilots.
Your misunderstanding is perfectly understandable, as, in some ways, was my rant.
Access to mainline is probably the only answer to improving T & Cs for BACX. At the moment, to all intents and purposes, BA and BACX are two entirely separate companies, and BA pilots can have no influence on your salaries.
The BACXCC shouldn't be sending petitions to Rod Eddington, demanding unfettered access to mainline. (Which I have no doubt will prove utterly futile!) They should be creating the conditions for full integration.
Just because BACX and BA shorthaul are competing against the cheap thrills operators, doesn't mean they can't pay well.
It's no coincidence that the market leaders in 'no frills' give the appearance of paying market leading rates of pay to their pilots!
On a slightly different tack, I am rather worried about the future existence of BACX in ANY form!
Take care
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Matey,
My apologies for the long over due reply.
Now addressing your post:
My understanding is that Rob Hall (then BACC, now BA management) was quick to conclude that BACX pilots wanted no part of the scope deal on offer. The problem for our reps revolved around the terms on offer. Principally:
- Turbo prop pilots were to be excluded from any form of access to B.A.;
(Personally, that one reason is enough to reject the deal: a union cannot possibly act in its members' best interest if it accepts an offer that disenfranchises a significant percentage of its members. What in Heaven's name is the rational for excluding turbo prop pilots from mainline? It is little more than a professional insult to those pilots.)
- No access to any fleet based out of London Gatwick.
- No access by BACX pilots to any aircraft over 100 seats. Furthermore, aircraft below 50 seats to be the exclusive remit of BACX pilots, but aircraft 70 to 100 seats to be shared with BA pilots.
(On closer analysis -bearing in mind that BA stop recruiting at age 49- older CX pilots would be blocked from flying anything bigger than a ERJ 145 by younger B.A pilots using the regional arm as a route to early command before diving back into BA.)
Those are some of the issues I have discovered. In summary Rob Hall was keen to BACX what we could or could not do whilst guaranteeing that BA pilots flying for CX would retain all preferential terms and bidding rights.
Why was BACC so keen to attach unralistic conditions to any deal? Was this to sweeten the C.X community for the arrival of B.A pilots on the 146/RJ on the CX AOC, and no more ?
If BACX CC had accepted this deal, I would have felt betrayed as one of its members.
So yes, you are right, BACX on the face of it, did reject the opportunity to join B.A mainline, but in some quarters this opportunity is viewed merely as an illusion of access to B.A
Safe flying.
My apologies for the long over due reply.
Now addressing your post:
My understanding is that Rob Hall (then BACC, now BA management) was quick to conclude that BACX pilots wanted no part of the scope deal on offer. The problem for our reps revolved around the terms on offer. Principally:
- Turbo prop pilots were to be excluded from any form of access to B.A.;
(Personally, that one reason is enough to reject the deal: a union cannot possibly act in its members' best interest if it accepts an offer that disenfranchises a significant percentage of its members. What in Heaven's name is the rational for excluding turbo prop pilots from mainline? It is little more than a professional insult to those pilots.)
- No access to any fleet based out of London Gatwick.
- No access by BACX pilots to any aircraft over 100 seats. Furthermore, aircraft below 50 seats to be the exclusive remit of BACX pilots, but aircraft 70 to 100 seats to be shared with BA pilots.
(On closer analysis -bearing in mind that BA stop recruiting at age 49- older CX pilots would be blocked from flying anything bigger than a ERJ 145 by younger B.A pilots using the regional arm as a route to early command before diving back into BA.)
Those are some of the issues I have discovered. In summary Rob Hall was keen to BACX what we could or could not do whilst guaranteeing that BA pilots flying for CX would retain all preferential terms and bidding rights.
Why was BACC so keen to attach unralistic conditions to any deal? Was this to sweeten the C.X community for the arrival of B.A pilots on the 146/RJ on the CX AOC, and no more ?
If BACX CC had accepted this deal, I would have felt betrayed as one of its members.
So yes, you are right, BACX on the face of it, did reject the opportunity to join B.A mainline, but in some quarters this opportunity is viewed merely as an illusion of access to B.A
Safe flying.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply midnight. I know you think that those terms are unreasonable, but I question whether they actually are that unreasonable. To look at it point by point:
Turbo prop pilots were to be excluded from any form of access to B.A.;
OK, I don't know what the logic (if any) behind this was, or whether the instruction to specify this originated from BA or the BACC. I do think its rather unlikely that the BACC can specify this without the backing of BA though. I can see why it would be very divisive within the BACX community, but given that BACX had no hope whatsoever of blocking any Scope agreement, I do wonder why they weren't tempted to make the most of a bad job rather than walk away with nothing.
- No access to any fleet based out of London Gatwick
Don't have a problem with that one I'm afraid. LHR and LGW are our very slot-constrained turf. Subsidiary aircraft there are a direct threat to our career opportunities.
- No access by BACX pilots to any aircraft over 100 seats
Ditto the above. Would you reasonably expect BACC to allow BA to farm out our short-haul fleets?
Furthermore, aircraft below 50 seats to be the exclusive remit of BACX pilots, but aircraft 70 to 100 seats to be shared with BA pilots.
No problem with the 50 seat element. The 70-100 seat element seems a bit pointless, but I think that is the kind of arrangement which exists in Scope agreements in the US so may have been the inspiration. I might be wrong here, but I don't think BACX operate any aircraft in that category except the RJ100/146. The RJ was always going to be shared with BA anyway, but 70 seaters would be new acquisitions for BACX, so we'd all be starting from a blank piece of paper when drawing up agreements. Could something mutually acceptable have been thrashed out? Possibly that could have been a way to develop a common pay scale for all 70-100 seat pilots, be they BA or BACX. The problem of older guys not getting a command on a 50+ seat may have been addressable through the 70-100 seat agreement.
Regional commands at BHX/MAN went as low as 4 years seniority, with LGW at 7 and LHR around 8-9. I would expect that any BACX pilot with ambitions for 70-100 seat command would have equivalent BACX seniority? I doubt many BA pilots with more than 6 years BA seniority would bid for a command on a lower paid 70 seat fleet when they could get a London command in 7-8 years. If there are ambitions for command of 100+ seat aircraft then that just isn't going to occur in BACX for reasons stated above.
In summary, I don't think we've identified the origins of some of the stipulations in the Scope agreement, but I don't think access to the RJ100, BA exclusivity at LHR and and LGW and limitations on 100 seat aircraft are unreasonable. The BACC are there primarily to protect our interests as BA pilots. I don't think the access to mainline was an illusion at all. BACX will be an all jet fleet soon, which would mean that all BACX pilots would be elligible for mainline. The cynic in me thinks the high-level negotiators may have known something about this at the time. Even if not, the inevitable flow of some CX jet pilots to BA would have freed up jet opportunies within CX for the prop guys. The whole deal was never going to be a supreme victory for BACX, as BACC had some pretty clear 'red-lines' (100 seats, LGW and RJs). I think the rest of it had potential for BACX. By walking away the BACX CC effectively removed their chance to influence the deal to the benefit of BACX guys whilst failing to prevent BACC meeting its stated goals. I've no doubt yourself and many colleagues would have felt betrayed by CX CC accepting that deal, but with the benefit of hindsight are you are better off through it's rejection?
Right, I'm off to read the bit in this months log about industrial relations.
Your thoughts?
Turbo prop pilots were to be excluded from any form of access to B.A.;
OK, I don't know what the logic (if any) behind this was, or whether the instruction to specify this originated from BA or the BACC. I do think its rather unlikely that the BACC can specify this without the backing of BA though. I can see why it would be very divisive within the BACX community, but given that BACX had no hope whatsoever of blocking any Scope agreement, I do wonder why they weren't tempted to make the most of a bad job rather than walk away with nothing.
- No access to any fleet based out of London Gatwick
Don't have a problem with that one I'm afraid. LHR and LGW are our very slot-constrained turf. Subsidiary aircraft there are a direct threat to our career opportunities.
- No access by BACX pilots to any aircraft over 100 seats
Ditto the above. Would you reasonably expect BACC to allow BA to farm out our short-haul fleets?
Furthermore, aircraft below 50 seats to be the exclusive remit of BACX pilots, but aircraft 70 to 100 seats to be shared with BA pilots.
No problem with the 50 seat element. The 70-100 seat element seems a bit pointless, but I think that is the kind of arrangement which exists in Scope agreements in the US so may have been the inspiration. I might be wrong here, but I don't think BACX operate any aircraft in that category except the RJ100/146. The RJ was always going to be shared with BA anyway, but 70 seaters would be new acquisitions for BACX, so we'd all be starting from a blank piece of paper when drawing up agreements. Could something mutually acceptable have been thrashed out? Possibly that could have been a way to develop a common pay scale for all 70-100 seat pilots, be they BA or BACX. The problem of older guys not getting a command on a 50+ seat may have been addressable through the 70-100 seat agreement.
Regional commands at BHX/MAN went as low as 4 years seniority, with LGW at 7 and LHR around 8-9. I would expect that any BACX pilot with ambitions for 70-100 seat command would have equivalent BACX seniority? I doubt many BA pilots with more than 6 years BA seniority would bid for a command on a lower paid 70 seat fleet when they could get a London command in 7-8 years. If there are ambitions for command of 100+ seat aircraft then that just isn't going to occur in BACX for reasons stated above.
In summary, I don't think we've identified the origins of some of the stipulations in the Scope agreement, but I don't think access to the RJ100, BA exclusivity at LHR and and LGW and limitations on 100 seat aircraft are unreasonable. The BACC are there primarily to protect our interests as BA pilots. I don't think the access to mainline was an illusion at all. BACX will be an all jet fleet soon, which would mean that all BACX pilots would be elligible for mainline. The cynic in me thinks the high-level negotiators may have known something about this at the time. Even if not, the inevitable flow of some CX jet pilots to BA would have freed up jet opportunies within CX for the prop guys. The whole deal was never going to be a supreme victory for BACX, as BACC had some pretty clear 'red-lines' (100 seats, LGW and RJs). I think the rest of it had potential for BACX. By walking away the BACX CC effectively removed their chance to influence the deal to the benefit of BACX guys whilst failing to prevent BACC meeting its stated goals. I've no doubt yourself and many colleagues would have felt betrayed by CX CC accepting that deal, but with the benefit of hindsight are you are better off through it's rejection?
Right, I'm off to read the bit in this months log about industrial relations.
Your thoughts?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Carnage, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your views and your helpful contributions to this thread.
I'm aware that BACC & BACX CC are talking again, and I hope respective errors of the past will have been heeded so that we can all progress our careers, here and at BA, in a way befitting of our professional achievements so far.
BTW, have you read the BACX & BALPA article in the LOG re: industrial relations. I think it's fair to say our CC are genuine in their desire for a proper constructive dialogue with management. It's reasonable to assume the dialogue with BACC will be entered into in the same spirit.
Time to go and get ready for excess turkey and wine.
Merry Christmas.
I'm aware that BACC & BACX CC are talking again, and I hope respective errors of the past will have been heeded so that we can all progress our careers, here and at BA, in a way befitting of our professional achievements so far.
BTW, have you read the BACX & BALPA article in the LOG re: industrial relations. I think it's fair to say our CC are genuine in their desire for a proper constructive dialogue with management. It's reasonable to assume the dialogue with BACC will be entered into in the same spirit.
Time to go and get ready for excess turkey and wine.
Merry Christmas.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bral
Just a quick point. You said, "why this 100 seat restriction? Wow... are 125 seat a/c so different?
Absolutely not!
Cut the apron strings, stand on your own 2 feet, call yourself, 'Air Weston Super Mare', sell tickets under your own name, and repaint your a/c, and you can fly B747-400s for all BA pilots care.
Same goes for BMed, GB, and GSS.
Your call!
Just a quick point. You said, "why this 100 seat restriction? Wow... are 125 seat a/c so different?
Absolutely not!
Cut the apron strings, stand on your own 2 feet, call yourself, 'Air Weston Super Mare', sell tickets under your own name, and repaint your a/c, and you can fly B747-400s for all BA pilots care.
Same goes for BMed, GB, and GSS.
Your call!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: South Coast
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not AGAIN please.........
Once more the same old position taking, the same arguments, the same 'us and them' mentality. I fly the RJ for BACX, flew the 146 before that, watched it all unfold, and it's so sad, and unnecessary too.
I remember the offer from BA to allow the RJ/146 guys onto the BA master seniority list last year I think. Personally, I reckon it was a huge missed opportunity by both sides, but particularly by CX; it would have been a lot more than a few toes in the door, and probably impossible for BA to prevent eventual total pilot integration a la CFE. Well, our CC were pretty immature, (though maybe for all the right reasons). They had seen CFE integrated, and saw no reason why our case should be different. Impeccable logic, but it came up against a policy change by BA management and a Scargillite 'protect our jobs/scope/snobbery' element from the BACC. Anyway, the BACX CC decided there was to be no compromise, they insisted on it all going their own way or the cot and the toys parted company. Again, pretty childish attitude, unsurprisingly antagonised both BACC and BA management (not a bad achievement when you stop to think!!)Thus careful aim was taken at one's feet, the trigger was pulled, and it became history, fact, and more unfortunately sides were then taken and management have become even more entrenched.
However, BACC were also pretty short sighted. At that stage, BA had just swallowed CFE, so to call the RJs BA aircraft is really no different to calling the Dash 8s BA aircraft, or the ATPs etc etc. The routes ex BHX and MAN, no argument, they were definitely BA, but an important point is being missed here. Over the last couple of years, lots of competition has appeared on many, if not all BA short and medium haul routes, to the detriment of all profitablity and the demise of many of those routes. The rot is continuing. Wouldn't like to predict how much, if any of current BA short haul (I include the BACX setup) will be here this time next year. If BA became a de facto BOAC again, loads of mainline flying jobs would go, and the arrival of the next Freddie Laker would be just around the corner with another locost long haul business model. BA cannot survive solely by continued cost cutting and retrenchment, it will disappear up its own anus.
Now, it may well be that BA have had some problems we are not privy to in retraining the ATR community from CFE - and maybe even some of the RJ community as well (I seem to remember a Fleet Manager and training Captain failing his 737 route check!!!. I would think they would have a problem or two looking at some of the BACX turboprop, yes and RJ/Emb guys - but then, let's be honest, there are some less than below average blokes with BA too (the allegedly chequered poling career of one TDLF, our DFO, is an example in point!!!!!!!!
) The basic skills profile across the board of most airlines is probably within a few percentage points of each other, training equipment and training time/costs applied can make a lot of difference to eventual pass rates.
Anyway, why not get real. BA needs to cut costs drastically, starting with chucking out large quantities of lower, middle and upper management, and sorting the OTT cabin crew costs. (Yes oinkers might fly too, I know, I know)
[No axe for the hosties, its just that unlike the Flight Deck in mainline, the cabin crew are paid massively more than the industry rate for the job]
For us pylotts on both sides, BA and BACX, since our fortunes are already linked, there has to be a dose of common sense. Get ALL BACX flight deck a right of access to mainline, and likewise a return facility for ANY mainline guys who wanted to come back to the regions. Call the CX payscale the REGIONAL paygrade, but don't make it retrospective, or the current BA guys would be dramatically disadvantaged. (No whinging from CX here, if you wanted those salaries, you should have joined BA when they did, likewise seniority.) Grandfather rights on similiar types / bases for all current seat occupants on Emb/RJ though, that's fair in return. By all means insist on a sim check for any CX personnel (there's gonna be one on the conversion courses anyway!!) but remove the bloody Lego/psychometry stuff. This will somewhat adversely impinge on the CX Effoh community, but the omelettes and eggs adage applies here, and most Effohs have a longer remaining career and hence mainline opportunities than most Capts, so it evens out.
God, this is longwinded. Apologies to all, but for all our sakes, if we don't stop the internecine sniping we are going nowhere but the dole queue. It's time for a reality check, we know what the management are like, we've watched Swissair and Sabena crash and burn. We are shackled together, and if one of us stumbles, the other will be dragged down too. No-one has a job for life anymore, the world has changed since 9/11 and the Easyjet/Ryanair business model.
Adapt......or follow the logic in that nice Mr. Darwin's book on the survival of the fittest. Apologies for the length of this, but its my neck on the line too............
I remember the offer from BA to allow the RJ/146 guys onto the BA master seniority list last year I think. Personally, I reckon it was a huge missed opportunity by both sides, but particularly by CX; it would have been a lot more than a few toes in the door, and probably impossible for BA to prevent eventual total pilot integration a la CFE. Well, our CC were pretty immature, (though maybe for all the right reasons). They had seen CFE integrated, and saw no reason why our case should be different. Impeccable logic, but it came up against a policy change by BA management and a Scargillite 'protect our jobs/scope/snobbery' element from the BACC. Anyway, the BACX CC decided there was to be no compromise, they insisted on it all going their own way or the cot and the toys parted company. Again, pretty childish attitude, unsurprisingly antagonised both BACC and BA management (not a bad achievement when you stop to think!!)Thus careful aim was taken at one's feet, the trigger was pulled, and it became history, fact, and more unfortunately sides were then taken and management have become even more entrenched.
However, BACC were also pretty short sighted. At that stage, BA had just swallowed CFE, so to call the RJs BA aircraft is really no different to calling the Dash 8s BA aircraft, or the ATPs etc etc. The routes ex BHX and MAN, no argument, they were definitely BA, but an important point is being missed here. Over the last couple of years, lots of competition has appeared on many, if not all BA short and medium haul routes, to the detriment of all profitablity and the demise of many of those routes. The rot is continuing. Wouldn't like to predict how much, if any of current BA short haul (I include the BACX setup) will be here this time next year. If BA became a de facto BOAC again, loads of mainline flying jobs would go, and the arrival of the next Freddie Laker would be just around the corner with another locost long haul business model. BA cannot survive solely by continued cost cutting and retrenchment, it will disappear up its own anus.
Now, it may well be that BA have had some problems we are not privy to in retraining the ATR community from CFE - and maybe even some of the RJ community as well (I seem to remember a Fleet Manager and training Captain failing his 737 route check!!!. I would think they would have a problem or two looking at some of the BACX turboprop, yes and RJ/Emb guys - but then, let's be honest, there are some less than below average blokes with BA too (the allegedly chequered poling career of one TDLF, our DFO, is an example in point!!!!!!!!
) The basic skills profile across the board of most airlines is probably within a few percentage points of each other, training equipment and training time/costs applied can make a lot of difference to eventual pass rates.Anyway, why not get real. BA needs to cut costs drastically, starting with chucking out large quantities of lower, middle and upper management, and sorting the OTT cabin crew costs. (Yes oinkers might fly too, I know, I know)
[No axe for the hosties, its just that unlike the Flight Deck in mainline, the cabin crew are paid massively more than the industry rate for the job]
For us pylotts on both sides, BA and BACX, since our fortunes are already linked, there has to be a dose of common sense. Get ALL BACX flight deck a right of access to mainline, and likewise a return facility for ANY mainline guys who wanted to come back to the regions. Call the CX payscale the REGIONAL paygrade, but don't make it retrospective, or the current BA guys would be dramatically disadvantaged. (No whinging from CX here, if you wanted those salaries, you should have joined BA when they did, likewise seniority.) Grandfather rights on similiar types / bases for all current seat occupants on Emb/RJ though, that's fair in return. By all means insist on a sim check for any CX personnel (there's gonna be one on the conversion courses anyway!!) but remove the bloody Lego/psychometry stuff. This will somewhat adversely impinge on the CX Effoh community, but the omelettes and eggs adage applies here, and most Effohs have a longer remaining career and hence mainline opportunities than most Capts, so it evens out.
God, this is longwinded. Apologies to all, but for all our sakes, if we don't stop the internecine sniping we are going nowhere but the dole queue. It's time for a reality check, we know what the management are like, we've watched Swissair and Sabena crash and burn. We are shackled together, and if one of us stumbles, the other will be dragged down too. No-one has a job for life anymore, the world has changed since 9/11 and the Easyjet/Ryanair business model.
Adapt......or follow the logic in that nice Mr. Darwin's book on the survival of the fittest. Apologies for the length of this, but its my neck on the line too............
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PV
I strongly suspect you would find the overwhelming majority of BA pilots in agreement with you. Probably BACX too
Let's hope the two CCs work a little better together this time round.
I strongly suspect you would find the overwhelming majority of BA pilots in agreement with you. Probably BACX too
Let's hope the two CCs work a little better together this time round.