BALPA union or pilot club?

[BusBoy]

TinyTim

excellent post, mirrors my experiences. Paid my dues from day 1 with 1st employer. 8 years on I needed BALPA ...... never did get a reply to my frantic calls! They soon rang back when I cancelled the DD

Some council members go above and beyond for the good of the members and some lobbying has been beneficial.
However, as you rightly say, I have guarenteed legal cover with my home insurance policy.

[teamax]

CLUB......

[sidtheesexist]

I would like to echo many of TT's well made points. I don't think BALPA do a good job of representing the interests of it's members who are employed by the smaller operators (not sure I'd use 'scabby' as an adjective but I get your drift.....) - it's my belief/perception that they are more interested in the bigger players - and I'll make no apologies for again mentioning the 'plight' of many BALPA members who are currently serving their 'apprenticeships' in poorly paid instructor posts! As for the proliferation of SSTRs, I quite agree GAWZK - the union has been remarkably mouselike on this issue - any connection with the fact that BA are one of the few employers who don't bond/expect a TR as a condition of employment??? And I quite agree that the significant expenditure on Ms JS could and should have been much better spent - a complete misappropriation of funds IMHO.

For the record, I'm with BA and have worked in the regions after starting as an instructor..........

PS Luddite - if you look at again at GAWZK's post again, I think you'll see that he certainly wasn't defending BALPA's stance re Danair

[gatbusdriver]

I think that BALPA, many years ago, was the BA Line Pilots Association, and I can whole heartedly understand why ex Dan Air pilots are members of the IPA and TGWU. But these days are now gone. I agree that BALPA are only as effective as the CC that represents your views, but also you need 90% membership (if not more) to be very effective.No good balloting strike action with only 70% membership.

I am lead to believe, the reason BALPA is very effective for BA is because of their membership. Maybe someone can correct me, but I have heard that in BA you either join BALPA or pay the equivalent subscription to charity (not too sure about this).

I have been a member ever since I started my flying training. 1% of salary may seem a lot to some people, but if it wasn't for BALPA my salary would be a lot less than it is today. The 1% I pay has more than payed fo itself.

BALPA has prevented demotions/redundancies in our company after 9/11.

I haven't got a bad word to say. Although I would like to see more happening on the fumes front.

The only thing that really gets my goat, is the free loaders who pay nothing, yet reap the rewards of my subscriptions. Then have the cheek to say that they don't get a say in whats happening with their T & C's etc.

[Hand Solo]

Originally Posted by Tinytim

We were absolutely disgusted when one of thefirst major actions taken under the new stewardship was a high profile and expensive campaign to raise the threshold of pension pots to closer to two million than one million. This caused enormous offence to many of us particularly those working for scabby shorthaul operations where retirment with pensions of £10K a year was not unheard of. Nothing has been done on a similar level to address the very real issue of poverty in retirment of a lot of members and would be members.

Sorry but if any comment on this thread reeked of envy then that was it. Why shouldn't BALPA lobby to raise pension limits if it affects BALPA members? At what, if any, detriment to other members is this? Why should BALPA be addressing the issue of poverty in retirement? That is a social concern and the place for the government. BALPAs concern is the retirement status of pilots and is tackled, correctly in my opinion, by pushing for better pay deals and better pension schemes for pilots. Thats what they have been done. Opposing a cap on pension limits is no different to imposing a cap on pay. Would you expect people to meekly accept a cap on pilots salaries of, say, £50K, just because there are people in scabby shorthaul operations who aren't earning £50K?

There was then of course the Harmer case!!.....Need I say more except to wonder at why such resources and prioritisation were afforded (clearly at the expense of less glamorous grass roots needs)? High profile, attention grabbing, politically correct.......yes. But why was such attention given to a single member when this case has single handedly done more to destroy the careers of would be women pilots than anything else recently?

An intersting mix of misinformation and personal opinion there. First, you are referring to the Starmer case. Politically correct? Perhaps in your opinion, but this case was just the first that came to bat in an employers refusal to offer adequate right-to-request part time working to an employee. It had significant positive benefits for any pilot in that company, both male and female, and exposed the managements many safety and experienced reasons for opposing the part time working as bare-faced lies attempting to disguise the fact that they simply didn't want to pay to comply with the RTR legislation. All employees are required to comply with RTR legislation and it's now clear from this case that for a large company to say "We simply don't want to pay for it" simply won't wash at a tribunal. That benefits, Starmer, you, me or any other pilot, of either sex, who wished to request part time working.

As for single-handedly destroying the careers of female pilots, well I think compulsory maternity leave probably had a far bigger effect than that. If an employer is the kind who would be deterred from hiring females because of the possibility they might request part time working in the future then they are probably already deterred by the prospect of maternity leave.

The use of the indirect sexual discrimination claim was controversial, but there's more than one way to skin a cat and sometimes it's the end result that counts more than the means. Al Capone went to jail for life for tax evasion rather than the countless murders he sanctioned, but what's more important? That he's convicted of murder or that he goes way for ever? It is clear from your post that you really don't know the first thing about the Starmer case, not the build up, not the course of the tribunal, not the lies, double-speak, deceptions and political manoueverings of the management involved. Perhaps if you held off your Daily Mail style rants until you did know something about it you'd see the highly significant subtleties of the case. In ten years time you might even think that BALPA were actually ahead of the game on this one.

Originally Posted by sidthesexist

I would like to echo many of TT's well made points.......... I'll make no apologies for again mentioning the 'plight' of many BALPA members who are currently serving their 'apprenticeships' in poorly paid instructor posts!

That'll be BALPA the British Airline Pilots Association, not the British Flying Instructors Association? Flying a C152 around with a student is not airline flying and is beyond BALPAs remit. Is it not the case that instructors are only associate, not full members anyway?

As for the proliferation of SSTRs, I quite agree GAWZK - the union has been remarkably mouselike on this issue - any connection with the fact that BA are one of the few employers who don't bond/expect a TR as a condition of employment???

And what connection would that be do you think? Why shouldn't an employee bond? A type rating can be an expensive thing, why should smaller operators not be allowed some surety that the people they are training will stay with them? In the world outside flying fixed term contracts are quite common with penalties for early termination. SSTRs only exist because people will pay for them. If nobody was willing to stump up the cash then the whole idea would die, but there's always somebody out there willing to work for less.

And I quite agree that the significant expenditure on Ms JS could and should have been much better spent - a complete misappropriation of funds IMHO.

Sadly you don't know the first thing about the case either, so jump off the bandwagon.

[Tinytim]

With an "I am allright Jack" apologist for Balpa like Mr Solo spitting his venom at all and sundry here I cant help but feel that this attitude characterises that which so many of us are discontent about.

My post was essentialy about resources (or lack of) and the prioritisation for their use.......not the politics of envy.

Yes it was a mistake to mention Ms Starmer because of the hysteria the mere mention invokes in some.........At the risk of repeating myself I gave the " Million pound plus pension potter campaign" and Ms S's case (BTW.........how much of that £250 000 went into her case?......at least£100 000 I bet) as examples of where Balpa had deployed scarce resources without regard to the needs of grass roots trade union issues (which I dare to suggest should be any trade union's priority)

These were indeed doubtless both worthy causes...but had no relevance to the majority of us members and were a waste of scarce resources......especially when the result is that Balpa cannot support a member who has lost his job.

I await your nasty and personal response Mr Solo.

[Sheikh Zabik]

Completely agree with TT.

HS you are not on the same planet...........1400 plus posts!!!! Get a life!

[sidtheesexist]

Condescension - don't you just admire that in a post eh, Mr Solo?

If BALPA is purely for airline pilots, why allow non-airline pilots membership? And if you are going to allow non-airline pilots membership (admittedly at a reduced associate rate) surely the parent organisation has a moral if not legal obligation to look out for their interests too?! Or are you suggesting a sliding scale of benefits based on annual subscriptions? I.E - the more you pay the more you get? I'm sorry HS, but your trite comment about BALPA being only for airline pilots is complete tosh. I'd be very interested to note how many of the UK's airline pilots started out as instructors - I think that many of those who did, might have opinions at variance with yours and have a bit more empathy for those at the bottom of the ladder!!! But then empathy is a concept with which I doubt you can relate, judging by the content and tone of some of your posts.....................

As far as JS is concerned - you are quite correct in suggesting that I don't know every last detail of the case. Does that disqualify me and others from expressing an opinion? I'm certainly not alone in my opinion as many of my flightdeck colleagues expressed similar views at the time of the case.

As far as SSTRs go, there are few people who support the idea. I realise that market forces and the desperation of wannabees means that they will continue for the forseeable future. But that does not mean that BALPA should sit idly by - surely it can at least publically condemn the practice of employers passing training costs on to the employee? It could show some leadership, take the moral high ground and do some serious lobbying. The point I am attempting to make is that BALPA can and should be doing more on this issue - head office employs some clever/media savvy people and I'm sure that can come up with something useful.

[IcePack]

Bus Boy,
Did you ring the correct number? They have responded pretty sharpish on the only occassion I have had to ring it. On a weekend as well.
TT, BALPA I believe have always had the option in not supporting an unwinable case, as that would be a waste of monies. The trouble is that each and every lawyer you talk too often gives a different opinion. It is an opinion after all. I do not know, but I suspect that the number of non-supported cases are very few, if any. TT I'm not sure if yours was supported or not? or that you were just unhappy with those particular lawyers, so if you were not supported you have my sympathies. But is their any better alternative ? At least when it comes to it with BALPA at least their affiliated unions will be the ones that should be helping to get you out of the local jail when abroad.

[Ghengis Cant]

No harm in reminding ourselves that it was the likes of Hand Solo and his mates in BA who about five years ago engineered the coup at Balpa which saw the booting out of the then general secretary Chris Darke. For what reason? One of his greatest sins was that he was a reformer and was trying to move Balpa in a more grass roots direction away from the cosy association that was there to advise on tax breaks, second homes and lifestyle choices on retirement at 55.............
The coup was successful and after an interim period where office was held by a BA Longhaul skipper the present General secretary was then engaged fresh from the revenue with all his connections there.......
Small wonder he sought to quickly repay his plutocrat sponsors by ensuring their final salary pension funds could approach the two million mark without penalty.
Sorry that epitomises Balpa even now...........the same faces are in office. It is a club serving the interests of very few and rips off the rest of us.
Dont waste your money. You can get legal insurance for very little cost elsewhere.

[TopBunk]

GC

Sorry that epitomises Balpa even now...........the same faces are in office.

So that will be why the NEC have just elected a new chairman and vice chair(wo)man inn the last week.

The winds of change are about to blow through the organisation.

[Tinytim]

Ice Pick......having been in the law for over twenty years myself I know only too well that there are as many opinions as there are lawyers. The same goes for the view to be taken over a set of facts by different Industrial Tribunal Chairmen. Litigation is a lottery. However, if there is clear evidence of bad behaviour and inappropriate conduct on behalf of an employer (abundant in my case), generally a Tribunal will try to give an applicant a remedy.

Balpa is correct in having a process to vet claims. This process however is overseen by a non lawyer, does not adequately consider submissions and has a tame lawyer on hand to endorse "its too risky" so Balpa are not interested. With the pathetically small legal budget available to Balpa you do not have to look far to realise why this check is in place.

Like I said before, dont look to Balpa to give you legal cover,make your own arrangements. There are however reasons to be a member despite this in my submission.

[Boeingman]

The BALPA legal budget is £525,000 for the coming year much in line with last years. It is only a budget and if more is needed the reserves will cover it.

[IcePack]

So TT did they support you or not? and if not is that the norm or is it a rare occurance ?
I'm not having a go at you TT, am just interested as I suspect the BALPA legal cover is very high on members reasons for membership.

[Tinytim]

Sorry Ice Pick, Was not avoiding the question. Answer was no they did not as their lawyers said my case had a less than fifty percent chance of success..........without having met me and none of my telephone calls to the lawyer to discuss my case having been returned.
I retained my own specialists, pursued the matter and got an excellent, but not unexpected, result- no thanks to Balpa.
Boeingman......... half a mill goes absolutely nowhere in legal terms and one Starmer type adventure could easily scoff the lion's share. Hardly surprising Balpa are so reluctant to spend it!

[galleypower]

Balpa

I have not been long enough in Balpa to commen their performance. So far they have done a good job. Not excellent but ok. I've been in unions which were not as effective as Balpa. But its mainly the size and lobby which makes them rather effective. But when it comes to a certain issue in a company, the Crew Council has to do the job. So it depends on their performance. I think in nowadays aviation business you do not necessarily need to be in a union unless you work for the bigger airlines such as BA.

[Hand Solo]

Originally Posted by Ghengis Cant

the booting out of the then general secretary Chris Darke. For what reason? One of his greatest sins was that he was a reformer and was trying to move Balpa in a more grass roots direction away from the cosy association that was there to advise on tax breaks, second homes and lifestyle choices on retirement at 55.............

Were you a member of the same BALPA I was in? This is the 'reformer' Chris Darke who tried to avoid a re-election campaign and secure himself in his post with a hefty pay rise? The Chris Darke who was at the helm when BALPA was invisible from the media? The Chris Darke who was overseeing a spiral decline in our working lives with barely a murmur? That reforming Chris Darke. Well I'm sorry for you that you didn't like the fact that he was replaced by a stalking horse candidate who happened to be a BA pilot, who happened to be the only person with sufficient balls to stand against Darke. And I'm sorry if it doesn't please you that he stuck exactly to the manifesto on which all BALPA members had the opportunity to vote on - to seek a capable replacement for Chris Darke - despite the oft aired views on here that it was all a BA conspiracy and the stalking horse would install himself permanently. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that BALPA recruited an experienced trade unionist who knows his business inside and out to replace Darke. Perhaps it's not to your liking that BALPA know gets more media coverage in a month than the during the entire duration of Darkes reign; that JM is asked to speak on national TV and radio to represent us; that BALPA is fighting back in the environmental debate on our behalf with informed, and scientifically backed comment, to counter the green hysteria; that BALPA has got tax breaks on it's subscriptions, and impoved tax free allowances, for all full members; that BALPA has overseen significant pay deals at Virgin, Easy and BA, and lobbied hard for bmi members to the extent of balloting for industrial action. If you preferred the silence, inaction and BOHICA attitude of Chris Darkes leadership then all of the above must be a grave dissappointment to you.

Tinytim - if your post was about the lack of resources and not the politics of envy then why choose those examples. The pensions lobby did not come from the legal defence budget. We pay JM a full time salary and he moves around the corridors of power lobbying contacts for that. Do you really think it cost so mcuh more for him to bend a few more ears while he was there? Do you really think the campaign material they printed was any more expensive than producing a copy of The Log, or those annual filofax pages they send us that everybody throws in the bin? Bang for buck I'd hazard a guess that the pensions cap campaign was something of a bargain.

You state that you have 20 years law experience and that it's right that BALPA should vet which legal cases it pursues. On the other hand you question the JS case. I'm going to make an assumption here, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess that you have never discussed the case with either of the Starmers, the BALPA reps involved, BALPAs lawyers or the BA managers involved. If that is the case then you are completely uninformed about the details of this case. Do you not think that perhaps it is unwise to quote it as an example. Do you think that if a case passes the legal means test of BALPAs legal advises and represents an almost watertight case for a member (as demonstrated by the victories at tribunal and subsequent appeal) that it shouldn't be pursued if it is deemed by the vox populi to be politically correct? Should all BALPA legal support be subject to popular support by a membership ignorant of the facts of any case? Which grass roots trade union issues did BALPA fail to support because of this case? Incidentally did you win your case at tribunal/court or did the other party settle before a decison was reached?

Sid the sexist:

If BALPA is purely for airline pilots, why allow non-airline pilots membership? And if you are going to allow non-airline pilots membership (admittedly at a reduced associate rate) surely the parent organisation has a moral if not legal obligation to look out for their interests too?! Or are you suggesting a sliding scale of benefits based on annual subscriptions?

For the same reason that the professional engineering associations allow associate membership to those who are not practicing engineers. It allows those who intend to pursue the career to remain up to date on developments in the industry. It allows them to benefit from career development advice. Associate membership does not confer full membership status on the member. BALPAs moral obligation to associate members is to assist them gaining a career within BALPAs remit and to defend the terms and conditions of that career as best they can for the associates arrival there and thats what they do. There is no need for a sliding scale of contributions. Full members pay their 1% and every full member is as entitled to BALPAs representation and any other. If you want to extend full represenation to flying instructors then why not extend it to airline cadets, or PPLs who are hours building, or air cadets. Where will it end?

As far as JS is concerned - you are quite correct in suggesting that I don't know every last detail of the case. Does that disqualify me and others from expressing an opinion? I'm certainly not alone in my opinion as many of my flightdeck colleagues expressed similar views at the time of the case.

Every last detail? I doubt you even know the first details! By all means you can express an opinion, but maybe you should caveat it by mentioning that you really don't actually know anything about the case and your opinion is uninformed. I too have heard many of my/your flightdeck colleagues express negative opinions on the case. Strangely enough when I press them on their views they, to a man (and woman) don't actually know any of the details of the case either. Funny how we condemn the journalists for espousing writing uninformed pap about flying yet we're quite happy to pontificate about a colleague with only the most meagre understanding of the issues.

As far as SSTRs go, there are few people who support the idea. I realise that market forces and the desperation of wannabees means that they will continue for the forseeable future. But that does not mean that BALPA should sit idly by - surely it can at least publically condemn the practice of employers passing training costs on to the employee? It could show some leadership, take the moral high ground and do some serious lobbying

I agree, although I think you'll find rather less public sympathy for your cause outside the industry. You might also find that publically condeming an airline could be somewhat disadvantageous to existing BALPA members in that airline, if not in terms of lost revenue then in the damage to a working relationship with the management. Megaphone diplomacy rarely yields results and BALPA have to ask who their priority should be; existing members or potential future members.

Sheikh - if an average of 0.5 posts per day of membership represents a requirement to get a life then there's probably a lot of people on this forum who fall into that category.

[Santas Little Helper]

While I would not encourage anyone to resign from balpa, I can't help feeling there are a lot of us out there who are members because we feel morally obliged to but are really quite dissatisfied.
There are already some posts here which reflect my views and I bet the views of many others. We pay a lot of money for professional representation which is not really forthcoming.
The company council or plc members are generally all cast in the same mould so while their intentions may be applauded (sometimes), they are volunteers generally out of their league when it comes to dealing with management who they often regard as incompetent but are usually successful in keeping us in our place. When you do criticise, the response is generally to invite you to do better.
If I look at the balpa forum, I usually end up feeling uneasy about my workplace when I was quite happy before and I sometimes wonder how these volunteers can represent pilots who quite often don't bother to obtain the available facts before opening up.
On more than one occaison, I have seen balpa sit on the fence when they should have been giving guidance to their members about an important issue and then they appear to have sided with management and stitched up their members.
It may be true that companes with a large membership ratio enjoy better conditions, in fact the market place dictates what we end up with and any significant improvement has only happened when airlines can't get pilots.
Historically when balpa representing the pilots in Big Airways thought they had the upper hand with their employers, they stitched them up to such an extent that balpa has been unable to halt the overall decline in real terms to pilots pay and conditions and everyone else has suffered ever since!
There are occaisonally some interesting articles in The Log but overall I can quite see why some would think of balpa as a little club for some running at the expense of all the majority.
On balance I will probably remain a member until I retire but I really dont think it is good value.

[Ghengis Cant]

Struck a raw nerve eh HS?

You may worship yourself in the mirror every morning as one of the architects of the coup I referred to which successfully hijacked Balpa and secured that the interests of you and your mates were looked after with some puppet appointments. The debate on the qualities of Chris Darke is archived for anyone who wants to remind themselves of it.

At the very least you will admit that there were very many who did not agree with you then and even now. I cannot imagine that even you would claim a monopoly on wisdom.

So Mr arrogant self opinionated spokesman for all that is fabulous and wonderful in Balpa.....there are a lot of us who do not think it is quite as wonderful as you for the reasons stated or that the changes brought about have served the interests of a lot of us rank and file members who are not sitting as fat dumb and content as you are.

Indeed, as the (self?) appointed spokesman for Balpa on this forum I suggest that your posts are doing more damage to the cause of Balpa and will secure that many of us waverers will leave.

[Hand Solo]

I had nothing to do with the Chris Darke coup, except as a voting member who wondered what exactly Chris Darke was doing for me, as it appeared to be nothing very much, if at all. I also wondered what cosy arrangements existed between Darke and our association Chairman which moved the latter to abuse BALPA resources by sending out a letter encouraging us to vote for him in the election. I am glad to read that the debate is archived, as if I remember it well there were very few people in the debate who could point to something Mr Darke had done well for the association and almost all those opposed to his removal did so on the basis that it was some grand conspiracy by the BA constituency to hijack the union. I don't think that theory has withstood the test of time and I've seen very few posters who claim Chris Darke did a better job at the helm than Jim Macauslan is doing.

I have never said BALPA is fabulous, wonderful, omniscient or incapable of error. I have challenged peoples examples of what they believe to be BALPAs self-serving nature, particularly if the examples are based on personal prejudices rather than a cool assessment of the facts. BALPA seem to be achieving good results across a broad range of UK airlines; by no means all, which should be the goal, but a broad range. Unfortunately some people don't want a professional association, they want a magic wand which they can wave and get a big pay rise, improved working conditions and a respectful management, all off the back of a 30% BALPA membership level in their company. A wide gulf between what is desirable and what is realistically achievable will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction. I'd hazard a guess that some of BALPAs most dissatisfied members are BA pilots, who seem to go from generally dissatisfied to hopping mad with BALPA despite the widespread opinion that BALPA is in their pockets. Again, the gulf between what is desirable and what is achieveable is at work.

Given that BALPA spends most of it's time copping a bad press, as the very title of this thread shows, I don't think it's wrong to vehemently defend the good it does.