Virgin Atlantic Pilot Redundancies

[StudentInDebt]

especially since LIFO is now pretty much illegal under EU law.

Sorry to deviate from the main topic but, contrary to airline managers' wet-dreams, it's not unlawful. The relevant legislation in the UK is The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and if you have a cursory read of Section 32 you will see that an employer may discriminate between workers on the basis of length of service. This section has been successfully used to defend length-of-service as a means of selection for redundancy (Rolls-Royce vs Unite). That said, managers will normally always seek to minimise the cost of redundancy which might be why they seem so keen to tell all-and-sundry that LIFO can't be used anymore...

[Khaosai]

Hi Northern boy,

i have edited my post stating the LIFO specifically affected my case so as to prevent any confusion.

I have no knowledge of the decisions made with the Virgin sun operation.

Rgds.

[Right Way Up]

Khaosai,

It was not restricted to the Virgin Sun operation. Guys with very little seniority were kept on the 747-400 as cover whilst fleet cross trg was carried out. More senior pilots who were still below the chop line but on the wrong fleet were let go straight away. It was seen as a necessity to keep the fleets crewed whilst all this cross training occurred. Things improved a little quicker than thought, whilst these junior guys were still at VA so they were not made redundant. Therefore LIFO was not strictly followed.
BTW all the pilots flying for Virgin Sun were employed by Virgin Atlantic with Virgin seniority numbers.

[Dan Winterland]

LIFO was not observed. Virgin had no redundancy policy at all before 9/11. They naively believed it could never happen to them. So when the 747C and 320 fleets were scrapped overnight, redundancy in fleet was announced to the horror of all affected. It took several rounds of lengthy negotiations between the VACC and the company to work a solution where LIFO would be observed, but consessions had to be made. But by then, lots of people on the Classic, 320 and some on the 340 had already gone. The 744 guys were threatened and told to expect it once Classic guys had been trained to replace them, but the truth was that the company had transferred a lot of the Classic work to the 744 and couldn't afford to lose anyone off that fleet. the 744 guys were told to expect redundacy, then unpaid leave and finally were told their jobs were safe.

No one on the 744 was made redundant. I know. I was the most junior person in VS at 9/11. I would still be there now if I hadn't taken the voluntary redundancy package.

Good luck to all at VS.

[Khaosai]

Hi Right way up,

thanks for the info.

Rgds.

[passy777]

an employer may discriminate between workers on the basis of length of service. This section has been successfully used to defend length-of-service as a means of selection for redundancy (Rolls-Royce vs Unite). .

Not quite correct. As I understand in this case, length of service was used in a redundancy selection matrix in conjunction with other selection criteria - not solely LIFO.

In fact it was the union (Unite I think) who insisted that Rolls Royce implemented that criterion as it was the employer who deviated from a collective agreement that included length of service as one of the selection criteria in their redundancy policy.

Length of service was deemed a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in this case as it was used with other selection criteria.

By implementing LIFO as the only factor in deciding redundancies, this would most likely be judged as indirect age discrimination and would be a risky and potentially expensive strategy to adopt in my opinion.

That said, managers will normally always seek to minimise the cost of redundancy which might be why they seem so keen to tell all-and-sundry that LIFO can't be used anymore..

Why would managers seem keen to tell all and sundry that LIFO can't be used anymore? Surely, this method of selection if used as the only selection criteria (if legal) would be the cheapest option to reduce staff as anyone with less than two years service would not be entitled to statutory redundancy payments. Severence pay or lieu of notice would also be negligable.
The biggest concern with redundancies is many employers adopt a redundancy selection matrix that can be 'tailored to fit' to ensure that 'certain personnel' or groups will be targeted.

Whatever selection method is used, myself and Mrs 777 have recently gone through redundancies and I can sympathise with people in a similar situation.

[mikehammer]

That said, managers will normally always seek to minimise the cost of redundancy which might be why they seem so keen to tell all-and-sundry that LIFO can't be used anymore..
Why would managers seem keen to tell all and sundry that LIFO can't be used anymore? Surely, this method of selection if used as the only selection criteria (if legal) would be the cheapest option to reduce staff as anyone with less than two years service would not be entitled to statutory redundancy payments. Severence pay or lieu of notice would also be negligable.

I understood the minimal cost to include a cost saving ie to make redundant the more expensive members of staff, generally (very) those who have more years service.

[Super Stall]

I understand a points system was used in the end to select surplus pilots. Length of service made up the vast majority of points.

All very sad.

[carbonfibre]

Redundency

With recent experience of working on a selection criteria, you cannot just use LIFO, you set up a matrix, usually to score points, then and only after an independant agreement on the points selection do they make a decision, if there are matching points in the "pool" of people then LIFO can be used to make a final decision.

In general there are usually:

- 5 selection criteria
- 2 seperate people grade the same person
- A discussion to ensure the gradings have been done fair and are not wildly apart
- That the criteria is factual where possible, sim assesments, attendance, sickness normally would be used as these can be measured
- a deciding factor should there be a number of people with similar scores, this is where length of service comes in

This is all done with a consultative commitee or a union

This is a standard procedure, very painful to all concerned and those involved

Good luck to all

[Mister Geezer]

There seems to be lots of discussion on the criteria that Virgin will use but more importantly, what is the current state of play regarding redundancies?

I know a couple of people at the bottom of the seniority list and I heard from one of them, (third hand however!) that some crew have been placed onto a shortlist or similar if redundancies take place?

Is this true? Can anyone supply a more accurate summary of what is going on?

[Khaosai]

Hi,

i have heard the critieria might be how long you have worked there, the skills you currently have, and if you have been a bad boy with any current disciplinaries.

The initial rumour of approx 50 redundancies might be wrong, hopefully becoming at the most half of that figure.

Good luck to all involved.

Rgds.

[passy777]

From experience, when mass redundancies are first announced, the end figure has always been less than the required headcount reduction stated at the onset of the procedure.

In effect, this is to give a sympathetic impression of the employer (maybe not ideal terminology considering the context of the topic) and it also allows the union(s) to proclaim that they have done their bit in reducing the amount of redundancies when in reality, the employer has reduced their workforce by the desired amount anyway!

What does seem strange with the VS redundancy situation is that there seems very little media attention - certainly up here in the wilds of Durham, whereas, had it been BA, any employee/employment issues are covered ad nauseam.

Again, from experience, such a situation in a working environment can be distressing, but what really really was the worst experience was the backstabbing and 'tittle tattle' that was going on as everyone was jockeying for position in an attempt to retain their jobs - this made everone suspicious of their colleagues and made for a depressing day 'at the office'.

Good luck to all involved anyway.

[120class]

VS Redundancy Numbers

These figures represent the number of CR:

14 from the 747 and 10 from the A340.

[AFA]

And just to clarify the above post that represents the bottom 24 of the seniority list.

[bobmij]

I've heard that 50 people have been told today that they are to go. Anyone shed any light on this?

[Moe Syzlak]

No, because it is incorrect. Posts 31 and 32 reveal the real situation.

[stansdead]

And a sad day it is too. It needn't have come to this.

[stansdead]

I don't agree that BALPA have questions to answer.

We are BALPA, as I said on our Company Fora, and WE have let ourselves down. The VACC don't seem to agree with that, but what the heck would I know about it?

I, at least did the right thing and did what I said I would do at our BALPA Member meetings in February. i.e. take an option to save someone else's job.

Perhaps the packages weren't good enough, but not enough of our brethren stood up to be counted when needed.

As for coming back? I wouldn't if I were at the bottom of the pile. 15 years plus to Command and all the while looking over your shoulder in more way than one in VS.

In fact, I'm not even sure I'll return. There is life outside Virgin.

[Dan Winterland]

Christ, this sounds familiar. Play the tape back seven and a half years and I'm hearing a familiar story. Except this time, mercifully, the numbers are much less. And BALPA were no use then either.

As for coming back, Stan - you are dead right. There is a lot more to life than VS. The company always believed it's own propoganda and thought that Virgin was such a fun place to work which is why people always work for less than the going rate and no-one will ever want to leave. Except that when they finally escape, they realise that there is far more to life than the VS BS. The company were very suprised in 2002 that when they realised they had made a mistake in making so many redundant and invited people to rejoin, that many didn't want to return.

Leaving VS was my best ever career move.

Good luck to the 21.

[northern boy]

Have to agree with Dan. I went back after 9/11 and whilst I had some fun and gained some experience, it was probably the worst career move I ever made. The seniority list and LIFO was ignored in a mad panic to unload people and then of course strictly applied when we came back 12 months later and subsequently when promotions started again. It was my choice and so my mistake but it goes to show how being in the wrong place at the wrong time can totally screw your prospects for years in this game.

Easy to be wise with hindsight but my advice to those furloughed would be, if you find something else and have any prospect of a command then stick with it and don't make the same horlicks of your career that I did.

Good luck.