BMI puts 600 jobs at risk?

[stansdead]

We know it, because you didn't do anything to avoid it.

Simple. Union Busting antics don't get any sympathy from me.

The facts are that the Midland guys are flying their routes on your aircraft for a sensible, professional pay rate. i.e. their own published payscales, not some knock down opportunistic cheapo rate dreamt up by a Spiv in Astraeus' broom cupboard office.

Good news!!

I, for one, am well pleased.

[carbheatout]

What do you want the AEU pilots to do? Go on strike because the they don't like the aggressive business tactics of its management? Dream on....

The facts are that the Midland guys are flying their routes on your aircraft for a sensible, professional pay rate. i.e. their own published payscales, not some knock down opportunistic cheapo rate dreamt up by a Spiv in Astraeus' broom cupboard office.

Wouldn't you just LOVE to be a part of that. After all it appears your current package is on par with AEU FO's.

Come on Stan. Give the guys a break. Its the season of goodwill after all.

[stansdead]

I don't think AEU FO's are earning anywhere near what I earn each month.

You can dream it if you like, but I think you will find that AEU FO's are earning about 4000 quid a month. Before Tax.

I earn a lot more than that - so long as I fly regularly - which I do. So, I don't think your Maths is quite straight.

Anyway, this isn't about my pay, or my company. AEU, BD and AL for that matter have no links with my employer (thankfully).

This is about looking for sympathy when absolutely none was forthcoming in the other direction only one month ago.

Don't get me wrong, I wish there were jobs for all of us. But there isn't. If jobs must be lost, I'd rather they went from operators who have undercut and undermined other people's livelihoods.

And yes, I'm aware that I work for a lowcost airline who is trying the same thing. If my employer were to go under and that benefited everyone in the industry, then that may be a price worth paying. After all, I would find another job eventually, and hopefully that job would be worth having.......

But, please remember that you can't have it both ways. Charter has always been fickle, and AEU work in the most fickle end of it. You win, you lose.

So, to insinuate that I am not brimming with Goodwill to all men is correct. After all, the goodwill wasn't flowing the other way only recently.

[GA Button]

Miserable git Stan

[stansdead]

GAB,

Yes my old fruit.

[Honest Fr@nk]

Stansdead- Did AEU turn you down at some point in your illustrious career.

I wish I was you.

[GA Button]

Be careful what you wish for mate - Stans very ugly

[sjm]

I think the AEU issue is more about protecting the route the 757 is used AEU did the africa stuff before as an airline and did well by all accounts, if bmi drop them they will just start up under a new name running the routes against BMI and making it pay a lot more than BMI.

Its about protecting those lucrative routes the 757 operates on on AEU and BMI dont give a toss who gets made redundant BMI pilots or AEU pilots, time will tell if it even happens.

Just how many BMI FO.s were given commands or right seats on the 757 last time this deal was offered?

[skip.rat]

No malice intended, Duir - just telling it the way it is. The rights and wrongs leading up to the present situation won't help; mainline pilots were very much against the introduction of the 145s to LHR;- "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind. More 145s followed 'at weekends only' while the A320s were off making money on charters, all very sensible but still that nagging doubt that something wasn't right, and all against the backdrop that most of these operations were outside the scope agreement.
Maybe the mainline pilots should have put their foot down and demanded the proper implementation of the scope agreement there and then. This may well have threatened Regional jobs. Trouble is, we could see that there was a degree of merit in the 'temporary' use of the 145s.
The bottom line is that the slots are Mainline slots, and the operation falls foul of the scope agreement; i.e. "aircraft flown into LHR are to be flown by Mainline pilots" (excluding those subject to an agreed alleviation).
Maybe if an agreement had been thrashed out years ago between Mainline & Regional there would be an agreed mechanism for sorting this mess out. Maybe if marketing had done a better job of selling some of the routes that the 145 is operating, maybe if a bit more effort was made to open up (and not pull off) routes into new destinations, maybe if the old man hadn't bled this airline dry over the last 10 years. - maybe................

All of this is typical of the approach that bmi have taken over the years; everything seems to have been concieved on the back of a fag packet without wanting to commit any more than absolute minimum resource; now that we have proper management in place (I hope);- we are all paying the price of the "Rodney & Del Boy" legacy that has been left behind.

Good Luck.

S.R.

[fade to grey]

Now come on stan,
surely you r'e not that thick to think any
pilot would stick their neck out for any
reason in this financial envoronment?

I have no malice towards lingus,midland
or any other pilot group I was merely indicating
that good news for some may not be for others.
I don't want or need sympathy - if the aircraft
stays with bmi that is a financial result
whether it be wet or dry leased.

I hope when your low cost airline (whichever one)
tells you you have to bring a bottle to p@ss in because
using the toilet is too costly you are first on
the picket line with your militant views, right
brother ?I thought not .

Equally I don't like your condescending
tone towards aeu.At least I get to fly business
class passengers who have not had to punch
each other to get a seat unlike your lot .

[The Real Slim Shady]

mainline pilots were very much against the introduction of the 145s to LHR

And whilst other threads, and posters ( notably NSF ), promote the "benefits" of being a BALPA member, where exactly was the union when this was slipped in ?

[RoyHudd]

The old man

Guilty as sin, often being let off the hook by former employees. Fully able in is his remaining years to support his family, his friends, and those young lads' associations he so loves, and still repay the blood money he took from his trusting employees. (9/11 too, not just 09)

No affection for the "old man" from this quarter. A thieving and lonely curmudgeon more like. Worthy of greater criticism than MOL, IMHO.

Never liked his sort either. Untrustworthy types.

[Mister Geezer]

Never liked his sort either. Untrustworthy types.

Ah.... untrustworthy. I thought you were going to mention something else!

[pilotsama330]

Too Little Too Late (again!)

Why can't we learn from our mistakes !!!

I have been reading with interest the multiple posts on here and the balpa website regarding 'too little too late' with regards to the Embraers at LHR I am shocked that no-one can draw a parallel to the cadets schemes being snuck in the back door by a greedy training department determined to protect themselves.

After the redundancies have been made the company will be operating at the ‘optimum’ level they forecasted which begs the following questions are asked:

1) Does anyone seriously believe the people who made that forecast are capable of assessing it accurately?!?!? We arguably have one of the worst rostering departments in the business.
2) Can no-one see that the continued use of these cadets allows crewing to ‘flex-up’ and ensure that all flights are staffed without the burden of having to re-employ redundant staff. A positive benefit for the company I’m sure the training department will take credit for.
3) Once the redundancies have taken place, if the company indeed turns out to need pilots they don’t need to re-employ anyone as these cadets can be utilised to fill the shortfall. Who will be watching then? Who will be looking out for the interests of the redundant FO’s? Simply put no-one will be.

I don’t subscribe to the naïve attitude that the cadet’s presence doesn’t pose either a threat or a negative, they do both to the current bmi employees and to the cadets themselves (who are victims too and spending vast sums of money to be in such a position). Not to mention it’s obviously bad for everyone flooding the worldwide airbus pilot pool, when we already have a surplus – particularly in the UK.

I truly feel that to allow a ‘Pay To Fly’ scheme to continue when you’re laying off pilots is morally and legally reprehensible. We are turning a blind eye to what could be an industry precedent and another erosion to our already deteriorated status and the perceived value of our profession.

[sweetie76]

skip.rat

Maybe the mainline pilots should have put their foot down and demanded the proper implementation of the scope agreement there and then


Here endeth the lesson.

[BigX]

Muppet, your last post suggests you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. Clear off back to Spotters' Corner.