BALPA unrealistic fees?

[Herod]

As I said on another thread, I needed BALPA twice in my career. Both times they pulled the rabbit out of the hat. Sub money well spent.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Herod, I'm delighted that you were assisted.

Now would you tell us who you worked for, which seat you flew from, what the problems were, how they helped you and when this happened?

[al446]

TRSS

However, if the advice of the lawyer is that the case is a lost cause the union will withdraw support. As would your insurer.

Sorry mate, not the case: the insurer will pay the legal fees. Anyone who pressed on regardless, in the face of overwhelming advice, would be off their trolley.

How does your statement argue against mine? If tilting at windmills insurer or union will both withdraw on lawyer's advice. Just like posting do you?

I do hope your insurer is affiliated to IALPA to get you out of the sh1t down route if needed.

Affiliation fees and conferences £409,503

I have NOTHING to do with BALPA.

[The Real Slim Shady]

al446,

Do keep up, dear boy: the issue is who has the choice.

In your case the choice to defend or withdraw is the union's: where one pays for insurance the choice to fight or flee is the individuals.

[al446]

Sorry mate, not the case: the insurer will pay the legal fees. Anyone who pressed on regardless, in the face of overwhelming advice, would be off their trolley.

And you think an insurer is going to go along with that, throwing possibly millions at a hopeless cause? You're off your trolley.

No problem keeping up here.

[Bruce Wayne]

[Bruce Wayne]

Herod,

Good to hear that the rabbit was pulled out of the hat for you when needed

Consequently there have been posts by various ppruners that were let down severely when they needed assistance. They paid for representation and were failed.

The point that seems to be missed by a few is that while the likes of Slim, or myself may have an inherent dissatisfaction over over BALPA's activities in the past it must be recognised that there are significant areas in which they have not in the past, or at current, given adequate attention.

[night_flight99]

TRSS, you stated in response to a previous poster:

"Do keep up, dear boy: the issue is who has the choice.

In your case the choice to defend or withdraw is the union's: where one pays for insurance the choice to fight or flee is the individuals."

Perhaps you would care to give us the details of the policy (and the insurer) so we can all join. If you really think a commercial organisation would give you (or any other individual) the sole discretion in pursuing an action against the lawyers advice then they either charge large premiums or they won't be around very long.

You and your colleagues (Leo, Bruce Wayne) are forever throwing around sweeping statements and generalisations but forever failing to come up with the detail. Back up your statement by showing who your insurer is, what is the premium you pay and what exactly is the wording that allows you to choose whether to "fight or flee".

I'll bet you £50 (to the Balpa GSM fund) that you are wrong.

[al446]

night flight - Post #15 states he pays £11 p/m. That must mean that his sheme has millions of members for them to so accommodating as to allow the litigant to proceed rather than the trained and experienced lawyer. My union, Unison, would never authorise what TRSS suggests. Indeed the fees paid are not mainly towards members legal fees, costs in successful cases are generally reclaimed from the other side. The main legal cost borne by any union is in taking advice on what can be fought collectively and what cant, this may explain BALPA's apparent inaction on CTC etc, they may have been advised that legally they have no part to play or voice in the matter.

Bruce Wayne - Are you doing a course in TU history at college in preparation for a future career or what? Always handy to have if you loose your licence I suppose. You are however scraping the barrel a touch, even I only recognise Barbara Castle (if it is she) out of that lot. How's about an etching of the chartists or the diggers next?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Night Flight,

I have not said that the insurer would pay legal fees regardless: what I said was that if an individual pursued, or attempted to pursue a case against the advice of the legal eagles, he / she would be off their trolley.

However, the individual who pays a premium for insurance has the choice to fight or flee: it may be that the lawyer feels they have a case, which allows them to fight, or that they have no case, in which case a prudent individual would take the proportionate route and cut his losses. How many cases have you heard of where BALPA have declined to assist, or offered only some assistance, but the individual has gone on to win? I know of a couple and I know of one guy who gave up, even though BALPA were involved, because the advice and assistance was so difficult to get in anything approaching a timely manner.

As a member of BALPA, however,the choice falls to them, not you, and it could be that your perfectly reasonable and winnable case is traded for a sanction, accommodation or benefit they have been seeking from your employer for some time. The chance of trading you, and your case against the employer, for the "good" of the masses prejudices your right to assisted legal advice.

However, we don't have to dwell on this as you don't need legal assistance as your employer, and your union, well Barden's at least, deal with matters before it has to resort to the law.

Let's focus on the case in hand: the way the 40 Thieves spend your subs.

The training of CC reps was allegedly absorbing vast sums of the travel expenses, allowances and dining; however, the accounts don't reflect much in the way of training costs so that doesn't quite tally.

It is transparently clear that they have singularly failed in their efforts at collective bargaining and IR, maybe they should spend more on training, whilst scoring a stunning own goal by quite spectacularly foregoing the opportunity of fighting the corner of the CTC cadets when easyjet pilots are retaining the Chairman's seat and 2 further seats on the NEC. Those poor cadet souls are probably on the trainee membership scheme, which is free, hence the Thieves don't have any interest in backing them as they get nothing from them financially.

The consensus though is that they have failed: the consensus is that the CTC scheme was / is " a cancer ". So if "they" have failed, by your own arguments, the pilots are BALPA etc, you are admitting that you have failed: the admission is that the existing membership is facilitating the shafting of these cadets by inaction. The stereotypical "I'm alright Jack" attitude: hardly, comrades and brothers in arms against the tyranny, is it? So what are your subs for, if not " stamping on cancerous deals"?

We don't have to linger too long in this pit as everyone seems perfectly happy with them spending profligate sums to lobby on your behalf (a tad woolly, but it's your money) or do research on your behalf when there are other organisations far better placed to do this, the CAA as one example.

So in summary let's examine what you get for your tax deductible subs, apart from a glossy magazine every so often: collective bargaining that fails to stop cancerous practices, sacrificies FOs to protect Captains, ignores previously agreed scope agreements and gets you pay cuts and job losses. Legal protection at the discretion of the union so you have to go cap in hand to beg for help, "Please sir, I've been naughty will you help me"? Vast amounts of training for the CC Reps.

Did I mention a glossy magazine? Some vague lobbying which doesn't appear to have produced much of anything, airport taxes go up, security is ever more invasive but we won't have to carry ID cards. What is that attached to your uniform or around your neck? OOPS - it's an ID card!! Now that was a success, wasn't it.

What you get is your General Secretary pulling out his crystal ball and forecasting that this year will be a good year for the charter airlines.

LEISURE AIRLINES' PROSPECTS FOR 2010 IMPROVED
2010 will bring improved prospects for airlines like Monarch, Thomas Cook and Thomson who are in the leisure business, the British Airline Pilots' Association has predicted

Exactly 1 week after GSM went bust ! How subtle is that?

Maybe he can give you 6 numbers for this week's Lotto.

[al446]

TRSS

At the risk of feeding the troll -

Stop trying to weasel out of previous statements.

for the princely sum of £11 per month, I get on the spot advice at the end of a phone 24/7 and guaranteed legal costs paid. Who needs a fair weather friend?

No conditions attached there.

However, if the advice of the lawyer is that the case is a lost cause the union will withdraw support. As would your insurer.

Sorry mate, not the case: the insurer will pay the legal fees. Anyone who pressed on regardless, in the face of overwhelming advice, would be off their trolley.

So you are agreeing that in both cases, union and insurer, legals paid so far. You then go on to distort things, as I have known you do in the past.

As a member of BALPA, however,the choice falls to them, not you, and it could be that your perfectly reasonable and winnable case is traded for a sanction, accommodation or benefit they have been seeking from your employer for some time. The chance of trading you, and your case against the employer, for the "good" of the masses prejudices your right to assisted legal advice.

Wrong. I know of no union that retains in-house litigation lawyers, not even mine, Unison, one of the largest in the UK. We pay a retainer to Thompson's and refer on a case by case basis. From then on it is the lawyers decision, in conjunction with member, as to whether to proceed or not, not the union's. At no point do the union even suggest "trading" anything. That is wilful conjecture and if you were making that statement against me, after giving you the chance to withdraw it I would be straight down to Thompsons to sue the sh1t out of you.

However, we don't have to dwell on this as you don't need legal assistance as your employer, and your union, well Barden's at least, deal with matters before it has to resort to the law.

A very sensible route to take, most sensible individuals and organisations wish to avoid the cost, time and hassle of going to law, we are not in the business of keeping the courts full.

Earlier in the thread Herod posted

As I said on another thread, I needed BALPA twice in my career. Both times they pulled the rabbit out of the hat. Sub money well spent.

And your reply?

Herod, I'm delighted that you were assisted.

Now would you tell us who you worked for, which seat you flew from, what the problems were, how they helped you and when this happened?

Condescending or what?

Then in your last post

How many cases have you heard of where BALPA have declined to assist, or offered only some assistance, but the individual has gone on to win? I know of a couple and I know of one guy who gave up, even though BALPA were involved, because the advice and assistance was so difficult to get in anything approaching a timely manner.

Supporting evidence please. In an anonymous post you can make any claim you wish, it doesn't mean it is true. Even if partially true, it is well known that many patients suffer to some degree from MRSA when in hospital, does that mean the guy with a child in ICU should take him home? Don't think so. An A320 flew into a field outside Schiphol so never fly Airbus? TRSS makes bum argument so never believe him? Now that one I may go for.

I didn't read the rest of your post, eyes were drooping. Boredom does that.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

HNY BLAPA, here's hoping it's your last.

No, not unrealistic. Entirely explicable when you consider.....

13 Pension Commitments

Employees of BALPA may participate in the BALPA 1973 Pension Scheme which, is a defined benefit scheme for its employees whose assets are held in independent trustee administered funds. Contributions are determined by a qualified actuary on the basis of triennial valuations using the projected unit method, the most recent valuation being at 31 December 2006.

It is not possible to identify each entity's share of the underlying assets and liabilities of the scheme and hence contribution to the scheme are accounted for as if it were a defined contribution scheme , the cost recognised within the statement of Income and Expenditure account being equal to the contributions payable to the scheme for a year.

The pension charge for the year was £614,757 (2006:£526,335).
From 1.7.04 all new joiners to the Pension Scheme pay a contribution of 6% of salary.

From 1.1.06 employees who were members of the Pension Scheme prior to 1.7.04 could opt either to continue paying 8.5% and receive pension indexation of RPI up to 2.5%, or increase their contribution to 9.5% and receive pension indexation of RPI up to 5%.

The Employer's contribution was 26% of salary.

They've been a bit shy in publishing their accounts since '07 for some reason, but if they did, you'd see in an instant, Oldsalt, that BLAPA are broke and desperate for new revenue streams wherever they can find them.

The truth is that BLAPA are like a castrated, three-legged elderly lion. Decrepit, useless, incapable of a kill, and far prefers basking in the memory of glories past.

[al446]

LHC

They've been a bit shy in publishing their accounts since '07 for some reason, but if they did, you'd see in an instant, Oldsalt, that BLAPA are broke and desperate for new revenue streams wherever they can find them.

If they are unpublished how come you know so much? Burgle their offices? Or is it just (yawn, yawn) wild speculation?

[The Real Slim Shady]

al446

Fisrtly, you keep banging on about Unison: we are not dealing with Unison and their means of dealing with matters, we are talking here about BALPA fees. Now if you aren't aircrew and / or not a member or official of BALPA your views and opinions on how another separate union does or does not do something don't really matter.

However, to humour you, this is a direct quote from the BALPA members Rules:

. The extent of the Legal Assistance granted, and the means by which it is provided, shall be at the absolute discretion of the NEC,

Whichever way you look at it the choice to provide assistance is the union's, not the individuals.

I have never said that BALPA have their own in house lawyers: you pulled that one from a leftover Xmas cracker!

From then on it is the lawyers decision, in conjunction with member, as to whether to proceed or not, not the union's

See the quotation from the rule book!

In an anonymous post you can make any claim you wish, it doesn't mean it is true. Even if partially true

Well is it true or not? How would you know? you aren't - A. a BALPA member B. Aircrew C. A BALPA official.

I'm not going to name names here, suffice it to say one fella was given partial assistance, won his case but had to pay the bulk of the fees himself. Another gave up his case out of sheer frustration because the help was so slow and tied up with conditions and caveats, and on another thread a guy said his request for help had been rejected but he had gone on himself to win the case.

The attitude of your beloved Unison can be seen quite clearly on the homepage of the website with the words of the General Secretary " 2010 is set to be a pivotal year for public services. Cameron’s plans for a public sector pay freeze shows that the Tories haven't changed - they are still on the side of the haves. And as the general election battle cranks up, public services are set to become the political battleground".

Battleground???? Sounds like fighting talk to me: what happened to working in partnership?

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

If they are unpublished how come you know so much? Burgle their offices? Or is it just (yawn, yawn) wild speculation?

I know so much, al446, because their '07 accounts were published. Here you are, but scroll down to item 13 and you'll see the data I posted in its original are the (yawn, yawn) facts.

[tocamak]

Oldsalt, the thread has been hi-jacked by the usual suspects who have an ingrained ant-union view which comes from their employer ("join a union and we will close your base") or perhaps a bad experience in the past. I also was in your former union (although called Numast and even earlier MNAOA!) and my experience of them was not as positive as that with Balpa. When my then employer Shell was transferring all personnel to the Isle of Man and reregistering their ships it seemed that Numast stood by and did nothing. Subsequently a lot of things changed back but that was more due to the numbers leaving the IOM agency than union intervention. During 13 years at sea I cannot point to one action that Numast took which helped my employment although I do acknowledge that the nature of deep sea trade made contact difficult (by morse code!). My experience of Balpa has been reasonably positive most notably during a TUPE transfer and also when our pension was under threat.

I am going to put forward to the Balpa NEC that they charge a lot less (but then bump up the fee by charging a handling fee on bank transactions unless you have a suitably obscure pre-paid mastercard).

[Bruce Wayne]

I didn't read the rest of your post, eyes were drooping. Boredom does that.

So does dementia. Apparently.

[Bruce Wayne]

al446, you have stated in the past that you are not a commercial pilot...

you therefore do not have position to intervene in matters that involve commercial pilots.

we are happy to discuss our profession with non pilots, conversely respect the fact that your pro-union lectures are offensive.

if a commercial pilot wishes to discuss and debate a pilot union with other pilots then we can have constructive debate but for you to come here as a non commercial pilot and lecture and pontificate on a subject that doesn't involve you or your professional life is highly sanctimonious.

.. the picture by the way...
Red Robbo.

night night.

[Herod]

TRSS, The NEC, whose decision it is whether to proceed with legal action or not, is as far as I know made up of pilots from the various companies. So the decision is not the "unions", but the members of the union. As regards my own cases, no, I won't rise to your bait. The actions were between myself, my then employer and BALPA; no one else's business. Suffice to say, as I did, that my subscriptions paid for themselves many times over.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Herod, naturally I respect your wish for privacy. I simply had hoped to establish if you had been working for BA or one of it's previous incarnations and which seat you flew in at the time as both aspects may have some bearing on your success.

As you rightly say the NEC comprises pilot members from a variety of companies, but as others here repeat quite vociferously " the pilots are the union, the union is the pilots" my assertion that the choice is the union's remains extant.

So let's all get back on topic: are BALPA's fees unrealistic?

Leo and I await an activist to explain the finer intricacies of the accounts to counter our views.

Edit: al446, naturally as a non pilot / BALPA member / official you won't have anything valid to add to this.