BALPA unrealistic fees?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In my house
Age: 74
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slim
What the accounts mask is that the seeming disproportionate expenses are the only recompense the many volunteer reps receive. I would opine that they would demonstrate excellent value for the membership if they could be accounted for against the 1000's of, otherwise unrewarded, man hours that are given to the benefit of us - the members.
Do I object to my subs going towards buying a good steak and bottle of wine for otherwise unrewarded reps? Not one bit - provided they keep coming up with the goods.
What the accounts mask is that the seeming disproportionate expenses are the only recompense the many volunteer reps receive. I would opine that they would demonstrate excellent value for the membership if they could be accounted for against the 1000's of, otherwise unrewarded, man hours that are given to the benefit of us - the members.
Do I object to my subs going towards buying a good steak and bottle of wine for otherwise unrewarded reps? Not one bit - provided they keep coming up with the goods.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thank all who have pointed out that I am not a pilot (I did first) and should therefore have no hand in further matters. What a compliment!! Especially from Bruce Wayne whose best shot at this is to post some very, very old photographs of long ago.without contributing a single word to the subject in hand, the Oxford Union would be proud of you Bruce, take a bow.
LHC - You did not explain your wild conjecture over the future defecit which would require more up to date figures. Please elucidate.
TRSS - If I can be bothered I will give you a detailed answer to your points, they are ALL wrong. However in relation to you a,b,c points, you are only b. Does that disqualify you?
LHC - You did not explain your wild conjecture over the future defecit which would require more up to date figures. Please elucidate.
TRSS - If I can be bothered I will give you a detailed answer to your points, they are ALL wrong. However in relation to you a,b,c points, you are only b. Does that disqualify you?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: planet earth
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shady
The reasons why Balpa membership is increasing year on year is because of YOU. and management like you.
We as a pilot group are being treated with contempt,you know that and support the action. Your self interest in belittling Balpa is for one reason only.to further degrade our terms and conditions. Your statements are totally transparant, working for a company who take great delight in ruining the very jobs that have made your leader one of the richest people in the world.
You have one objective and one only that definetly is not to enhance the industry it is to line your own pockets just like your boss.
The reasons why Balpa membership is increasing year on year is because of YOU. and management like you.
We as a pilot group are being treated with contempt,you know that and support the action. Your self interest in belittling Balpa is for one reason only.to further degrade our terms and conditions. Your statements are totally transparant, working for a company who take great delight in ruining the very jobs that have made your leader one of the richest people in the world.
You have one objective and one only that definetly is not to enhance the industry it is to line your own pockets just like your boss.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Gloucestershire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TRSS,
I see (as usual) the detail that was requested to support your argument is not forthcoming. I see from further dialogue on this thread you are now changing the substance of your argument.
Your actual wording was
"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."
Now you are saying that this is subject to the legal experts decision. That is a qualification you had not made before. For the benefit of your integrity your £50 contribution can be made to Julie Rutley, Treasurer, BALPA Christmas Hardship Fund, BALPA House, 5 Heathrow Boulevard, West Drayton, UB7 0DQ
As a current pilot (11,000 hours, B757 Captain) I would certainly prefer that my livelihood is protected by the mechanism employed by Balpa, rather than some minimally legally qualified individual working for an insurance company. Indeed all of this discussion is a good reminder of the limitations of other organisations and their "legal protection". Any insurance based legal protection scheme will have limitations on pursuing an action.
At least with Balpa (which is not insurance based), the decisions are being made by people who are actively involved in flying. Indeed their decisions have the added incentive of affecting their own careers potentially. I know which I would prefer to look after my licence and my career.
I see (as usual) the detail that was requested to support your argument is not forthcoming. I see from further dialogue on this thread you are now changing the substance of your argument.
Your actual wording was
"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."
Now you are saying that this is subject to the legal experts decision. That is a qualification you had not made before. For the benefit of your integrity your £50 contribution can be made to Julie Rutley, Treasurer, BALPA Christmas Hardship Fund, BALPA House, 5 Heathrow Boulevard, West Drayton, UB7 0DQ
As a current pilot (11,000 hours, B757 Captain) I would certainly prefer that my livelihood is protected by the mechanism employed by Balpa, rather than some minimally legally qualified individual working for an insurance company. Indeed all of this discussion is a good reminder of the limitations of other organisations and their "legal protection". Any insurance based legal protection scheme will have limitations on pursuing an action.
At least with Balpa (which is not insurance based), the decisions are being made by people who are actively involved in flying. Indeed their decisions have the added incentive of affecting their own careers potentially. I know which I would prefer to look after my licence and my career.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning chaps,
Nice to find a soul who is straightforward enough to say that he is happy with the profligate way the money is spent: good on you Jonny. He is quite happy that the lads should indulge in fine dining and wines so long as they keep coming up with the goods. Something of an afterthought is that. However, but there lies the rub: they patently are NOT coming up with goods.
We won't linger on this one too long, we shall all skip merrily past the nasty bits in the accounts and the even nastier reality of the 40 Thieves and focus, a la nightflight, on something else to try to deflect the ball off the cushion and away from the black.
Doesn't work laddie: unable to determine something which is implicit in a statement I will have to spell it out for him. The 11000 757 hrs, in the dark flying rubber dogsh.........., nah, couldn't have been him, that was Top Gun, and nightflight doesn't so much soar with eagles, as hang around street corners with public service union worker wannabees.
When one visits Messrs Screwem, Fleeceem and Bankit to so seek legal advice as an individual, on say, an injury claim, one sits down with said solicitor, tells him your tale, and he will, having given it due consideration, decide whether you have a prima facie case for damages, the same chance of success in pressing your claim as Shergar has of winning this years Gold Cup or some proportionate chance of winning some damages, say 60 /40. You then, having taken his advice, have to decide whether to fight, or to flee.
Not his decision you will NB but your decision: you take legal advice but retain the decision and, should you choose to fight, you still have the opportunity for flight if you subsequently decide it is not looking good. When you win, you trouser the damages and your insurers, if you have insurance, pick up the bill for the legal fees.
However, this bit is important nightflight - anyone who is advised by his legal team that he hasn't got a case is off his trolley if he tries to press on. Fact is, he will likely NOT find a solicitor who will take the case on because, amongst other issues, the Law Society does not look kindly on solicitors fighting patently unwinnable battles just to generate fee income. The bill for that advice he can pass on to his insurers, who subject to the excess and his adherence to the terms of his policy then pay the solicitor.
In comparison, when you present your case in writing, iaw Rule 26, to the General Secretary as per the 40 Thieves Rule Book, the applicant will then have the opportunity to avail himself of legal advice from BALPA's officers ( let's hope that they have a legal qualification) OR ( my emphasis as it is not AND) legal adviser. That's straight from Rule 26 nightflight.
I refer nightflight to his statement.
Decisions made by people actively involved in flying but NOT in the legal profession. Good to see that you haven't thought any of this through nightflight: why not go the whole hog and have a dentist do your annual medical?
But back to nightflight's pal who is in trouble and looking for BALPA legal assistance. Once he has had the considered opinion of the BALPA officer OR the legal adviser ( BALPA's choice, not his), the case is passed to the NEC, iaw Rule 26.2, and AT THEIR ABSOLUTE DISCRETION a decision to suppport, the extent or not of said support will be made.
That would, again, be the tertiary qualification of the member's of the NEC as personal injury / employment litigators.
Who has the decision, nighflight? The NEC, NOT the applicant.
You don't have to take my word for it, like the facts in the accounts you elect to gloss over and ignore, you can find the Rules here.
It gets better though nightflight, because tacked on at the end of Rule 26 is this at 26.6.3
So having been through all the stress of a court case and probably out of work BALPA will chase you for costs: there is no guarantee that they won't try to recover those costs from your damages.
So let's move on now to u0062: since you try to lay the blame for the degradtion, industry wide, of Ts and Cs at my feet have this from the Slavery thread:
and
You see, 62, your precious BALPA is doing nothing at easyjet to stop the exploitation of the CTC cadets, but it is much easier to lay the blame for that at my door, without any supporting evidence, than face the harsh reality that "the pilots who are BALPA" have failed you yet again.
Your 40 thieves are too busy guzzling good steak and fine wine to deal with the punitive taxes imposed on airline passengers: to handle the shrieks of the Green lobby on emissions or to produce cogent policies, in conjunction with other agencies to improve traffic flow around Europe.
But look on the bright side, they did succeed in getting an alleviation on the liquid rules so that pilots could carry 150ml of contact lens solution through security.
Nice to find a soul who is straightforward enough to say that he is happy with the profligate way the money is spent: good on you Jonny. He is quite happy that the lads should indulge in fine dining and wines so long as they keep coming up with the goods. Something of an afterthought is that. However, but there lies the rub: they patently are NOT coming up with goods.
We won't linger on this one too long, we shall all skip merrily past the nasty bits in the accounts and the even nastier reality of the 40 Thieves and focus, a la nightflight, on something else to try to deflect the ball off the cushion and away from the black.
Doesn't work laddie: unable to determine something which is implicit in a statement I will have to spell it out for him. The 11000 757 hrs, in the dark flying rubber dogsh.........., nah, couldn't have been him, that was Top Gun, and nightflight doesn't so much soar with eagles, as hang around street corners with public service union worker wannabees.
When one visits Messrs Screwem, Fleeceem and Bankit to so seek legal advice as an individual, on say, an injury claim, one sits down with said solicitor, tells him your tale, and he will, having given it due consideration, decide whether you have a prima facie case for damages, the same chance of success in pressing your claim as Shergar has of winning this years Gold Cup or some proportionate chance of winning some damages, say 60 /40. You then, having taken his advice, have to decide whether to fight, or to flee.
Not his decision you will NB but your decision: you take legal advice but retain the decision and, should you choose to fight, you still have the opportunity for flight if you subsequently decide it is not looking good. When you win, you trouser the damages and your insurers, if you have insurance, pick up the bill for the legal fees.
However, this bit is important nightflight - anyone who is advised by his legal team that he hasn't got a case is off his trolley if he tries to press on. Fact is, he will likely NOT find a solicitor who will take the case on because, amongst other issues, the Law Society does not look kindly on solicitors fighting patently unwinnable battles just to generate fee income. The bill for that advice he can pass on to his insurers, who subject to the excess and his adherence to the terms of his policy then pay the solicitor.
In comparison, when you present your case in writing, iaw Rule 26, to the General Secretary as per the 40 Thieves Rule Book, the applicant will then have the opportunity to avail himself of legal advice from BALPA's officers ( let's hope that they have a legal qualification) OR ( my emphasis as it is not AND) legal adviser. That's straight from Rule 26 nightflight.
At least with Balpa (which is not insurance based), the decisions are being made by people who are actively involved in flying. Indeed their decisions have the added incentive of affecting their own careers potentially. I know which I would prefer to look after my licence and my career.
Decisions made by people actively involved in flying but NOT in the legal profession. Good to see that you haven't thought any of this through nightflight: why not go the whole hog and have a dentist do your annual medical?
But back to nightflight's pal who is in trouble and looking for BALPA legal assistance. Once he has had the considered opinion of the BALPA officer OR the legal adviser ( BALPA's choice, not his), the case is passed to the NEC, iaw Rule 26.2, and AT THEIR ABSOLUTE DISCRETION a decision to suppport, the extent or not of said support will be made.
I would certainly prefer that my livelihood is protected by the mechanism employed by Balpa, rather than some minimally legally qualified individual working for an insurance company.
Who has the decision, nighflight? The NEC, NOT the applicant.
You don't have to take my word for it, like the facts in the accounts you elect to gloss over and ignore, you can find the Rules here.
It gets better though nightflight, because tacked on at the end of Rule 26 is this at 26.6.3
The member shall accept the obligation that, if successful in pursing their claim, he shall take all necessary and sufficient steps to recover the legal costs incurred on their behalf and indemnified by BALPA in pursuing the claim wherever, and to the full extent, possible and shall repay any costs so recovered to BALPA forthwith
So let's move on now to u0062: since you try to lay the blame for the degradtion, industry wide, of Ts and Cs at my feet have this from the Slavery thread:
As for T’s & C’s everybody is quick to blame the airline ‘accountants’ and these cheeky Herberts who dare to want to join our ranks at any cost, but I’m afraid your barking up the wrong tree. Unless you are completely myopic or devoid of any contact with reality – you will realise that it is almost impossible for an airline to make money – and it is not because of said Herberts. In fact your time would be better spent writing letters of complaint to members OPEC about the cost of fuel, having a row with ATC over their charges followed by a rant over the P/A to your pax about their unwillingness to pay decent fares
more importantly, addressing the issues with policy makers that drive up operational costs and foist policies on the industry which are punitive to economic stability.
Your 40 thieves are too busy guzzling good steak and fine wine to deal with the punitive taxes imposed on airline passengers: to handle the shrieks of the Green lobby on emissions or to produce cogent policies, in conjunction with other agencies to improve traffic flow around Europe.
But look on the bright side, they did succeed in getting an alleviation on the liquid rules so that pilots could carry 150ml of contact lens solution through security.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some quick calculations
I work for a small non-public transport operator and we have BALPA recognition. In the past 4 years I have had a total pay rise of around 24%. This is considerably more than those non-aircrew departments within our company (and this includes skilled professionals). The total payrise is 5 times as much cash as I've paid to BALPA in fees over the years.
I'm no mathematician, but it seems like a good return and much better than if I was negotiating my own payrise. Of course, all those non-BALPA colleagues also benefit...'I'm alright jack' springs to mind!
I'm no mathematician, but it seems like a good return and much better than if I was negotiating my own payrise. Of course, all those non-BALPA colleagues also benefit...'I'm alright jack' springs to mind!
