Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

BA Pilots Ponder BMI Proposal

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

BA Pilots Ponder BMI Proposal

Old 2nd Feb 2012, 19:42
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Age: 55
Posts: 72
Just guessing ... but I imagine that their DOJ BA will be the date of acquisition of BMI which I think will be the start of the 2012/13 financial year this April, subject to regulatory blah blah.

I don't believe they will be flying in BA colours or SOPs on that day but will continue with their existing route structure and be slowly retrained / absorbed / rostered into mainline over a period of time 12 -18 months.

Purely a guess but I would put money on it.
Jockster is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2012, 21:00
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 127
I wouldn't put money on the path of integration either. It is all still to be negotiated and that is not allowed to happen until the money changes hands. The scenario of all bmi pilots being junior to all BA pilots and forever locked on the airbus fleet is as likely to happen as all bmi pilots waltzing in with their doj transferring directly and being able to bid how they please. Nothing has been agreed yet and the larger the deviation from the lawyers advice the higher the likelyhood of it being challenged in the courts.
xwindflirt is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2012, 23:30
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: london
Posts: 41
The results of the votes are already showing alot of bitterness on this thread. Come on guys its neither bmi nor ba pilots fault that they are both put into this situation.
bmybaby81 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 08:20
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,235
AMR culling 14,000 jobs.
Air Canada trying to start their own 'offshore' low cost airline after continued failure to agree changes with the Unions.
Spanair bankrupt.
Malev Bankrupt.
AF/KLM €6.5Bn in debt.
Continued speculation of a return to recession after failure to resolve European debt crisis.
Continued slowdown in US housing and jobs markets.
Draw down of the value of the Yuan as China struggles to control its housing bubble.
Japan posting the first ever trade deficit as global markets bottom.

And still people want to see IA? Bizzare.

The consultation with BMI can now begin. Remember that TUPE works in BOTH ways to protect the aspirations of both parties and prevents one from disadvantaging the other.
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 08:47
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 50
Wilberstrum says: "Remember that TUPE works in BOTH ways to protect the aspirations of both parties and prevents one from disadvantaging the other."


No it doesn't. TUPE makes no mention of existing employees nor anyone's aspirations. I commend people to read the legislation or at least a guide to it before posting ill-informed nonsense.

Last edited by look you; 3rd Feb 2012 at 09:03.
look you is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 08:55
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 127
I completely agree Wirblesturm.
Personally I think it will be pretty hard to disadvantage anyone long term. At the risk of repeating what has already been said... Their are circa 56 prime slot pairs coming across. bmi is operating them as short/mid haul with 290 full time equivalent pilots. These have already publicly been earmarked for long haul expansion. This will require aprox 800 pilots. 400 captains and 400 fo's. So even if all of the bmi pilots coming over we're to go in as long haul to crew these slots, (which they don't) that would still require in addition 255 captains who otherwise would not have had the upgrade opertunity 255 short haul fo's who could now bid up and the need to recruit 510 in order to fill the gap. I can't really see how anyone will be disadvantaged long term by the merging of the 2 groups on a fair and relativly equal basis.
xwindflirt is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 08:59
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 127
Look you,
You are right, tupe if required is a backstop and does not specifically address the incoming group to being disadvantaged. However employment law does and I believe the first bullet point said lawfull. I guess we will all have to see what is agreed by the union sub commity.
xwindflirt is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 09:08
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 281
TUPE is not considered to "go both ways". However, employment law would protect the current BA staff. A 90 day consultation period would be required before transfer takes place. As "look you" has pointed out it's not actually stipulated in law, but, the law is similar to redundancy law (which requires 90 days consultation). Either way I think we know where our money is on?

The most important point is that it looks like BMI Baby/regional are in the sights of prospective buyers as well. One thing is for sure change would have to had happened within BMI this year to make a turn around.
londonmet is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 09:23
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,235
Perhaps I phrased it the wrong way. My apologies. What I meant to allude to is that BA mainline pilots want BMI pilots joining the fold to continue to have the same career progression prospects but there will be contention if the career progression prospects of BA mainline pilots are hampered by the (paid) integration of BMI.

TUPE protects the pay and career aspirations of BMI pilots but I think there will be a large number of BA FO's and Junior Captains looking to the BACC to protect their career aspirations as well.

All said and done the 'consultation' is above my pay grade and I hope for a sucessful conclusion for all as I see the combined future of BA/BMI being of benefit to everyone.
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 09:25
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 50
Employment law would protect existing BA staff against what exactly?

Redundancies do not automatically trigger a 90 day consultation, it depends on the number being planned. As you acknowledge, TUPE does not stipulate a 90 day consultation and that is all that counts. What is stipulated by other legislation for different circumstances is completely irrelevant. I'm worried about your legal source "londonmet"!
look you is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 09:35
  #331 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
I would think that BMI pilots can expect something along the lines of post #127 and Jockster's P O V. As I said, it does eventually get better.

Without casting ANY aspersions on the BMI PLC of which I know nothing, watch out for a PLC chairman mysteriously 'absent' from the room when final decisions are taken and then getting a good training or management post in the 'taking over' company. Not unknown, I hear.
BOAC is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 09:54
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 281
I agree "Wirbelsturm". I would like to know whether or not "look you" is involved in the BA/BMI integration or not and if so in what capacity. It seems to me that he/she is very anti a few issues? Might just be my understanding of it, that said it's very hard to work out peoples true feelings only via written text!!!
londonmet is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 09:55
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 157
OMG BOAC what a lot of posts! Do you have nothing better to do with your retirement?

I think your caution with regard to the bmi CC is wide of the mark in this specific instance, although I have seen similar occurences in the past.

Time, the law and attitudes have all moved on since 1992. Lawyers are surprised that no one has yet challenged the existence of seniority within airlines. The scenario the Jockster paints is guaranteed to test that principle, quite possibly with BALPA support. I would urge all involved to avoid that situation with a more accommodating integration, there is a lot more to lose than a theoretical and unprovable "disadvantaging". By the way, did the BACC ever tell you what they meant by that?
max nightstop is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 09:58
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 281
I have friends that applied to BA years ago and weren't offered courses due to the economic climate at the time. They're now working for them though. I would hope they are above the BMI pilots on the master list. If not then he should have his DOJ reset to his first time entering the hold pool many years ago. Sound ridiculous? It is - but that's also how ridiculous it would be for BMI pilots to jump onto the LH fleets and disadvantage current BA pilots.
londonmet is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 10:00
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 192
What is legal or illegal depends upon the decision of a judge/s. until then it is what your lawyers interpret the likely outcome will be.
If a group of pilots chose to take BA to court and BA chose to fight it then it will take years to go through and cost a huge amount.
Im basing this on history which shows most people run out of money or the
risk v gain becomes too great.
BA may decide its not worth the hassle and acquiesce but if they don't and you don't have main BALPA support you will have to be unified and dig deep.
sudden twang is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 10:01
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 50
Londonmet you are right! I am very anti people, who don't understand the law, telling other people what it says. I don't think I have given an opinion on what I am for or against in terms of the integration; I'm just correcting points of law, for everyone's benefit. In my defence I am also providing references so that you can check the accuracy of what I'm saying in the original legislation. Perhaps you would be so kind as to do the same so that we might all become better informed.
look you is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 10:08
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 157
Sudden Twang: you are right in everything you say. Of course there has been one court ruling over the legality of an airline integration, the BCAL merger on DOJ, the complainants lost and such a merger was ruled lawful.

Notwithstanding subsequent changes in legislation, this would be a relatively safe road for a company to take if they wanted to minimise the chances of a successful legal challenge to the method of integration. It does open plenty of other cans full of worms though!

Last edited by max nightstop; 3rd Feb 2012 at 10:19.
max nightstop is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 10:28
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,235
The difficulty comes with Kieth Williams re-iterating the fact that 'No BA pilot will be disadvantaged by the merger of BMI and BA' a fair few times during the GMM's running up to the ballot.

If this were different during the actual integration then I'm sure that there would be many who fekt they had been mis-informed.

What happens now is out of our hands, simple as that. The 'consultation' period is exactly that, a consultation. BA can listen to the wishes of the BMICC and then accept or ditch them as they wish. Nothing within the consultation is binding. As long as BA adhere to the requirements of TUPE they can place the BMI pilots where they wish. What happens afterwards is another ball game. I would think that being pay protected, fleet and promotion protected unless the option to move fleets was excercised would be a pretty good excercise of TUPE and would be quite difficult to challenge in court. Especially as BMI was on a rapid road to obscurity at the time of integration (Spanair, Malev and AMR all in the same time region).
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 10:44
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 157
Just an observation but the future for bmi is not quite as you paint it. Currently bmi are looking at:

1. IAG purchase and ownership, immediate future assured, lots of potential for growth, at the expense of BA, as indicated by BA management and BACC in their rush to get BA pilots to vote.

Or
2. Integration into BA maintaining their aspirations which, presumably, are those accepted by all sides in scenario one.

BA are not saving bmi from insolvency, IAG have already entered into a binding agreement to purchase them. Assuming nothing interferes with the purchase, bmi has every possibility of an exciting future.

It would be extraordinarily difficult to prove that if integration hadn't happened one would have been better off. The future of BA if integration happens is hugely different to its future with a standalone on its doorstep. To demonstrate that one might have been "better off" without a specific method of integration, especially given the rhetoric over the alternative, is pretty much impossible.

This was even alluded to in the management Q and A sessions when Stephen Riley remarked that some might feel disadvantaged in the short term, but the longer term would see their situation improved.
max nightstop is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 15:09
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Integration has been confirmed by IAG:

http://www.iairgroup.com/External.Fi...zgIculcYawJg==

IAG plans to integrate bmi mainline into British Airways, subject to receiving regulatory approval for the acquisition. This follows agreement by British Airways’ pilots to make productivity changes that justify the integration.
LD12986 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.