BA Pilots Ponder BMI Proposal
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilots of both companies know that if they are run as seperate opco's then they will be played against each other.
eg. BMI becomes BA Express - then after 6 months IAG offer them a 25% pay cut.
They can't strike because BA mainline will cover their operation!! Or vice versa. Or IAG will simply let IB Express do BMI's work.
BMI guys are
if they don't join BA.
BA guys could vote no, but then all new work would go to BA Express (on their very lean T's and C's).
eg. BMI becomes BA Express - then after 6 months IAG offer them a 25% pay cut.
They can't strike because BA mainline will cover their operation!! Or vice versa. Or IAG will simply let IB Express do BMI's work.
BMI guys are
if they don't join BA.BA guys could vote no, but then all new work would go to BA Express (on their very lean T's and C's).
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What can be guaranteed Blu Riband, is the fact that BA pilots will show the usual appalling self-intererst, as they did when hundreds of them volunteered to fly as cabin crew. I am very surprised they haven't been flying Iberia jets.
Why are BMI flight crew being treated differently to other DEP's that have been recruited in the last 12 months?
It is discrimination and opportunism by Walsh who, as he did with the cabin crew, loves to play the divide and conquer game.
Why are BMI flight crew being treated differently to other DEP's that have been recruited in the last 12 months?
It is discrimination and opportunism by Walsh who, as he did with the cabin crew, loves to play the divide and conquer game.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What can be guaranteed Blu Riband, is the fact that BA pilots will show the usual appalling self-intererst, as they did when hundreds of them volunteered to fly as cabin crew. I am very surprised they haven't been flying Iberia jets.
Why are BMI flight crew being treated differently to other DEP's that have been recruited in the last 12 months?
It is discrimination and opportunism by Walsh who, as he did with the cabin crew, loves to play the divide and conquer game.
Why are BMI flight crew being treated differently to other DEP's that have been recruited in the last 12 months?
It is discrimination and opportunism by Walsh who, as he did with the cabin crew, loves to play the divide and conquer game.
Re the CC dispute the difference is we recognise the value of having the BMI pilots on the same master seniority list as ourselves and thus still part of the same employee group for bidding and promotion. That option was there for the CC but you/they weren't prepared to make the concessions required to have that. We are being offered that option now and, if the straw polls are anything to go by, we will take it and not condemn ourselves to withering on the vine as per the CC dispute.
PS It's not discrimination. I know it's a favourite word in some parts but it's not. It's a change of terms and conditions. If it were discrimination to offer new recruitment terms we'd still be on flying boat contracts. Of course, however, it is opportunism. WW has an opportunity to extract a price for something we deem valuable. He's a businessman. Do I like the change? No. Would I do the same if I were him, bearing in mind his terms of reference are to maximise shareholder value and profitability? I would as he does, because it's his job. As morally uncomfortable as you or I may consider that.
Last edited by MrBunker; 6th Jan 2012 at 09:45.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Black Pudding
Like when BMI Mainline welcomed BMI Regional to LHR ?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hand Solo
I'd have a guess the leopards retired about 10 years ago
PS like the name..................
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CHESHIRE
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seniority issues
Unfortunately and I think why the company aren't discussing the issue of seniority is that since the Dan Air and Cityflyer takeovers legislation has changed within Europe. Companies now acquiring/merging with another are required to maintain seniority, therefore merging the BA/BMI seniority list. Where a BA pilot and BMI pilot in this case join on the same day, the employee of the 'acquiring' company will have the higher seniority. The talk regading increased opportunities for BA mainline, therefore is negated as the additional slots in net terms are not an increase (covered by the exisiting workforce, ie BMI) The proposed opportunities are also a smoke screen as BMI has not had any significant recruitment for the last 7-10 years and as such SFO/FO in the acquiring company, BA will therefore find themselves several hundred places further down the seniority list, therefore adding a number of years to attain command. This is why we are being asked to vote without being given sufficient information to make an informed decision.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA appear again to have boxed themselves into a corner.
It was clear after the cabin crew dispute that what Walsh decides goes.
He either gets huge concessions from BALPA or gets a uk Jetstar operation on BALPAs
doorstep.
It was clear after the cabin crew dispute that what Walsh decides goes.
He either gets huge concessions from BALPA or gets a uk Jetstar operation on BALPAs
doorstep.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: over the hill
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The talk regading increased opportunities for BA mainline, therefore is negated as the additional slots in net terms are not an increase (covered by the exisiting workforce, ie BMI)
Also bear in mind that bmi are bringing across approx. 20% of the number of slots that BA owns with a workforce that constitutes a mere 10% of the BA one, & although it is more concentrated in the shorthaul area, I would imagine a significant number of senior BA SH pilots would see opportunities become available in the short to medium term as a result of the slot portfolio benefitting from such a rapid increase in size.
The proposed opportunities are also a smoke screen as BMI has not had any significant recruitment for the last 7-10 years and as such SFO/FO in the acquiring company, BA will therefore find themselves several hundred places further down the seniority list
So:
20% slots vs. 10% pilots - straightaway the "impact" is halved.
Current use for large No. of slots = shorthaul - with longhaul use the "impact" will be more than halved again.
Whilst it is very easy to get drawn in to positions of opposition when talking of mergers,etc. I think in the long term a united front has to be far preferable.
Last edited by skip.rat; 6th Jan 2012 at 13:54.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MORETEA
sorry, seniority is NOT recognised in law...............period. There is NO obligation to merge seniority lists, seniority cannot even be used for redundancy legally due to age discrimination laws.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry, seniority is NOT recognised in law...............period. There is NO obligation to merge seniority lists
Because seniority isn't recognized in law, you SHOULD merge the seniority lists because you can't just stick people on the bottom of the list?
seniority cannot even be used for redundancy legally due to age discrimination laws.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isn't quite correct either, because "seniority" is not necessarily equivalent to "age". The age distribution, even in BA's seniority list, is not monotonically decreasing.
correct SR71, thats why you cannot use seniority!
Seniority is a union controlled list, it is not recognised in law. The last "merger" was Bcal and that caused all sorts of political fall out, and the only reason they got a "merger" was that they bought a significant longhaul fleet to the fold, Dan air (the few that were) cityflyer etc all were tagged on the bottom (with short haul command grandfather rights), i rather suspect that this is what will be in store for the BMI guys and girls. HOWEVER BA stated that they would not allow pilots to join BA mainline without passing the BA selection procedure, (applied to BACON and OPENSKIES pilots) so possibly another obsticle in the way. Its going to be messy whatever happens.
correct SR71, thats why you cannot use seniority!
Seniority is a union controlled list, it is not recognised in law. The last "merger" was Bcal and that caused all sorts of political fall out, and the only reason they got a "merger" was that they bought a significant longhaul fleet to the fold, Dan air (the few that were) cityflyer etc all were tagged on the bottom (with short haul command grandfather rights), i rather suspect that this is what will be in store for the BMI guys and girls. HOWEVER BA stated that they would not allow pilots to join BA mainline without passing the BA selection procedure, (applied to BACON and OPENSKIES pilots) so possibly another obsticle in the way. Its going to be messy whatever happens.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seniority is a union controlled list
MartinAir guys have recently been stuck on the bottom of the list but they're contesting this because I believe they are claiming the incorporation of MartinAir into KLM is a merger not a takeover.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as they did when hundreds of them volunteered to fly as cabin crew
We wanted to support the 30,000+ staff who wanted to keep their jobs, and to support the 1000s of crew who came to work.
I personally beleived that many crew who voted to strike did so having been very poorly advised and led by Bassa.
I now am sure we did the right thing , even for the benefit of those who went on strike; because things could have become much worse for them.
Check out the transcript of the branch secretary's tribunal for some shock reading and insight into the behaviour and mindset of the Bassa top table.
And where is the money?????????
Anyway, back on topic.
Seniority can be recognised, but is not automatic, and cannot be "age" based.
I expect BMI pilots to go to the bottom of the list but keep"grandfather" rights and current pay , until they catch up to BA pay.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am more than a little surprised that if the pay of pilots on shorthaul was making the operation unprofitable, why hasn't Walsh taken action before?
I feel sorry for the BMI guys who are being used as leverage to get BA pilots to give up their holiday pay claim and accepting inferior T&C's.
I feel sorry for the BMI guys who are being used as leverage to get BA pilots to give up their holiday pay claim and accepting inferior T&C's.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the land of never never!
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel sorry for the BMI guys who are being used as leverage to get BA pilots to give up their holiday pay claim and accepting inferior T&C's
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 4gotten
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is clear that BA/IAG are playing hardball over this issue. Claiming that Easy/FR are poaching their business traffic has some validity. Saying that the pilots should be the ones to foot the bill for this doesn't. If anyone should be responsible it should be the management for allowing this to occur without understanding the long term implications. The "low cost carriers" have not sprung up over night, many have predicted their fortuitous growth back in the 90's and how they would become dominant within the short haul marketplace. BA has been slow to react to this, period.
However, it is not all negative. Mr Walsh (now speaking on behalf of IAG) has clearly pointed out that the future of BA is in the long haul marketplace. The reason for acquiring bmi is for their slots and with these slots he would like to expand further into the Asian/Indian market. BA therefore are not trying to focus their business model on short haul. BA short haul is essentially a feeder for BA long haul. Yes it would be great to make profits on short haul, why not, but to claim that it is the "Holy Grail" of BA and use their losses to erode short haul pilots T & Cs due to their mistakes, is a fallacy.
If the low cost carriers can continue to make inroads on the short haul market, then why not let them continue? This would free up further short haul slots for long haul. Equally, on the flipside, none of the serious contenders in the low cost carriers market are operating from LHR. One could easily argue that this is the reason that the "cheaper fare
" carriers can turn a profit. If the low cost carriers expand and continue to offer significantly lower prices than the likes of the legacy carriers on that particular route, surely this then makes long haul more accessible to passengers, who may not have travelled to the original long haul destination with BA because of the high short haul cost to get to LHR but now can afford to because of the potentially cheaper ticket offered from their departure airport to say Luton. Having used the low cost carriers in the past, it is my opinion that many will chose to use BA for their connection after they experience the costs and mayhem that can ensue when there are any issues affecting the low cost carrier.
This then brings me back onto the subject of the current vote proposal. Everyone more or less knows that IAG do not wish to have a standalone BA Express at LHR. Yes there are cost savings between the bmi and BA but these are transient. Operating a standalone Company on a different AOC with separate crewing, ops departments and all the other paraphernalia surely cannot be successful. bmi are losing money at a phenomenal rate, yes at a lower cost base but look at the outcome. HUGE LOSSES!!!
Why would IAG want this on their balance sheets? No one can be 100% certain that IAG will not run it as a standalone but in reality we can be >95% sure that this would not be the case.
Failing that, why don't the bmi and BA CCs come to some agreement that should the day ever occur that IAG were to try and create a BA Express, that terms such as the SCOPE agreement would be set in place to prevent BA Express pilots operating any of the BA routes, should BA BALPA envoke industrial action. This to my mind would be the strongest concern that current BA pilots have regarding the standalone proposal. If no crossing of a picket line were to occur by BA Express pilots and BA & IAG were aware of this condition, I would expect that it would take a lot of wind out of the management’s sails when negotiating future conditions. Of course the same terms would have to apply to a future BA Express if they were to call for industrial action, then equally BA pilots would not operate BA Express schedules.
I think BALPA are missing a big opportunity here to call IAG/BAs bluff here. Why not create their own terms which BA/IAG cannot interfere with?
As I said previously, I really don't think that a BA Express has any merit here in the UK. Yes I agree in Spain it would be considered as an option but not with BA's and bmi's costs being so closely matched if you were to try and make bmi profitable.
So in summary, BALPA should be playing hardball themselves and dictating the terms that their pilots will accept a standalone operation, such that it is a no brainer to even consider a standalone airline at LHR. This way, it is nearly 100% certain that a full integration will take place. Any/all savings will then have to be passed on to other departments (if need be?) such as devolving unnecessary management positions and streamlining other departments benefits. Current BA pilots and future BA pilots can then temporarilly enjoy a career that is not permanently threatened by cost cutting and the "sword of Damocles" perpetually hanging over them.
Thoughts, especially from other BA pilots welcomed.
However, it is not all negative. Mr Walsh (now speaking on behalf of IAG) has clearly pointed out that the future of BA is in the long haul marketplace. The reason for acquiring bmi is for their slots and with these slots he would like to expand further into the Asian/Indian market. BA therefore are not trying to focus their business model on short haul. BA short haul is essentially a feeder for BA long haul. Yes it would be great to make profits on short haul, why not, but to claim that it is the "Holy Grail" of BA and use their losses to erode short haul pilots T & Cs due to their mistakes, is a fallacy.
If the low cost carriers can continue to make inroads on the short haul market, then why not let them continue? This would free up further short haul slots for long haul. Equally, on the flipside, none of the serious contenders in the low cost carriers market are operating from LHR. One could easily argue that this is the reason that the "cheaper fare
" carriers can turn a profit. If the low cost carriers expand and continue to offer significantly lower prices than the likes of the legacy carriers on that particular route, surely this then makes long haul more accessible to passengers, who may not have travelled to the original long haul destination with BA because of the high short haul cost to get to LHR but now can afford to because of the potentially cheaper ticket offered from their departure airport to say Luton. Having used the low cost carriers in the past, it is my opinion that many will chose to use BA for their connection after they experience the costs and mayhem that can ensue when there are any issues affecting the low cost carrier.This then brings me back onto the subject of the current vote proposal. Everyone more or less knows that IAG do not wish to have a standalone BA Express at LHR. Yes there are cost savings between the bmi and BA but these are transient. Operating a standalone Company on a different AOC with separate crewing, ops departments and all the other paraphernalia surely cannot be successful. bmi are losing money at a phenomenal rate, yes at a lower cost base but look at the outcome. HUGE LOSSES!!!
Why would IAG want this on their balance sheets? No one can be 100% certain that IAG will not run it as a standalone but in reality we can be >95% sure that this would not be the case.
Failing that, why don't the bmi and BA CCs come to some agreement that should the day ever occur that IAG were to try and create a BA Express, that terms such as the SCOPE agreement would be set in place to prevent BA Express pilots operating any of the BA routes, should BA BALPA envoke industrial action. This to my mind would be the strongest concern that current BA pilots have regarding the standalone proposal. If no crossing of a picket line were to occur by BA Express pilots and BA & IAG were aware of this condition, I would expect that it would take a lot of wind out of the management’s sails when negotiating future conditions. Of course the same terms would have to apply to a future BA Express if they were to call for industrial action, then equally BA pilots would not operate BA Express schedules.
I think BALPA are missing a big opportunity here to call IAG/BAs bluff here. Why not create their own terms which BA/IAG cannot interfere with?
As I said previously, I really don't think that a BA Express has any merit here in the UK. Yes I agree in Spain it would be considered as an option but not with BA's and bmi's costs being so closely matched if you were to try and make bmi profitable.
So in summary, BALPA should be playing hardball themselves and dictating the terms that their pilots will accept a standalone operation, such that it is a no brainer to even consider a standalone airline at LHR. This way, it is nearly 100% certain that a full integration will take place. Any/all savings will then have to be passed on to other departments (if need be?) such as devolving unnecessary management positions and streamlining other departments benefits. Current BA pilots and future BA pilots can then temporarilly enjoy a career that is not permanently threatened by cost cutting and the "sword of Damocles" perpetually hanging over them.
Thoughts, especially from other BA pilots welcomed.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel sorry for the BMI guys who are being used as leverage to get BA pilots to give up their holiday pay claim
We are not being asked to give up the holiday pay claim. It will be the cost going forward after 2014 that will need paying for. Upto 2014 (including gaw'd knows how many years back pay (i've lost count)) not affected.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a good piece Thick E. I agree that Walsh's bluff should be called. Let him start BA Express and he will lose money with that as well. Also with the Olympics not far away, does IAG really want to provoke a fight with their BA pilots?
VIRGIN seems to survive without a shorthaul network to feed its routes, so would LGW longhaul also limp on without the B737-400's. Inevitably, shorthaul is all but finished at LGW.
After concessions are made by BA's pilots at Eurofleet, what would be next on Walsh's shopping list? Perhaps mainline pilots pay flying longhaul holiday routes out of LGW will suddenly be unsustainable? Where does it stop unless BALPA draws a line in the sand now?
Walsh will push his luck and does not care if industrial action is provoked. He will take the short term pain for the long term gain if he can get away with it. BA pilots will find themelves in the unenviable position of their cabin crew "colleagues" (sic), of having their ballots for strike action injuncted and a campaign in the national press rubbishing them (as has happened before) and printing for all to see, how much they earn and the privileged lifestyle they enjoy.
Don't forget that Walsh will soon play the "this is the best deal you are going to get, the next offer will be worse. Take it or leave it" card, if it appears things are not going his way.
If BA's pilots are not sure where this is all going, just contact APA President Captain Dave Bates of the Allied Pilots Union at American Airliness, for some advice on where they went wrong in the past. Walsh hasn't re-invented the wheel here, there is a blueprint he is following and he will break BALPA's grip on BA at the same time if given the chance
VIRGIN seems to survive without a shorthaul network to feed its routes, so would LGW longhaul also limp on without the B737-400's. Inevitably, shorthaul is all but finished at LGW.
After concessions are made by BA's pilots at Eurofleet, what would be next on Walsh's shopping list? Perhaps mainline pilots pay flying longhaul holiday routes out of LGW will suddenly be unsustainable? Where does it stop unless BALPA draws a line in the sand now?
Walsh will push his luck and does not care if industrial action is provoked. He will take the short term pain for the long term gain if he can get away with it. BA pilots will find themelves in the unenviable position of their cabin crew "colleagues" (sic), of having their ballots for strike action injuncted and a campaign in the national press rubbishing them (as has happened before) and printing for all to see, how much they earn and the privileged lifestyle they enjoy.
Don't forget that Walsh will soon play the "this is the best deal you are going to get, the next offer will be worse. Take it or leave it" card, if it appears things are not going his way.
If BA's pilots are not sure where this is all going, just contact APA President Captain Dave Bates of the Allied Pilots Union at American Airliness, for some advice on where they went wrong in the past. Walsh hasn't re-invented the wheel here, there is a blueprint he is following and he will break BALPA's grip on BA at the same time if given the chance
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Seminar / BACC GMM
Hi Thick E,
I went to the BA seminar on 4th January at Waterside. There is another BA seminar with the Chief Financial Officer and all the Flt Ops managers on the 10th January. I would urge you to go to that seminar if you possibly can, or attend one of the ad-hoc manager's meetings in the CRC. You will then be able to put your point of view regarding the deal to them, and maybe find some answers to your questions.
The BACC have seen and accepted the BA financial figures; I put a great deal of faith in the current BACC and trust them to make the best of the cr*p hand they have been dealt.
The take it or leave it deal on offer is not very palatable, but to vote No to maybe call a bluff is a big call. A Yes vote means that BA will have 51+% of the LHR slots and that over 3700 pilots will be on one seniority list. It would then be more difficult, time and effort for IAG to set up a new airline in an airport so slot constrained as LHR.
Whichever way the vote goes, BA and BMI will effectively be integrated - we are really only voting on whether the pilot workforces are integrated. If not, there will be two IAG airlines at LHR bidding against each other for work; if BA Lite offers to fly A380s at a lower cost, they will be flying the A380s. For the BMI guys and new entants to BA Lite (there will never be any further recruitment to BA Mainline, just stagnation) the terms and conditions to fly those shiny new aircraft will be much, much worse than those available now if an integrated solution is agreed.
In summary, go to a BA meeting, or at least a BACC GMM to satisfy yourself that your viewpoint is absolutely correct.
Cheers,
Mark
I went to the BA seminar on 4th January at Waterside. There is another BA seminar with the Chief Financial Officer and all the Flt Ops managers on the 10th January. I would urge you to go to that seminar if you possibly can, or attend one of the ad-hoc manager's meetings in the CRC. You will then be able to put your point of view regarding the deal to them, and maybe find some answers to your questions.
The BACC have seen and accepted the BA financial figures; I put a great deal of faith in the current BACC and trust them to make the best of the cr*p hand they have been dealt.
The take it or leave it deal on offer is not very palatable, but to vote No to maybe call a bluff is a big call. A Yes vote means that BA will have 51+% of the LHR slots and that over 3700 pilots will be on one seniority list. It would then be more difficult, time and effort for IAG to set up a new airline in an airport so slot constrained as LHR.
Whichever way the vote goes, BA and BMI will effectively be integrated - we are really only voting on whether the pilot workforces are integrated. If not, there will be two IAG airlines at LHR bidding against each other for work; if BA Lite offers to fly A380s at a lower cost, they will be flying the A380s. For the BMI guys and new entants to BA Lite (there will never be any further recruitment to BA Mainline, just stagnation) the terms and conditions to fly those shiny new aircraft will be much, much worse than those available now if an integrated solution is agreed.
In summary, go to a BA meeting, or at least a BACC GMM to satisfy yourself that your viewpoint is absolutely correct.
Cheers,
Mark