BA Pilots Ponder BMI Proposal

[WillDAQ]

Originally Posted by Count Niemantznarr

If this gets through, then BA pilots may as well give up on BALPA and join the Air Transport section of UNITE, just for the legal cover.

I enjoy Count's contributions, they clearly have no understanding of what actually happened in the cabin crew industrial action (beyond the BASSA version of events) and yet are still determined to use it as proof that BALPA is doomed.

[Chief Brody]

I am curious to hear at one of the BAPLA briefings what the original offer was.

I certainly hope that this unpalatable offering (see Steve Rileys 4 bulletpoints) is significantly better than what was first offered by the company.

Otherwise what the hell have I been paying 40 quid a month for?

RE those bulletpoints:

*5% savings to be found within BLRs (sounds very fuzzy to me - but hey thats what the briefings are for I guess)
*Reduction from 30 days leave to 28 - any danger of meeting in the middle at 29?
*Waving the holiday pay claim - is it ok for BA to break the law now then? It is my understanding that it took an appeal court judge to clarify the situation - holiday pay is to be based on basic pay + lost allowances. End of story.
*Re the pay scale I see both sides of the arguement. It was never designed for people to spend 15 plus years on PP24. But also the companys pension scheme is now no longer a defined benefit type. The upshot being you need/desire 15 years at the top of the tree to squirrel away a decent amount of savings to make for a cushy retirement.

Re this final BP - I joined a few years back so will remain on the old payscale (at least until Willy comes back for 'seconds' yet again pleading poverty). Even so, I would be willing to accept a PP29 scale for all (personally foregoing 5 years at the top of the pile) - I think this would show an appreciation for the changing financial times whilst not leaving all newbies to shoulder the biggest burden.

I think after

1) Several successful attacks on pilot pay and productivity over the past few years
2) Introducing BFD whilst never explaining what it actually is / will become
3) Adjustments (always for the worse) to BLRs
4) Our assistance whilst many CC were being tools in 2010

We deserve more than this intransigence on the part of senior
management.

[Dingbaticus]

I looked at this thread expecting to read about the thread topic and find it has descended into the usual BASSAbashing by the usual suspects.

BASSA made mistakes as did we all but we achieved an honourable negotiated Settlement Agreement, recognising our Union and promising to abide by our industrial agreements.

Upholding that agreement and the new behaviours required of it is challenging for both sides but a recent joint message from both our CEO Keith Williams and the head of Unite Len McCluskey, addressed not only to BASSA members but our whole IFCE department including our managers, shows the commitment the Leadership Team have to making it a success.

Moving forward, our dispute exposed a dysfunctionality that goes deeper than just our Cabin Crew Union. The New Year is bringing new initiatives, including closer collaboration between Flight Ops and IFCE and Beyond the Flight Deck. The senior Cabin Crew have been invited to take part in a confidential survey to identify Flight Crew behaviours which would support our community and cement the foundations of the refreshing new relationship required of our Settlement Agreement.

The Cabin Crew dispute saw an anti Cabin Crew sentiment become accepted as the cultural norm by some but peace has restored dignity to our profession. We may not be as technically qualified or highly trained as other employees but our role is as important. Indeed innovative developments, such as equipping the Senior Cabin Crew with I Pads and the newly launched Flywell forum, are empowering and up-skilling us whilst making us more productive. Plans for CSDs to manage their own teams and harnessing our community’s knowledge and passion to improve the customer experience will reduce our departments overheads, as ground positions duplicating these functions can be cut from the business.

Back to the thread topic. If the merger goes ahead our new Flight Crew colleagues can expect to be welcomed to a Company that does not tolerate bullying and a Cabin Crew community ready to support them if should they be subjected to any.

Our Company is reportedly recruiting 800 Pilots over the next few years and the newly acquired short haul slots are predicted to be used for long haul flights. With new aircraft rolling out too, this is an exciting time of expansion and those Pilots who are junior now will benefit long term, with opportunities for promotion and fleet movement if they merge with BMI.

A ‘NO’ vote may not affect your terms and conditions in the short term but any future expansion will undoubtedly take place on the lower cost BMI fleet. My humble advice would be for the junior Flight Crew to persuade the senior Pilots to vote to accept the deal, to give themselves a future.

Instead of focusing on the Cabin Crew and obsessing about BASSA and rising to the bait offered by the Count, I recommend you all engage with your Association Reps to discuss how you will achieve the required productivity to seal the deal, as it has an expiration date.


The postings made by Dingbaticus on this site are my own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and don’t necessarily represent my employers positions, strategies or opinions.

[wiggy]

Well that's us told to behave - I think .....

My humble advice would be for the junior Flight Crew to persuade the senior Pilots to vote to accept the deal, to give themselves a future.

I'm perplexed by that strange comment and I wonder what you base it on?

What gives you the impression there's a senior/junior split?

I recommend you all engage with your Association Reps to discuss how you will achieve the required productivity to seal the deal, as it has an expiration date.

Err thanks - we already are ( still .)

[Dawdler]

BASSA made mistakes as did we all but we achieved an honourable negotiated Settlement Agreement, recognising our Union and promising to abide by our industrial agreements.

Having seen recent comms from "Admin" of Bassa, the promise mentioned above seems to have passed them by.

Now back to topic.

[Alexander de Meerkat]

Nope - never worked for BMI or BA. My question stands, however - what possible reason would current BA pilots have to integrate the BMI pilots anywhere other than the bottom of their seniority list? It is a genuine question. Sure, let the current captains remain as captains on type as long as they do not change fleet, but what argument can there be to put anyone ahead of current BA pilots? If, for example, 50 pilots with 20+ years' seniority on the BMI list appear at that same point on the BA list, will they not all next year be claiming 747 and 777 commands? Why would the BA pilots do that to themselves?

[captplaystation]

Having left BMI (or BM as it was then ) in 1996 having joined in 87, I was wondering how that would possibly be the case too.
I admit to having very little understanding or interest in the TUPE rules having long ago forsaken the UK for pastures less brown (well, in most respects) but it seems to me BA/IAG whatever you want to call it, are buying Bish's Baby so I would have expected that being tagged on the end of a BA seniority list was a result for anyone from BMI.
I would be mightily p1ssed off had joined I BA in 87, & now found myself about to have a (ex) me slotted in ahead in seniority, having worked for BA for the square root of b*gger all days/years. Shome mishtake shurely ? ? or does it really work like this ?
If it does, it just goes to show, I should have stayed put in 96
This could become my second biggest career regret after failing to get into BCAL in 86 having failed to impress the Ozzie (?) bloke at the final interview

[SR71]

Nope - never worked for BMI or BA. My question stands, however - what possible reason would current BA pilots have to integrate the BMI pilots anywhere other than the bottom of their seniority list?

And how is it possible that, through no fault of their own, pilots who wind up having flown for an airline that has been turned into a train wreck by its management, have to suffer the loss of 20+ years seniority (in your example), just because their airline happens to be being bought by another?

Explain to me how that is fair?

Doctors must laugh at the lunacy of our industry...that we could ever allow that to happen.

But then, at EZY, its every man for himself isn't it?



But I'm still having trouble realising how, if BA pilots vote "No", bmi can expand at their expense at a slot-constrained airport...unless the BA brand is to be sacrificed? If bmi is not going to be integrated, then are people really saying WW will grow bmi, or whatever the new entity will be called, at the expense of BA?

And at the point he tries to shuffle work in bmi's direction, the bmi pilots dig their heels in for BA T&C's - after all they're now doing "BA" work - isn't everyone a winner?

At that point you might as well merge the operation(s).

The difference between this and the J*/Qantas situation, is that the proposal is centred on a seriously slot-constrained airport. WW doesn't have the flexibility to "outsource" work to his new cheap airline via alternative hubs.

Maybe I'm missing something.

[captplaystation]

SR71, I subscribe to your sense of "fairness", but, regretably, the big bad world generally doesn't.
So, if you work for a company that is fecked, by association, you too. . .are fecked.
Unfortunately, for the hard working individual who made (with the benefit of hindsight ) the "wrong" choice, that, as we (used to ) say is "how the cookie crumbles"

You have to see it from both points of view, had I not left BMI in 96 with 9 years service, well I guess you can see my political campaigning direction, had I joined BA in 87 ? I would probably wish to strangle the "other me", or more pertinently the BritishAirwaysLinePilotsAssociation for allowing it to happen.

Fairness is a painting, which (like most worthwhile paintings)what you see, may vary greatly depending on where it is viewed from.

[757_Driver]

Explain to me how that is fair?

This comment keeps cropping up all over the place in recent years, and I'm really struggling to understand what the **** its got to do with anything. Our politicians are hell bent on destroying the country in an attempt to make things more 'fair'. Why let some people get unfairly rich - why not make everyone poor - thats much fairer.

Since when was life supposed to be fair? It is what it is. There are many claims you can make in the british (and most other) legal systems. however "It ain't fair guv'nor" isn't one of them.

Bottom line is BMI is donald ducked. I supposed the 'fairest' option would be to let it go bust, put all the pilots in the job centre and let them apply for BA jobs along with everyone else, and let the slots go to the highest bidder. That option sounds very egalitarian to me
However I suspect the BMI pilots would like the 'unfair' option of being parachuted into BA mainline, with BA job security and benefits, albeit with a loss of seniority.
However as has been said before the seniority question only arises IF its is merged into BA. if it remains standalone, then it is irrelevent, as is TUPE as its not got anything to do with BA.

[Alexander de Meerkat]

SR71 - At easyJet it is not 'every man for himself'. Indeed, compared to what is unfolding at BA/BMI, our takeovers of GB Airways ang Go were positively gentlemanly. Everyone kept their positions, including Training Captains. Many people at Go received massive payouts and the GB guys got varying degrees of compensation deals. On one hand the more senior GB captains ended up on a lower salary, but offsetting that numerous GB FOs are now captains who would not have been under their previous employer. Not having a seniority list proved a great blessing as it was one less thing to fight over. No takeover or merger is perfect, and ours were no exceptions, but in retrospect they went about as well as any of these events ever do.

There is no doubt that if you are a BMI pilot then the current situation seems both unfair and very depressing. It may indeed be the case that BMI management have created the effective destruction of their own company. Nonetheless, that is hardly the fault of BA pilots, who not unreasonably will take the view that is someone else's problem. Having been on the receiving end of a company bankruptcy with all the fears and anxieties that generates, I have nothing but sympathy for the BMI pilots. However, I also fully understand the reasons why the BA pilots will not budge an inch. I also have to observe that were the tables reversed, the BMI pilots would not budge an inch either. The bottom line is that if your company goes up the spout, your seniority, alas, counts for nothing - nor should it, if that would disadvantage the current employees of your new company.

[1033]

Chief Brody has a number of valid points.

What you will find many BMI pilots consider fair is the fact that they integrated the BMed pilots on Date Of Joining. This was initially fround upon by the BMI pilots but were instructed by BALPA HQ that this was the most legal and fair way of dealing with this subject under TUPE.

It is for this reason that many BMI pilots will feel particualarly letdown by BALPA if BALPA then does a monumental U-turn in what it advocates as the legitimate formula for bringing two companies together. I am no legal expert but by my reckoning they would be seen as offering impartial and false advise if anything other than what they advised BMI staff were employed in this example. I'm not saying its right or wrong but BALPA can't say that combining seniority lists HAS to be done in a particular way because it's the law to one group and then spin a different line when the circumstances are repeated a couple of years later, unless the law has changed?

With regard to DanAir, CityFlyer etc, the same point applies. However, in these cases the TUPE law MAY have changed since that time, which may well be why what was deemed a solution then (bottom of the seniority list) may not be applicable now.

Notice that there are a number of MAYs in my posting. I am merely suggesting and hoping that someone who actually is current and familiar with TUPE law would shed some light on this subject. At this time there is so much rumour and conjecture, that it is difficult to see the wood from the trees.

As a final point and something that I have read about somewhere in one of these forums, why isn't BALPA playing a more active part? What have they negotiated in terms of the proposal? Is there not something that they can do whereby an agreement is reached between the two Company Councils that they will not allow workers from either Company to operate the others routes. If this were the case, BA/BMI pilots could both continue to exercise their rights to Industrial Action without fear of the other party operating their routes temporarily. I believe that BA BALPA has about a 98% membership and BMIs membership is well into the majority of pilots. With so few pilots in either airline not BALPA members, if the Union decread that it's members should not break any picket lines, I would expect that there would be insufficient resources to cover the majority of IA'ed company's flying programme.

Food for thought?!

[xwindflirt]

I am having de ja vu. I seem to remember the exact same conversations happening 4 years ago. Funny thing is the employment lawyers then said there was only one viable solution that would stop the lawsuits
In their tracks. Guess what there was and still is some people who didn't like the result but it was as fair as it could be. People were disadvantaged some got lucky. That was an airline that was in its eleventh hour an fifty ninth minute. The administrators were in and the lights were out. Do you know? It worked out in the end. Btw we ended up with full integration because it was the best option out of some bad choices. Seems like we may have gone full circle IMHO.

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

Ah yes ! Got it

"Conman Tzar Nite Run"

And there was me thinking it was 'Rum, innocent Tarzan'!

The Count is nothing more than DH's alter ego. 'Ego' being the word! He can't bear being out of the 'game' and trolls here in an effort to stir things up. All the references to BA cabin crew make it so obvious ..... and so tiresome. A good ignoring will make him fume far more than any response to his drivel.

[Iver]

It's water under the bridge and can't be changed now, but the fact that VS did not win the bid still bugs me. BA would have had a closer competitive equal out of LHR with the BM-VS tie-up. I still cannot fathom why the BA holding company bid was not seen as anti-competitive considering BA's strong position at LHR... Oh well, no use living in the past.............

[MrLeveloff]

I still cannot fathom why the BA holding company bid was not seen as anti-competitive considering BA's strong position at LHR...

Compare Lufty's position at FRA and KLM at AMS, Air France at CDG and you will see that the new IAG will still hold fewer slots by % at LHR.

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

I still cannot fathom why the BA holding company bid was not seen as anti-competitive .....

IAG's bid for BMI does still have to pass final regulatory approval. However, you can be reasonably sure that behind the scenes, even before the final takeover was announced, that IAG had made some preliminary enquiries to see if the purchase was likely to be approved.

[Human Factor]

...but if easyJet can turn around a 320 in 40 minutes by removing the cleaners from the operation then why can´t anyone else?

LHR has take-off and landing slots which do not automatically lend themselves to these short turnarounds. Adding BMI slots will help but it still won't give the flexibility to do this routinely.

[stakeknife]

40 mins? Try 25 mins!

[goerring]

merge or be damned

But I'm still having trouble realising how, if BA pilots vote "No", bmi can expand at their expense at a slot-constrained airport...unless the BA brand is to be sacrificed? If bmi is not going to be integrated, then are people really saying WW will grow bmi, or whatever the new entity will be called, at the expense of BA?

SR71,

From past experience I believe it would play out something like this...

IAG call for internal tenders for some short haul routes from LHR.

BA Express (BMI), newly created AOC holder (part of BA Group) wins hands down and begins operating with slots owned by BA Group. Plan is to expand BA Express over eg 5 years to expand into BA shorthaul routes through the internal tendering process.

New recruits are given BA Express contracts to sign. Some eg 50% of Left Hand seats in BA Express are ring fenced with BALPA agreement to allow BA SFO's a route to command ( seconded ) before bidding for long haul ( a sweetner to prevent industrial action in the transition ). BA short haul commanders offered longhaul with the newly aquired slots.

BA shorthaul shrinks, BA Express expands.

Eventually as supply of secondees in BA Express dries up commands become available for BA Express FO's, but not able to bid for long haul as BA long haul now recruits seperately for experienced long haul talent.

BA Brand suffers a little in the transition but everything still looks the same on short haul to Jo Public , same uniform, same tail fins, but costs are 2/3 rds, and long haul retains its reputation and expands.

In the end IAG would be very pleased, crew of both companies would be happy but have a nagging sense that they had just been shafted.