BA Pilots Ponder BMI Proposal
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future for (mixed fleet) due to 900 hour rule, is shorthaul and short longhaul.
There are also rumours of KL moving to MF - and guess what? The box payments (?) which netted crew members £1000 for a trip wouldn't be there - it would be a 48 hour trip (£120) with onward flight to SYD codeshared to Qantas. There will be expansion eastwards in the next few years - and since new contracts will be MF, the crew costs will be low.
At the moment, large sections of MF are in furlough, due to 900 hours - and it costs BA about £1000 per month per crew member. The fact that most of the crew can't live on that salary is a matter of supreme indifference both to the company and to the union - who don't realise that part of the reason that MF aren't joining in droves is because they literally HAVE NO MONEY. The terms and conditions for WW I guess mean that they are unlikely to reach 900 hours. But any routes that the company can realistically change from long WW trips to short MF trips, without starting a strike, they will do so. Small tokens are being tossed to MF - day off after overnight back from Africa etc - but it's still going to be incredibly easy to get 900 hours flying out of them for around £16000.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of people who are prepared to work - but it's in spite, rather than because of Ts and Cs - and a fair number in ignorance. A noticeable number leave after a few months to go back to previous jobs. There are few airlines, charter, loco or other, that would expect you to survive on £900 per month - especially based in London - because they have rostered all of your hours in 10 months. MF Ts and Cs are below market rate - "because they can". If bmi cabin crew are offered a choice between their existing Ts and Cs and becoming part of BA with MF Ts and Cs, I would think pretty carefully about what you want from their job ....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'There are a lot of willing candidates who are prepared to work on those Ts and Cs interviewing in droves at The Rivers: just remember how naff the charter / lo-co Ts and Cs are and even MF looks good.'
However 'naff' the charter and low cost t&c's are what people count on these days is how much they will take home at the end of the month....both low cost and charter are taking home MUCH more than MF.
However 'naff' the charter and low cost t&c's are what people count on these days is how much they will take home at the end of the month....both low cost and charter are taking home MUCH more than MF.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tomkins,
I agree with you.
Fatehunter,
Charter crews are well paid and have considerably more time off than the rest. I know a few "junior" crew with a charter airline and some MF cabin crew too. The charter lot take home about £200 per month (minimum) more.
I agree with you.
Fatehunter,
Charter crews are well paid and have considerably more time off than the rest. I know a few "junior" crew with a charter airline and some MF cabin crew too. The charter lot take home about £200 per month (minimum) more.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: in the 1950's on a VC-10 at MAN Ringway
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midland cabin crew current T&C are good, and pays fairly well. We are under no illusion that MF terms are better. Many of us would be unable to live on the current MF pay!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midland cabin crew current T&C are good, and pays fairly well. We are under no illusion that MF terms are better. Many of us would be unable to live on the current MF pay
'say again ,over'
'say again ,over'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point of order if I may: What is commonly known as 'Scope' applies ONLY to BA owned and operated aircraft (of 100 seats or more) flying to/from LHR/LGW. It most definitely does NOT apply to the 'brand' - see BA Cityflyer or Open Skies. Nor, crucially does it apply to 'slots'!!!
Much yet to play out here I fear!!!
PS: As we all know, IAG have chosen to totally ignore Iberia's more binding Scope clause regardless! I see no reason why they would behave differently in London, should they decide it was in their interests so to do!
Scope is dead. Safety in numbers is the only game here.
Much yet to play out here I fear!!!
PS: As we all know, IAG have chosen to totally ignore Iberia's more binding Scope clause regardless! I see no reason why they would behave differently in London, should they decide it was in their interests so to do!
Scope is dead. Safety in numbers is the only game here.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for sticking to the point, the one that the Count is making is that he clearly has a hard on for BA pilots and BALPA. Nothing that he posts on here has content that evades his bilious excretions where BALPA is concerned.
Perhaps a recent legal judgement that allows an independent expert access to BASSA forum archives, the result of which may, or may not, prove embarassing, has generated another acid attack in the stomach of the count.
Either way BA pilots have voted in such a way as to encourage BMI pilots to have a more optimistic view of the future, bearing in mind that nothing is set in stone.
The statement, "Unlike BALPA, there is no conflict of interest within BASSA's membership." is clearly rubbish proved by the huge numbers of BASSA cabin crew who worked through the recent dispute, in addition, BASSA leadership regularly trumpeted the "more than 10,000 cabin crew in BASSA mantra" which, on the count's own admission seems to have dwindled to a mere
"7000 of which stuck together ".
Get the flea out of your backside, count, and try to do something positive!
Perhaps a recent legal judgement that allows an independent expert access to BASSA forum archives, the result of which may, or may not, prove embarassing, has generated another acid attack in the stomach of the count.
Either way BA pilots have voted in such a way as to encourage BMI pilots to have a more optimistic view of the future, bearing in mind that nothing is set in stone.
The statement, "Unlike BALPA, there is no conflict of interest within BASSA's membership." is clearly rubbish proved by the huge numbers of BASSA cabin crew who worked through the recent dispute, in addition, BASSA leadership regularly trumpeted the "more than 10,000 cabin crew in BASSA mantra" which, on the count's own admission seems to have dwindled to a mere
"7000 of which stuck together ".
Get the flea out of your backside, count, and try to do something positive!
Still to be agreed/decided. There's a 90 day consultation starting between BALPA and the BMI crew with the overriding TUPE regulations to be complied with.
As there are 3300 BA and around 300 BMI whatever is decided is unlikely to have a huge impact on things - although many will huff and puff regardless of which solution is proposed.
As there are 3300 BA and around 300 BMI whatever is decided is unlikely to have a huge impact on things - although many will huff and puff regardless of which solution is proposed.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The law does not say that BALPA have to consult bmi crew, nor does it stipulate 90 days for TUPE consultations, nor are any such consultations starting now.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, don't comment if you don't know what you are talking about.
There is no requirement for 90 days consultation under TUPE. Consultation yes, 90 days, no!
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
I'm curious to know what BA pilots think thay have actually voted for. I mean, they are mostly saying that bmi will be "integrated" but what do they think that actually means?
There is no requirement for 90 days consultation under TUPE. Consultation yes, 90 days, no!
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
I'm curious to know what BA pilots think thay have actually voted for. I mean, they are mostly saying that bmi will be "integrated" but what do they think that actually means?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'I doubt IAG would circumvent the law?'
Probally not but whats happening at KLM/AF has probally got Walsh thinking a little.
KLM was never a good tie up with AF.I just hope he keeps IB well away from BA.
Probally not but whats happening at KLM/AF has probally got Walsh thinking a little.
KLM was never a good tie up with AF.I just hope he keeps IB well away from BA.