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

BA/bmi merger (was Virgin & Balpa - bmi next ?)

Wikiposts
Search
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/bmi merger (was Virgin & Balpa - bmi next ?)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 26th Mar 2012, 05:45
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would suggest that all BMI pilots consult with their CC to ascertain exactly what is meant by "negotiate" with BA. I do this not to cause trouble but to simply ask the people who represent you to be honest about what you can expect when BA "consults" with you - a very different word.

Aside from my earlier (and more relevant) point about the difficulties associated with the deal actually going through, BMI pilots need to be fully aware of what the takeover means for them.

Otherwise there may be much resentment and anger ahead. Simply because the BACC is doing it's job - representing the interests of it members.

In an excellent fashion over these last difficult few years I might add.

I hope the BMI CC have been as informative in their comms as the BACC have. They had be, to get us to vote in favour.

Google can provide you with plenty of info that you WANT to read, but I would suggest it it is the job of your reps to tell you what TUPE actually means. Or the Veuling type alternative mentioned earlier.

Again, I emphasise that I am not trying to wind anyone up. Just ask everyone to be fully informed by their Reps, so that unrealistic expectations do not lead to anger and resentment - and yes,that applies to both sets of crew.
Nevermind is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 05:53
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suggest BA take on the baby guys instead; much more likeable bunch of chaps/gals.
Quite unbelievable the amount of bitching and moaning from the mainline fraternity when they should be grateful for the opportunity of retaining their jobs. Best of luck BA, you're welcome to them.
pint'alfempty is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 06:47
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smile

BA pilots have a history of taking reductions in Ts and Cs to prevent redundancies.
It would be a hard sell by the BACC to BA pilots after what's been written here and elsewhere.
As for court cases including ones about seniority BA are pretty good at winning them or dragggging them out for years. Deep pockets will be needed.
sudden twang is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 07:11
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's another thought......

If the EU drag their feet any longer on this or require ridiculous concessions with regard to slot divestment. Could IAG simply say, ok rather than incorporate BMI into BA, we'll go with plan B and set BMI up as a BA Express, despite what the BA pilots voted on.

I know its certainly far from what BA pilots want but in terms of people's jobs and futures, it would probably mean that with the ensuing expansion within a BA Express, all BMI Group pilots could be employed rather than some/all facing possible redundancy?

I know many within the BMI Group (but mainly outside of Mainline) would rather be on Vuelling terms than unemployed.

As far as I see it, just because KW has given the BA pilots the option of a vote on the potential future, does not mean that U-turns can not be performed as the IAG management deem fit.

If this was to occur would there need to be any slot divestment whatsoever as the new Company and slots would be in IAGs portfolio and not BA's, therefore meeting the EUs monopoly concerns. After all, we don't count Iberia's slots within BA's do we.

As I say, another way of skinning this cat while it's still worth something!
On the Straight and Level is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 07:12
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: EC
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TUPE applies if BMI is to be TRANSFERRED into BA. TUPE does not apply if the 100% share ownership of BMI is taken up by IAG, and IAG leave BMI as a stand-alone, and do NOT TRANSFER BMI into another company.

The information we have is that IAG will take 100% share ownership of BMI and that BMI will at that point become ..... BMI. As the day before it when it was under Lufthansa ownership. As when it was owned by Bishop and was taken over by Lufthansa. There is no link with BA at all, apart from maybe the brand in due course, until BMI is TRANSFERRED into BA.

In the meantime BMI is a stand-alone company owned by IAG, with employees employed on BMI contracts. I'm puzzled as to how IAG can simply scrap a BMI contract and exchange it for a Vueling type one? What's to stop them then issuing BA pilots a Vueling type contract? Or Iberia pilots an Iberia Express type contract?
babybaby is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 07:19
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
I would suggest that all BMI pilots consult with their CC to ascertain exactly what is meant by "negotiate" with BA. I do this not to cause trouble but to simply ask the people who represent you to be honest about what you can expect when BA "consults" with you - a very different word.
For clarification, the legal requirement is for BA to "consult" not "negotiate". I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it but that's the legal position.
Tay Cough is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 08:00
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why don't bmi pilots put together a business plan to propose that IAG set up BA Express at LHR. I am sure the T&Cs would be industry minimum but as the business expands the only way will be up. No BA pilot would then be disadvantaged as there would be no merger and no scope issues either. Simples
Fuzzy112 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 09:34
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxon
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IF the integration goes ahead and I hope it does, the timescale for BA to start using the former BMI slots for LH is going to be a a number of years rather than immediatley. This means the idea of the new larger BA being short of pilots (due to a LH slot requiring more crews per hull) immediately is incorrect.

I'm in BA, I have my fingers well crossed for a good outcome for all.
Mabbs9 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 10:19
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nevermind wrote-

"Otherwise there may be much resentment and anger ahead. Simply because the BACC is doing it's job - representing the interests of it members. "

And why then the objection to the bmicc trying to represent its membership? Why the rush to get the bmicc to agree to terms before any contact with their potential employer?
lamina is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 10:40
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some facts draw your own conclusions...
The BACC know BA management well.
BA does not want strife with its current workforce.
BA wants the slots.
BA would if it could source pilots for those slots from the FPP
Reduced slots equals reduced number of pilots needed.
If BA allow a merge of seniority, it leaves them open for increased Ts and Cs above TUPE.
And finally,
The BA the BMICC will be consulting with are generally pilots of medium seniority about LH SFO on the MSL.
sudden twang is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 11:17
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LAMINA

I am not objecting in any way.

I am simply suggesting that people be aware of the cards that the company councils have been dealt by this process. Be informed, not just demanding.

If people have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved, then who do you think they are going to blame when it doesn't come to fruition?

The same colleagues they are going to be flying with for the rest of their careers.

I would hope that the "silent majority" in BMI and BA will come together amicably.
Nevermind is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 13:04
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nevermind

"be informed", and therein lies the problem from the bmi pilots perspective. There has been no communication from any parties to the bmi grunts, nothing, zip, etc etc. And for very good reason as the purchase is currently in limbo.

Whilst I understand the BA pilots perspective, I would appreciate the same sense of understanding from the BA community, not just thinly veiled threats from a vocal minority ( that also applies to the small minority of bmi hot heads!)

It's been a long six months and hopefully one way or another we will know more in the comming weeks.
lamina is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 13:29
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LAMINA

I wholeheartedly agree about the vocal hotheads. On both sides.

They sort of attract each other, while others try to choose their words more carefully.

Personally I try to post while bearing in mind we could be flying together soon.

I know it's a distracting time for everyone, particularly in BMI.
But once the dust has settled, I would hope that we can work together without resentment, and the potential distraction that can bring.
Nevermind is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 15:24
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LHR
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All this talk of the BACC trying to blackmail/trick the BMI-CC is a complete load of rubbish.

The BACC honestly believe that if agreement cannot be met between the two CCs then the BMI-CC will not fare well at all when they have their 'consultation' with BA management post merger.
There is certainly no attempt to trick BMI pilots into some sort of quick deal in order to benefit/protect BA pilots.

If you believe the BACC have it wrong, that's entirely your decision. But please make it an informed decision. Listen to everything both CCs have to say before dismissing it. I have frequently not liked reading the contents of the BACC's messages (due to the fact that they have altered my ideas/aspirations in line with reality) but I have yet to see them proven wrong. While they have certainly stated 'no BA pilot will be disadvantaged' (bar Staff Travel & LIFO), they still have a vested interest in ensuring the best possible deal for BMI pilots that doesn't disadvantage current BA pilots.

Good luck to all and fingers crossed redundancies (throughout the BMI group) can be kept to an absolute minimum.
BusDriverLHR is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 15:38
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LHR
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the takeover of BMI by IAG fails due to too high EU anti trust requirements, will the agreed concessions of (mostly future) BA pilots still stand?
In the short term, no.

In the long term, BA will still need BA-SH to become profit making and the 24-point payscale will still be an issue. So there would most likely be another negotiation, the results of which would be anyones guess.
BusDriverLHR is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2012, 18:12
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
If the EU drag their feet any longer on this or require ridiculous concessions with regard to slot divestment. Could IAG simply say, ok rather than incorporate BMI into BA, we'll go with plan B and set BMI up as a BA Express, despite what the BA pilots voted on.

I know its certainly far from what BA pilots want but in terms of people's jobs and futures, it would probably mean that with the ensuing expansion within a BA Express, all BMI Group pilots could be employed rather than some/all facing possible redundancy?
It's extremely unlikely. Given the BA pilots' vote and the way IR works between BA and the BACC, I would suggest that purely in a financial sense, it would cost IAG an awful lot more to renege on the deal than to continue with it. I dread to think what it would cost BALPA if this happened. Half their membership and probably two-thirds of their income would probably be a fair bet.

If it were to go ahead, "BA Express" would not be on anything vaguely resembling BMI terms. I have heard figures of 40% being bandied around as the levels of cuts compared to the current BMI position. This would eventually carry through to BA mainline and ultimately to every remaining airline in the UK as, like it or not, BA sets the national benchmark conditions to a certain degree.

From a personal point of view, I would rather leave the industry.
Tay Cough is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2012, 09:23
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London
Age: 42
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So let me get this straight. BA has to sub BMI £60 mil during the competitions process to keep it going (albeit secured on slots). At the moment BMI is mainly a shorthaul airline with only a preference system for bidding.
So under tupe BMI can’t be discriminated against, and rightly so.
Hypothetically you join at the bottom (in BMI seniority order) you have recognition for their length of service in BMi. Captains will keep command rights, BMI fo’s will get a proportion of BMi commands. You will be on blindlines, a preference system.
Your pay can only increase in this deal by coming onto the BA seniority list having BA T&C’s. You may even get bidding rights based on your BMi DoJ which is a massive increase in your lifestyle with triplines.
What am I missing here? I would love to fly Concorde and a Spitfire as much as some BMi people want longhaul commands and seniority, but because I want it doesn’t mean its going to happen.
About wanting to share on the expansion the slots will bring, you will benefit, more recruitment and that will push you up the list. But be under no illusion, you don’t own the slots, BMi do, soon BA will. BA will do with them what they want, BA pilots will fly them, which is only good for all BA pilots. The fact that they used to be BMi slots or who evers is irrelevant.
Under the above situation you have not been discriminated against, they have an improvement in their T&C’s and have a better rostering system with eMaestro.
Go and ask your colleagues from BMi baby and Regional and some people in the dole cue and see what they think, do you really think you have a bad deal?
For the record it is not a merger, BA is buying it from Lufty before they pull they plug. It is a take over. I know this wont be popular but some people (on both sides of the fence) seem to be living in their own little worlds banging tables with their fists shouting “I want I want I want” then putting their fingers in their ears and singing “la la la” when they hear something they don’t like.
LHRPony is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2012, 19:55
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: france
Age: 62
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's off

Just heard from a very reliable source from within the Commission that stage 1 approval has NOT been granted and the purchase is off.

Lufty are saying officially to the EU that they will ground the airline end of March. IAG have ownership of 24 slots but don't have to fly them til the winter season.

You heard it here first folks.
BASSAwitch is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2012, 00:38
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Courchevel
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For the record IAG applied to the EU regulators to 'merge' BA and BMI LHRPony so it is fairly certainly a merger. The BAcc wishful thinking that they can 'stitch-up' the pilots coming from BMI pre-merger will fall foul of their expectations once the deal is approved. Maybe the EU won't approve the merger and then your headache is over? However, post the merger being approved it's going to be a whole different gambit. All the fantasy outcomes of the BAcc will be considered and most probably swept aside by BA management who will be the deciders in all of this wrangling. They'll go with their legal advice and the most sensible business solution with regard to pilots. There's an urgency amongst the BAcc to clench a deal pre-merger that will arouse suspicions amongst any serious thinkers. Here's hoping on a positive result on Friday, it'll be for the good of IAG and all pilots who fly for them.
Count von Altibar is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2012, 03:43
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LHR
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For the record IAG applied to the EU regulators to 'merge' BA and BMI LHRPony so it is fairly certainly a merger.
BA is making decent profit and BMI is making (for it's size) phenomenal losses. Part of the proposal made to the IAG board by the BA board was that the purchase of BMI would be 100% funded by BA (and hence profits BA pilots helped make). This is a successful airline 'taking over' an unsuccessful airline that is for all intents and purposes, bankrupt. How this should affect the relative negotiating positions of the two pilot groups is perhaps up for debate but any notion that this is a 'merger' is ridiculous.

The BAcc wishful thinking that they can 'stitch-up' the pilots coming from BMI pre-merger will fall foul of their expectations once the deal is approved.
Again, the BACC has no hidden agenda and is not trying to stitch anyone up. I would strongly suggest you will fare out better by heeding their advice. However, that is a choice you will have to make. If you/BMI-CC choose not to listen to the BACC and things do not work out as you had wished, I hope you remember the advice that was offered and ignored.
BusDriverLHR is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.