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

[Hand Solo]

The bmi/BMed merger is not relevant. You are entirely missing the point that BA is not obliged to merge the two pilot seniority lists. It can easily run the bmi list as a standalone fleet. I doubt bmi could do that with the BMed merger. BA can run this whole show without any input from BALPA whatsoever. See the wood, not the trees.

[757_Driver]

read what hand solo said again.

BA do not HAVE to merge the lists. BMI can operate as a standalone fleet, with TUPE allowances and not a penny more.

The previous BA / BACC ballot had 2 very strong red lines. BA said "NO COST INCREASE FROM BMI CURRENT COST" - that means you ain't gonna get teh BA paypoint or senioroity. thats a clear position from BA and IAG, not from the BACC.
BACC said "no ba pilot to be disadvantaged", thats a bit more nebulous, but fairly clear too - and the 10 million savings get thrown back off the table if thats not met.

I have no idea about employment law, and neither do 99.99999% of people on here. I would imagine that if you forced a merger of the lists, you would probably have to do it in an equitable manner - but thats not gonna happen. My view is that either BMI DECIDE to join that list at a negotiated and agreed position, or they don't join it at all, there is going to be nothing forced about it. Thats a completely diffreent kettle of fish from previous positions.

[Human Factor]

So you freely admit that if bmi pilots don't do it your way they will be prejudiced in any merger scenario?

First, it is not "our" way (I presume you mean the BACC), it is IAG's way.

Second, the future of BMI pilots will not be prejudiced in any way. The least the BMI pilots will get is TUPE which legally guarantees they will not be disadvantaged in any way. Incidentally, this is the same TUPE which legally guarantees that existing BA pilots will not be disadvantaged either, which will no doubt be why the BACC chairman continues to refer to the phrase.

However, if the "least" is all that BMI pilots wish to see (current BMI T&Cs on a ringfenced fleet), please don't engage with the BACC. If you want more than that, start talking.

...and be exposed to BA's cost-cutting zeal.

Believe me, having been through many years of this, they're very good at it.

[Megaton]

BALPA isn't perfect but we've seen how our more militant colleagues in BASSA/Unite have fared over the last few years and it hasn't been pretty. Even if some BMI pilots do leave BALPA in a fit of pique over their new terms and conditions, the effect will be much less than 3000+ disaffected BA pilots. Join RMT by all means and watch your Ts & Cs wither.

[Human Factor]

A lower cost outfit operating side by side, that is pandoras box for BA pilots!

No.

That one has been taken care of by the binding vote taken by the BA pilots who have agreed to make efficiency savings to ensure this won't be a threat. In return for those ongoing savings, BA have agreed that there will be no further recruitment to the BMI entity, therefore Pandora's box is permanently closed.

The unrest and costs generated by reneging on this deal would be significantly greater than those saved by expanding the BMI entity. As a result, I don't believe that the £10m figure is arbitrary.

[stormin norman]

'Will they still know their leave for Xmas in May?

Spare a thought for those BMI staff who will have no job at all at the end of this process, never mind leave.

[skip.rat]

[QUOTE]The previous BA / BACC ballot had 2 very strong red lines. BA said "NO COST INCREASE FROM BMI CURRENT COST" - that means you ain't gonna get teh BA paypoint or senioroity. thats a clear position from BA and IAG, not from the BACC./QUOTE]
The bit about Paypoints has been understood, in my opinion; the bit about seniority seems a little less clear - how would (assuming an agreement between the CCs was reached) it matter one jot to BA/IAG? It's been quoted to death on this forum that seniority & DOJ are not as closely related as some might think - why would there be an implicit cost to the airline if Joe Bloggs was No. 100 or 1000 on the list?

Also, with reference to the post above from Bad Bear, I would echo the desire to know the details of the two options that the bmi pilots will need to choose between (if the many posts on this subject on this & the BALPA forums are correct).

Some of which are:

The 'joining the bottom of the list' option -
What would be your DOJ?
What would be your PP? (would existing salary be maintained until your PP caught up?

The 'Ring fenced' option -
Does the 'ring fenced' group move up over time w.r.t. position on the MSL for bidline, etc?

[Super Stall]

I honestly believe this whole episode could have been avoided with a little bit of expectation management.

This could have been presented to BMI pilots as a huge win for all (financial secure airline, fleets, bidding, rock solid rostering, dodging the job loss bullet). Instead, for reasons I cannot fathom, somebody somewhere in BMI has raised expectations to stratospheric levels.

This realigning of perspectives is causing some anger and foot stamping but to be honest your CC should have begun this process earlier.

Trust me, the BACC is VERY proactive in bringing BA members down to earth when needed. We don't always like the message but it needs to be said all the same.

BA do not make idol threats. They will not hesitate in sidelining a group of employees at the first sign of trouble (look no further than BASSA). They can do without the agro and will be absolutely certain on their legal position.

I suggest the BMICC take the helping hand offered before they enter the lions den.

[Human Factor]

The bit about Paypoints has been understood, in my opinion; the bit about seniority seems a little less clear - how would (assuming an agreement between the CCs was reached) it matter one jot to BA/IAG? It's been quoted to death on this forum that seniority & DOJ are not as closely related as some might think - why would there be an implicit cost to the airline if Joe Bloggs was No. 100 or 1000 on the list?

I would imagine that if the legal position would mean that if a BMI pilot were to join at 100 on the seniority list, therefore reflecting BMI length of service, BA would therefore also have to recognise that from a pay point of view, which is what they want to avoid. This is largely moot anyway as TUPE does not require this.

Also, with reference to the post above from Bad Bear, I would echo the desire to know the details of the two options that the bmi pilots will need to choose between (if the many posts on this subject on this & the BALPA forums are correct).

Some of which are:

The 'joining the bottom of the list' option -
What would be your DOJ?
What would be your PP? (would existing salary be maintained until your PP caught up?

The 'Ring fenced' option -
Does the 'ring fenced' group move up over time w.r.t. position on the MSL for bidline, etc?

Unfortunately, all of the above will also be moot unless the BMICC and BACC engage before talking to BA. If common sense comes to pass, what is likely is something akin to the following. Please do not take this as gospel:

Your DoJ for seniority purposes will be an arbitrary date. For example, 1st June 2012. Your BMI seniority will reflect the order in which you "join" on this date. i.e. the most senior BMI pilot will be top of the pile.

You will notionally be on pp1 for your seat however, your will retain your current BMI pay (TUPE) until your BA paypoint overtakes it.

The "ring fenced" option as discussed here is your worst option. In essence you will retain your BMI T&Cs related to TUPE and that is it. You will not be on a MSL "in order to progress upwards upon over time". This is why you need to engage with the BACC.

There are a number of points which can be negotiated upon (for example, perhaps monthly bidding rights or access to "BMI commands") but that relies entirely upon BMI reps having a sensible discussion with BACC reps before they go together with a plan to BA.

Does anyone see a pattern forming here?

[Super Stall]

Skiprat,

how would (assuming an agreement between the CCs was reached) it matter one jot to BA/IAG? It's been quoted to death on this forum that seniority & DOJ are not as closely related as some might think - why would there be an implicit cost to the airline if Joe Bloggs was No. 100 or 1000 on the list?

Because the 'no BA pilot disadvantaged' position enabled BA to secure £10m in savings from the pilots. That and the fact it doesn't want to anger 3,300 employees.

[Say again s l o w l y]

If anyone needs proof of the self-serving nature of pilots and the "I'm alright jack" attitude which has decimated the T and C's of everyone thanks to PTF and other such awful things, just read this thread.

There's some interesting things here, but an awful lot of vitriol and rhetoric bubbling beneath the surface.

It doesn't bode well.

[Count von Altibar]

Sadly for you guys the BMICC isn't taking the helping hand before they enter the den, they'll be talking directly to BA management as they've got virtually nowhere in negotiations with the BACC. This mess will be sorted by BALPA head office/BA management hopefully with a more reasonable BACC.

[stakeknife]

It looks like another American West / US Air Battle of lists.

[Super Stall]

'There are none so deaf as those who will not hear'

Back in two weeks.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Sadly for you guys the BMICC isn't taking the helping hand before they enter the den, they'll be talking directly to BA management as they've got virtually nowhere in negotiations with the BACC

I'm going to predict you will be very disappointed with the outcome. Good luck all the same.

[160til4]

Union democracy?

Just as a thought to all who (quite rightly in my view) say that BALPA should represent all pilots equally. Well if the views, rights, aspirations and expectations of each pilot were given equal weighting regarding the resolution of BMI/BA seniority lists post integration/merger, then would not the wish of the many (3000+) naturally outweigh those of the few (300+)? If the wishes of the 10% rode roughshod over those of the 90%, then where is fairness, equal representation and union democracy? Just making the point, as some seem to have the view that if they don`t get what they want, then BALPA must be biased towards BA pilots when in fact they may be demonstrably treating all equally? Ten to one is a big ratio to balance!
Also, as the threat of legal action is being raised by some, could someone please tell me if the seniority system per se has ever been challenged (successfully or otherwise)?

[skip.rat]

Because the 'no BA pilot disadvantaged' position enabled BA to secure £10m in savings from the pilots. That and the fact it doesn't want to anger 3,300 employees.

Jeez, trying to extract facts here is like trying to pull teeth!

-Read the post! the thrust of that statement assumed an agreement between the CCs. I'm not approaching this from an emotive stance, I merely would like to form a picture of the two scenarios likely to be offered. Whichever option is chosen needs to be done with a full spread of the facts, which are sadly lacking. Is it any surprise that emotions will start to run high in an information vacuum? (oh, and another question - will it be an individual or the whole pilot group that chooses, or votes for whichever option?)

[stakeknife]

This has been looked at by Balpa and a MSL is open to legal challenge in any company in this scenario. No guarantee of either side winning but I do know the NEC will probably have to make the call on what is deemed 'correct' and not on what favours what group.

Btw, I am not involved in either group but hv bn involved in looking into such scenarios. Good luck to all involved.

[9 minutes to landing]

Everyone keeps talking about TUPE, but the one thing that has not been mentioned is that the Transfer of Undertakings may not apply if a company can prove an Economic or Commercial reason why it should not apply.

Don't assume TUPE will be a part of this merger - i wouldn't put it past the world's favorite to use either clause!

[Jumpjim]

Stakenife, if you replace the word "Seniority" with "Loyalty" and BA now have a master loyalty list reflecting employees dedication to the company over the last few decades, with their "Loyalty" number reflecting time served, I think you'll find it is entirely ALLOWABLE under current employment law, and a legal challenge would be dubious at best.

BA's MSL, or MLL if you prefer,doesn't discriminate on age as we have all age groups at every stage of flying within BA. What legal basis would you have for challenging it?