Is BA still a responsible Company?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooh, just watch all those who are sitting fat, dumb and 'happy' slagging off someone who has run into hard times!
from P2F, to the public sector, to the finance industry and beyond, what is needed right now is for people to be absolutely 100% responsible for the results of their own actions and to take everything that is coming to them. Then a few months or years down the road, other people will look back and say "hmmm, that didn't work out too well - maybe I should think about this", rather than "hey, its a risk, but what the hell, I've got nothing to loose because, mummy / daddy / bank / taxpayer will sort it out for me"
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 Driver, In nearly two pages, your posts have been about the most rational. A lot of the rest have just been as much emotional clap-trap as they have been accusing Charlie Girl of.
"BA are as responsible as you can get" -- BA are 'responsible': to themselves, FULL STOP!! (Caveat emptor!!)
"BA are as responsible as you can get" -- BA are 'responsible': to themselves, FULL STOP!! (Caveat emptor!!)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IAG bought BMI. Lufthansa drew a line in the sand with the EU and stated they would close down BMI if the deal with IAG was not ratified as it was loosing too much money per day. IAG stated from initial bidding that they did not want Regional or Baby, I have heard on the grapevine that all other interested parties said a similar thing.
LH threw the pensions of BMI into the regulator, no-one else as they agreed to take the pensions liability away from any purchaser.
BA pilots agreed cuts and productivity increases to bring BMI onto the BA mainline, the other option was a change of AOC and a re-writing of contracts which would probably have resembled 'Click Air' contracts. Very unpleasant for everyone, BMI mainline and BA. Would a 'BA Express' have worked? No-one knows for sure. Given the demographics of Heathrow and anyone with experience of operating out of it would probably tell you a resounding 'No'. That is now going to be a subject purely of conjecture.
350 Pilots now going through LPC/OPC conversions, aircraft being repainted and BMI routes/crews being integrated into the BA schedule as of the start of June. Not bad considering the job security in mainline BMI a few months back.
Where then have BA (Not IAG) acted without responsibility? Please, do tell.
LH threw the pensions of BMI into the regulator, no-one else as they agreed to take the pensions liability away from any purchaser.
BA pilots agreed cuts and productivity increases to bring BMI onto the BA mainline, the other option was a change of AOC and a re-writing of contracts which would probably have resembled 'Click Air' contracts. Very unpleasant for everyone, BMI mainline and BA. Would a 'BA Express' have worked? No-one knows for sure. Given the demographics of Heathrow and anyone with experience of operating out of it would probably tell you a resounding 'No'. That is now going to be a subject purely of conjecture.
350 Pilots now going through LPC/OPC conversions, aircraft being repainted and BMI routes/crews being integrated into the BA schedule as of the start of June. Not bad considering the job security in mainline BMI a few months back.
Where then have BA (Not IAG) acted without responsibility? Please, do tell.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA has only one interest here: LHR slot-grabs. This is nothing new, the likes of Brymon and BRAL/Manx were also discarded along the wayside as part of this slot-grab. The only difference is that bmi would have created employment law problems as their employees were actually based at LHR and flying the same types as BA. BA's only 'responsible' action here is to their shareholders as their actions have avoided expensive employment law litigation. The employees at baby and regional have not had that LHR/Airbus toehold so they were discarded along the wayside too. (There has however been none of this 'responsibility' towards the regional employees that kept those LHR slots 'warm' for bmi for all those years. They simply weren't on the Airbus so there wouldn't be the employment law problems, so they could be discarded along the wayside.)
However, the crews at BA are going to learn about this big Trojan Horse that they have just allowed in! BA (the company) are responsible to themselves, FULL STOP!!
However, the crews at BA are going to learn about this big Trojan Horse that they have just allowed in! BA (the company) are responsible to themselves, FULL STOP!!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trossie,
Welcome to the world of business. Of course BA has a responsibility to it's shareholders. It is no longer a nationalised company. The shareholders have been very patient for a long time in a very volitile business. They expect a share increase/dividend over the long term.
The only thing BMI had to offer of any value whatsoever was the slots. BMI Baby didn't have them neither did BMI regional. Without the slots BMI would have gone bust years ago thanks to very poor management. Unfortunately no one is in this business for the 'good' of the employee. No interested party was bidding for a loss making airline, they were bidding for lucrative LHR slots. Why does this surprise you? As far as any company goes the rest of the 'stuff' that comes with BMI is just baggage to be sorted out. It's not personal, it's business. The days of 'job for life' are over. Baby and Regional did not fit in any way, shape or form into any LHR carriers business model. This ain't a charity!
As for a Trojan Horse, time will tell but I think not. There are moves afoot to cure the ''bubble' principle in time and I'm sure those pilots coming across will find that the working conditions at BA are alot more stable and alot more 'plannable' than what they are used to. There are a few 'vitriolic' ex-BMI posters on here who believe they should have everything and a few vitriolic BA posters who believe they should have nothing, most of us are happy to accept a common middle ground.
Payscales wise? It was unfortunate but not entirely unexpected that a change was being put in place, pensionable pay hasn't changed at all but the 34 pay points (which have no effect on pensionable pay, that increases at the same rate it always has) mean longer to the top but no change in the top pay. Compare that to almost all of the Middle/Far east airlines and you'll still find it a pretty good deal. Certainly no where near a friend of mine flying the 777 for Cathay who is an A scale Captain flying with C scale co-pilots.
Welcome to the world of business. Of course BA has a responsibility to it's shareholders. It is no longer a nationalised company. The shareholders have been very patient for a long time in a very volitile business. They expect a share increase/dividend over the long term.
The only thing BMI had to offer of any value whatsoever was the slots. BMI Baby didn't have them neither did BMI regional. Without the slots BMI would have gone bust years ago thanks to very poor management. Unfortunately no one is in this business for the 'good' of the employee. No interested party was bidding for a loss making airline, they were bidding for lucrative LHR slots. Why does this surprise you? As far as any company goes the rest of the 'stuff' that comes with BMI is just baggage to be sorted out. It's not personal, it's business. The days of 'job for life' are over. Baby and Regional did not fit in any way, shape or form into any LHR carriers business model. This ain't a charity!
As for a Trojan Horse, time will tell but I think not. There are moves afoot to cure the ''bubble' principle in time and I'm sure those pilots coming across will find that the working conditions at BA are alot more stable and alot more 'plannable' than what they are used to. There are a few 'vitriolic' ex-BMI posters on here who believe they should have everything and a few vitriolic BA posters who believe they should have nothing, most of us are happy to accept a common middle ground.
Payscales wise? It was unfortunate but not entirely unexpected that a change was being put in place, pensionable pay hasn't changed at all but the 34 pay points (which have no effect on pensionable pay, that increases at the same rate it always has) mean longer to the top but no change in the top pay. Compare that to almost all of the Middle/Far east airlines and you'll still find it a pretty good deal. Certainly no where near a friend of mine flying the 777 for Cathay who is an A scale Captain flying with C scale co-pilots.
Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 24th May 2012 at 07:41.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing BMI had to offer of any value whatsoever was the slots
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: U.K.
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where then have BA (Not IAG) acted without responsibility? Please, do tell.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Welcome to the world of business." My point exactly! The problem with a lot of posts here is that they think of airlines as social entities and not as businesses.
BA is a rather 'slot hungry' machine and that is that. As ScotPilot has put it, the pilots don't matter other than for their position in that machine.
About that Trojan Horse: just watch how that machine gets started on using it! Ts&Cs will be the next 'litter' discarded along the wayside!
BA is a rather 'slot hungry' machine and that is that. As ScotPilot has put it, the pilots don't matter other than for their position in that machine.
About that Trojan Horse: just watch how that machine gets started on using it! Ts&Cs will be the next 'litter' discarded along the wayside!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Reading
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trossie,
I would agree with you on the trojan horse philosophy if it wasn't for the fact that we have compromised and compromised pretty much every year I have been in BA with regards to Ts and Cs (since 2005).
Before I joined it was the new money purchase pension and before that it was a change from box style payments to a flat hourly rate, etc.
I think BA has been changing faster than most in regards to constant changes in Ts and Cs.
If we had buried our heads in the sand as a workforce and refused change then the need for modernisation and a correction in Ts+Cs would be well overdue and the need for a trojan horse more important for management.
The airlines in which pilots refuse to make useful concessions are the ones that find themselves so far above the benchmark that management have no choice but to seek that trojan horse. BA is not one of them in my mind and only time will tell if this approach from our BALPA company council reps is the right one. Those that argue we should stand stronger and stop compromising with management may have a point but I think the alternative is management by passing us altogether. I hope this doesnt happen.
I would agree with you on the trojan horse philosophy if it wasn't for the fact that we have compromised and compromised pretty much every year I have been in BA with regards to Ts and Cs (since 2005).
Before I joined it was the new money purchase pension and before that it was a change from box style payments to a flat hourly rate, etc.
I think BA has been changing faster than most in regards to constant changes in Ts and Cs.
If we had buried our heads in the sand as a workforce and refused change then the need for modernisation and a correction in Ts+Cs would be well overdue and the need for a trojan horse more important for management.
The airlines in which pilots refuse to make useful concessions are the ones that find themselves so far above the benchmark that management have no choice but to seek that trojan horse. BA is not one of them in my mind and only time will tell if this approach from our BALPA company council reps is the right one. Those that argue we should stand stronger and stop compromising with management may have a point but I think the alternative is management by passing us altogether. I hope this doesnt happen.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots are a business 'asset' as long as they are required to fly the aeroplane.
They are also a business 'target' as far as costs, productivity and long term expenses are concerned. As with all parts of business, profitability is the primary concern. Forward projections based upon solid figures and costings is what entices institutional investment in an otherwise volitile business environment. Flight Crew can be a variable figure with long term costings past workable productivity gains with respect to pensionable liabilities for the company. Thus, a big target for accountants and managers. It will not change!
As soon as Pilots start understanding the business structure behind the constant pressure to reduce terms and conditions, accept that there will always be attacks on those conditions as it is symptomatic of the nature of the industry then we can get on with applying pressure in the other direction to sustain our position within the company. Pilots positions, costs and benefits must be justifiable within a business case, sellable to the institutional investors who demand a return for long term investment. Cost savings that look good on a spreadsheet don't often translate into the real world but the managers who propose them are always willing to try and push it.
As far as working for a 'responsible company' goes I find BA to be one of the best, certainly at least willing to engage employee groups in negotiation unless the specific employee group fails to negotiate. Those negotiations then have a direct bearing on the direction the company take, e.g. the integration of BMI.
As far as personal opinions and silly name bending of the personnel at the top of the company are concerned then you're welcome to your games but what you, personally, consider doesn't mean a thing. IAG controls the two companies, the companies proffer business plans to IAG for approval, IAG dictate direction, the relevant boards decide how they do it.
There is currently a lot of work going on behind the scenes on the integration of the BMI workforce. If you sit at the middle of the roster when the pilots join zippered you will still sit, relatively, in the same place afterwards. Short term annoyance, long term gain. Finally, in the current environment, as long as I still have a job, I'm happy. QPQ.
They are also a business 'target' as far as costs, productivity and long term expenses are concerned. As with all parts of business, profitability is the primary concern. Forward projections based upon solid figures and costings is what entices institutional investment in an otherwise volitile business environment. Flight Crew can be a variable figure with long term costings past workable productivity gains with respect to pensionable liabilities for the company. Thus, a big target for accountants and managers. It will not change!
As soon as Pilots start understanding the business structure behind the constant pressure to reduce terms and conditions, accept that there will always be attacks on those conditions as it is symptomatic of the nature of the industry then we can get on with applying pressure in the other direction to sustain our position within the company. Pilots positions, costs and benefits must be justifiable within a business case, sellable to the institutional investors who demand a return for long term investment. Cost savings that look good on a spreadsheet don't often translate into the real world but the managers who propose them are always willing to try and push it.
As far as working for a 'responsible company' goes I find BA to be one of the best, certainly at least willing to engage employee groups in negotiation unless the specific employee group fails to negotiate. Those negotiations then have a direct bearing on the direction the company take, e.g. the integration of BMI.
As far as personal opinions and silly name bending of the personnel at the top of the company are concerned then you're welcome to your games but what you, personally, consider doesn't mean a thing. IAG controls the two companies, the companies proffer business plans to IAG for approval, IAG dictate direction, the relevant boards decide how they do it.
There is currently a lot of work going on behind the scenes on the integration of the BMI workforce. If you sit at the middle of the roster when the pilots join zippered you will still sit, relatively, in the same place afterwards. Short term annoyance, long term gain. Finally, in the current environment, as long as I still have a job, I'm happy. QPQ.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would it be annoying to sit in the same place, relatively, in a zippered in roster system? Sounds neutral to me.
I thought you would move up a bit anyway, as bmi have quite a few junior Captains?
I thought you would move up a bit anyway, as bmi have quite a few junior Captains?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max,
The only annoyance, to be honest, would be toward the intial BAPLA issuance of 'No BA pilot would be disadvantaged'. Not toward the BMI guys who, like the rest of us, are only pawns in this game and do as they are told, albeit with a modicum of influence through the BMICC.
Once the ripples settle out though the overall situation with increased airframes, new routes etc. will be to all of our advantage, The BMI chaps/chapesses might well find being rostered to 850 hours and the workload a slight increase but the stability is far better.
BMI Baby and regional, whilst very unfortunate and a very good friend of mine works for BMI Baby soon to lose his job, were never a part of the buyout. Just as BMW wanted Rolls Royce and Mini they bought the whole and stripped and sold off what they didn't need. It happens all the time in business. Unfortunate but that is the way the world works.
The only annoyance, to be honest, would be toward the intial BAPLA issuance of 'No BA pilot would be disadvantaged'. Not toward the BMI guys who, like the rest of us, are only pawns in this game and do as they are told, albeit with a modicum of influence through the BMICC.
Once the ripples settle out though the overall situation with increased airframes, new routes etc. will be to all of our advantage, The BMI chaps/chapesses might well find being rostered to 850 hours and the workload a slight increase but the stability is far better.
BMI Baby and regional, whilst very unfortunate and a very good friend of mine works for BMI Baby soon to lose his job, were never a part of the buyout. Just as BMW wanted Rolls Royce and Mini they bought the whole and stripped and sold off what they didn't need. It happens all the time in business. Unfortunate but that is the way the world works.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely you aren't disadvantaged though? You are in the same relative place or higher, with more trip lines to choose from. Sounds like you are better off to me!
50 out of 100 with 75 lines of work
Or
60 out of 140 with 105 lines of work.
Which is better?
50 out of 100 with 75 lines of work
Or
60 out of 140 with 105 lines of work.
Which is better?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That assumes you are middle of the list, if your in the bottom 25% you just lost 300 places in seniority and the short term will probably cost 10 years of your career. The BACC sure now how to spin their members into giving the company what it wants with a cherry on top
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seniority wasn't mentioned anywhere; try to understand the question!
It is simply a question about your relative position on the bidline status list, nothing else implied or infered. If you are in the bottom 25% the question would read:
Would you rather be 80 out of 100 with 75 lines of work
or
105 out of 140 with 105 lines of work?
It is simply a question about your relative position on the bidline status list, nothing else implied or infered. If you are in the bottom 25% the question would read:
Would you rather be 80 out of 100 with 75 lines of work
or
105 out of 140 with 105 lines of work?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so if the company expands by 10%, and the 10% join above you you are 10 % worse off. If you gave up 5 or more years service with BMI to join BA 6-8 years ago you will now be relatively lower than guys you used to be relatively higher to at BMI. But I'm sure no one on the BACC will find themselves relatively worse off.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ron,
I think you will sleep easier at night if you simply consider where you are now, and where you would be under any proposed solution. Ignore where everyone else is, what you did before, who you used to compare yourself too. Are you going to be better or worse off under the point being debated?
I don't think there is an alternative that bumps you up a huge amount by sticking them all at the bottom of the status list. The alternative is that you remain exactly as you are now and the bmi guys get a chunk of the flying allocated to them such that you never see it; and you can't control the lines that are removed from your bid.
I'm sure your decision to move when you did will have other lasting benefits that bmi guys won't get premature access to. Add to that Max's demonstration that you are immediately better off in terms of your bidding position and you don't seem to have too much to worry about.
As for your last comment, are you inferring that the BACC are only in this for their own security/gain? Is that a view that is prevalent in your airline? Why don't you elect someone else?
I think you will sleep easier at night if you simply consider where you are now, and where you would be under any proposed solution. Ignore where everyone else is, what you did before, who you used to compare yourself too. Are you going to be better or worse off under the point being debated?
I don't think there is an alternative that bumps you up a huge amount by sticking them all at the bottom of the status list. The alternative is that you remain exactly as you are now and the bmi guys get a chunk of the flying allocated to them such that you never see it; and you can't control the lines that are removed from your bid.
I'm sure your decision to move when you did will have other lasting benefits that bmi guys won't get premature access to. Add to that Max's demonstration that you are immediately better off in terms of your bidding position and you don't seem to have too much to worry about.
As for your last comment, are you inferring that the BACC are only in this for their own security/gain? Is that a view that is prevalent in your airline? Why don't you elect someone else?
Last edited by look you; 29th May 2012 at 11:20.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately for a system based on seniority to work there has to be movement forward and ther has been very little of that at BA for 6 years. Now that BMI is joining BA all recruitment has been suspended.
So losing 300 places (which is more than the total number places I've moved up in 6 years) is coupled with no new joiners at BA for the foreseeable future.
I came to BA for opportunity and control over rostering and I've had 6 years of BL flying every weekend to somewhere no one wants to swap with and now there is no end in sight. Not dissadvantaged my arse.
So losing 300 places (which is more than the total number places I've moved up in 6 years) is coupled with no new joiners at BA for the foreseeable future.
I came to BA for opportunity and control over rostering and I've had 6 years of BL flying every weekend to somewhere no one wants to swap with and now there is no end in sight. Not dissadvantaged my arse.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm assuming you are on a long-haul fleet as I have been in BA for a year and have averaged two to three weekends off per month pretty much the whole time. With over 100 people beneath me on the Airbus list i'm pretty much guaranteed a tripline and e-maestro sorts out most niggles I have with my roster. If you are long-haul maybe you could consider a move back to the Airbus in order to get some control over your roster?