Iberia to Lose 4500 jobs - 25 airframes
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, over the long term with LH expansion then the time to command for those already in the company will improve.
Last edited by GS-Alpha; 14th Jan 2013 at 10:15.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand,
Whilst I agree that BALPA didn't sell it very well and perhaps has 'glossed over ' a few negatives I think you are pushing too soon.
The company is over-borne with Airbus. Until some light is shed on what happens at Gatwick (i.e. Airbus to replace the 737) the company will have to try and pull down the number of Airbus from approx 135 back down to pre-merger levels.
This takes time. Overall, projecting over a 20-25 year period the time to command should improve. Remeber there are some in the company who went straight from 2 rings to 4 and some who waited 17 years +.
As with everything it's all a numbers and time game.
Whilst I agree that BALPA didn't sell it very well and perhaps has 'glossed over ' a few negatives I think you are pushing too soon.
The company is over-borne with Airbus. Until some light is shed on what happens at Gatwick (i.e. Airbus to replace the 737) the company will have to try and pull down the number of Airbus from approx 135 back down to pre-merger levels.
This takes time. Overall, projecting over a 20-25 year period the time to command should improve. Remeber there are some in the company who went straight from 2 rings to 4 and some who waited 17 years +.
As with everything it's all a numbers and time game.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have increased the number of commands by 100 out of the original 1500, then the command pool has increased by 6.6%. If the retirement rate is ~5%/yr then commands generated goes from 75 to 80 commands/yr. Unless of course the the bmi captains are comparatively younger than ba captains. Also the excess bmi commands mean any retirements of bmi captains whilst there is an excess will be given on a ratio of 1:1 ba:bmi with the ba sfo getting first dibs. Once some balancing takes place there will presumably be more opportunities for ba sfos that were comparatively not there before. What there won't be is an instant reduction of the time to command by X(arbitrary no) years, as some seem to expect.
Also from the latest iag forecast of ba airbus hulls this is increasing over and above the current number with potentially the iberia order being diverted to ba as they shrink iberia down.
Also from the latest iag forecast of ba airbus hulls this is increasing over and above the current number with potentially the iberia order being diverted to ba as they shrink iberia down.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P Style
I'd say your logic is flawed. If there are 1000 commands in the company and you increase that to 1100 commands due to long haul expansion then yes, 100 people get their commands quicker (but only by the amount of time it would have taken for 100 of the original 1000 to retire). Once the commands have stabilised at 1100, you are then at exactly the same time to command again, because you still have to wait for people to retire. I suppose if any of those 100 are older than the 1000 who currently have commands, then you could argue that when they retire, it creates a new command rather than a new FO position, but the overall principle remains. The time to command for the vast majority of BA pilots has not changed. The BACC very much sold the deal to the BA pilot community on the basis that expansion means shorter time to command for all, and that simply is not true.
Incidentally, I'm in no rush for a command. I believe if you have an average 40 year career, it stands to reason that you should normally expect about half of that time to be in the right hand seat, unless huge expansion takes place. I do however have a problem with people voting through cost cutting or productivity increases because they have been led to believe that overall they will be better off, when the reality is that they will never see the 'promised' benefits, because they simply do not exist.
I'd say your logic is flawed. If there are 1000 commands in the company and you increase that to 1100 commands due to long haul expansion then yes, 100 people get their commands quicker (but only by the amount of time it would have taken for 100 of the original 1000 to retire). Once the commands have stabilised at 1100, you are then at exactly the same time to command again, because you still have to wait for people to retire. I suppose if any of those 100 are older than the 1000 who currently have commands, then you could argue that when they retire, it creates a new command rather than a new FO position, but the overall principle remains. The time to command for the vast majority of BA pilots has not changed. The BACC very much sold the deal to the BA pilot community on the basis that expansion means shorter time to command for all, and that simply is not true.
Incidentally, I'm in no rush for a command. I believe if you have an average 40 year career, it stands to reason that you should normally expect about half of that time to be in the right hand seat, unless huge expansion takes place. I do however have a problem with people voting through cost cutting or productivity increases because they have been led to believe that overall they will be better off, when the reality is that they will never see the 'promised' benefits, because they simply do not exist.
Last edited by GS-Alpha; 14th Jan 2013 at 11:56.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And so the whingers and moaners carry on! Their world is not the rosy apple that it is entitled to be, meanwhile our IAG partners are in meltdown!
How did they get there? And, perhaps more to the point, why are BA pilots not in the same boat? Should the BACC have taken their example from the retards at BASSA and overseen the self destruction of their own careers?
Apologies, I forget, the entire reason for the existence of BA is to provide cosy, guaranteed Captain positions for all those who feel entitled.
FFS
How did they get there? And, perhaps more to the point, why are BA pilots not in the same boat? Should the BACC have taken their example from the retards at BASSA and overseen the self destruction of their own careers?
Apologies, I forget, the entire reason for the existence of BA is to provide cosy, guaranteed Captain positions for all those who feel entitled.
FFS
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbel - It's been said before but if you wind the timescale out long enough you'll eventually find times when everyone might find some benefit. The reality is many current BALPA members won't be around in 25 years time, and the effects of this deal will be lost in the rush for commands come 2016. People have been very patient since 2006, and watched the BACC sit on their hands pleading 'what can we do?' whilst enjoying their good fortune. This deal is a kick in the nuts, and they're not even glossing over the negatives, they're in total denial about it!
Bengerman - it's attitudes like yours that have dragged the BALPA forum down to where it is. You've done 24 years and you've got your command. As far as you're concerned the BACC is there to serve your needs and everyone else can
off. It certainly raised my eyebrow on the forum when a trainer posted that the attitudes displayed by some skippers towards FOs could become a CRM issue. The reason BA pilots are where they are compared to other IAG pilots is because we've had stronger management who've made bigger cuts over the years, not through any great cunning by the BACC. We've seen as many industrial cuts as most other employee groups and enjoy most if our protections due to regulatory requirements and self-funding. Giving things away isn't rocket science and isn't to be lauded, despite what Kim will tell you. The people who whine most about command 'entitlement' are those skippers who stayed on beyond 55, yet the law guarantees them no such entitlement, only the right to remain employed. One can imagine the cacophony of grief if BA decided they could remain employed, but not in the command position they believe they're entitled to! Anyway, shouldn't you be busy lobbying the BACC to change the staff travel onloads so your Klingons can displace junior FOs on staff travel? It's gathering pace you know!
Bengerman - it's attitudes like yours that have dragged the BALPA forum down to where it is. You've done 24 years and you've got your command. As far as you're concerned the BACC is there to serve your needs and everyone else can
off. It certainly raised my eyebrow on the forum when a trainer posted that the attitudes displayed by some skippers towards FOs could become a CRM issue. The reason BA pilots are where they are compared to other IAG pilots is because we've had stronger management who've made bigger cuts over the years, not through any great cunning by the BACC. We've seen as many industrial cuts as most other employee groups and enjoy most if our protections due to regulatory requirements and self-funding. Giving things away isn't rocket science and isn't to be lauded, despite what Kim will tell you. The people who whine most about command 'entitlement' are those skippers who stayed on beyond 55, yet the law guarantees them no such entitlement, only the right to remain employed. One can imagine the cacophony of grief if BA decided they could remain employed, but not in the command position they believe they're entitled to! Anyway, shouldn't you be busy lobbying the BACC to change the staff travel onloads so your Klingons can displace junior FOs on staff travel? It's gathering pace you know!
Last edited by Hand Solo; 14th Jan 2013 at 12:29.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand,
Couldn't you leave?
What about the attitude of FO's towards other FO's? FO's towards skippers? We won't mention the attitude towards the CC at BA and vice versa....
Look at the landscape for pilots outside BA and wonder why the internecine squabbling within BA causes such consternation in those pilots who do not inhabit the hallowed walls of T5....
PS: I'm unemployed.
Couldn't you leave?
It certainly raised my eyebrow on the forum when a trainer posted that the attitudes displayed by some skippers towards FOs could become a CRM issue.
You've done 24 years and you've got your command. As far as you're concerned the BACC is there to serve your needs and everyone else can f*** off.
The words may be longer but it's still become a personality cult in which the leader and his actions cannot be questioned without bring forth an outpouring of opprobrium by his lackeys.
Look at the landscape for pilots outside BA and wonder why the internecine squabbling within BA causes such consternation in those pilots who do not inhabit the hallowed walls of T5....
PS: I'm unemployed.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SR71. There is no squabbling day-to-day, just noise on a forum from a minority.
The vast majority at BA just get on with it, we can all do sums, we mostly know where we stand.
The vast majority at BA just get on with it, we can all do sums, we mostly know where we stand.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say your logic is flawed. If there are 1000 commands in the company and you increase that to 1100 commands due to long haul expansion then yes, 100 people get their commands quicker (but only by the amount of time it would have taken for 100 of the original 1000 to retire). Once the commands have stabilised at 1100, you are then at exactly the same time to command again, because you still have to wait for people to retire
Last edited by P Style; 14th Jan 2013 at 18:06.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure this subject has a lot more mileage and I, for one, would love to continue it but I think we have hijacked this thread enough (which is after all, to discuss Iberia's state of affairs, and not ours). I will confess to be partly at fault and it is always a danger when you include comparisons such as the one I did.
Hand it won't take rocket science to work out who I am (in fact a friend has txt me unmasking me already after only a few posts) so you will know I am the least sycophantic BALPA member out there. I was never scared to argue with Il Duce and did so often on WC and on the BMI thing. In fact (clue) I was one of the most vociferous no voters at the time and wrote a few long posts.
In any case, as I say, this is really about the state of affairs at Iberia and not about BA. ALl I will say is that I know that if I was working for Iberia, I would rather BALPA be looking after my interests than SEPLA.
Hand it won't take rocket science to work out who I am (in fact a friend has txt me unmasking me already after only a few posts) so you will know I am the least sycophantic BALPA member out there. I was never scared to argue with Il Duce and did so often on WC and on the BMI thing. In fact (clue) I was one of the most vociferous no voters at the time and wrote a few long posts.
In any case, as I say, this is really about the state of affairs at Iberia and not about BA. ALl I will say is that I know that if I was working for Iberia, I would rather BALPA be looking after my interests than SEPLA.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps that's an apposite time to return the thread to IB matters then. I'll buy you a beer downroute Relight and we'll shoot the breeze then. Perhaps after the next election we'll live in a dictator free world? See you in the cave!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: over the hill
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps that's an apposite time to return the thread to IB matters then.
….Of course Il Duce will tell you that if BA hadn't bought bmi as an entire entity we couldn't get the slots for expansion, yet if you actually talk to any of the leadership team it appears they never held that view. They were remarkably relaxed about having any takeover deal blocked as Lufthansa would have folded bmi immediately and BA could, in their view, have picked up a sizable chunk of the slots without any of the liabilities….
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting words into my mouth there skiprat. I don't make the big business decisions, but lets not forget that your good fortune comes at the expense of the FOs of the company that wasn't bankrupt. Your CC outmanoeuvred ours and fair play to them. I'll vote for IG if he stands for election.
And back to Iberia.
And back to Iberia.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW,
Just a point of order here: I think HS is referring to BASSA reps rather than BASSA members. It's only really the reps that have steered BASSA members in the wrong direction and got everyone in the mess they now find themselves.
Aporrizaje:
I'm sorry if this sounds patronising, it is not intended to be but a little history lesson is in order here:
The "deal" BA pilots are on is a much worse deal than the one we had 11 years ago. It all started with a "new" pay deal in 2001. The state of affairs pre-2001 was such that many F/O's were taking home more than new Captains: they could do 3 Naritas in a month and be taking home more than a paypoint 20 Captain. Indeed the most senior F/O's were better off remaining in the RHS than gaining commands, unless they had 3 years left to serve, in which the pension consideration came into play. The allowances for the premium trips were spread out and the allowances were flattened across the whole network and put on basic wages. The old system meant that by hour 12 of the flight F/O's were getting some £120/hr FHR. Thus a NRT or SIN was worth well over £1,000 a trip.
There were many, especially yr 7-8 F/O's who, having languished at the bottom of their respective fleet's lists and were just beginning to draw the honey from the system, were robbed of the fruits of their longevity by this change.
Unfortunately, the much vaunted advantage of this new deal was to prove a double edged sword. The advantage was that people could now bid for lifestyle instead of money. What they didn't realise at the time was that, having no advantage to flying to Japan (and other otherwise unpopular destinations) over weekends and public holidays, people did just that: they bid for lifestyle and created huge work coverage problems for BA. They were able to cover the trips mostly, but at a huge cost of 1.5 x the trip's worth (including flying hours - to give you an idea: a 10 yr F/O's Hourly rate is about £70 x 1.5 x (flying hours) eg SIN = 25hrs = £2625 + allowances!! A tidy sum!!). Draft at BA got to unacceptable levels and lives were constantly disrupted because BA didn't want to employ anyone else.
There is a lot more to that story but it lead to a review of work coverage and many changes were implemented because BA (quite reasonably, I suppose) wanted to get the 1043 credit hours worth that we are contracted to provide out of us (that includes hours credited for leave etc). The changes were quite drastic and many will tell you that on, for instance, a part time contract of around 75%, they are working as hard today as they were 7 years ago, for LESS money!
Our latest work coverage re-jig and the BMI absorbtion saw 1/2 hour shaved off our Sch 10 which is the framework of our agreement and the consequence of that has been 3 man HKG/RIO/GRU/BKK which may not sound like much, until, that is, you have to endure one having enjoyed a 4 man one. The return from those places in the winter can extend beyond 13 hours!
Most of the changes were not greeted enthusiastically at the time but everything was explained to us in a manner we could understand. As I have said many times I was not convinced and the predictions offered as alternatives always seemed to me to be pandering to management. My life seemed to get more and more difficult as a result.
Posterity has proved me wrong and has vindicated Il Duce and his cohorts. Il duce, for all his faults has an incredible capacity for understanding and balancing facts and reality which many of us do not possess. He also works very hard on our behalf at the expense of family and life in general.
What I'm trying to say, Aporrizaje, (and BASSA) is that if you wanted IAG/BA to have offered you what looks like a great deal, you would have had to begin some 10 years ago. And before anyone suggests it, I am not for one moment suggesting that BA pilots have saved the company but we have made it so that we are not part of the problem, hence why they don't come after us in the same manner. It's no good after 10 years of decline in the industry and no change in your T&C's to say, "Oh no, we want that deal there", you have to recoup 10 years worth of savings as well; the 10 years worth you weren't willing to give up when you were in a stronger position.
When they come to us, they come knowing that they have to get their story straight, they know the BACC will see through lies and deceptions (because they know their business) but most importantly, they know that if there is a problem, the company council will work with them.
Just a point of order here: I think HS is referring to BASSA reps rather than BASSA members. It's only really the reps that have steered BASSA members in the wrong direction and got everyone in the mess they now find themselves.
Aporrizaje:
I'm sorry if this sounds patronising, it is not intended to be but a little history lesson is in order here:
The "deal" BA pilots are on is a much worse deal than the one we had 11 years ago. It all started with a "new" pay deal in 2001. The state of affairs pre-2001 was such that many F/O's were taking home more than new Captains: they could do 3 Naritas in a month and be taking home more than a paypoint 20 Captain. Indeed the most senior F/O's were better off remaining in the RHS than gaining commands, unless they had 3 years left to serve, in which the pension consideration came into play. The allowances for the premium trips were spread out and the allowances were flattened across the whole network and put on basic wages. The old system meant that by hour 12 of the flight F/O's were getting some £120/hr FHR. Thus a NRT or SIN was worth well over £1,000 a trip.
There were many, especially yr 7-8 F/O's who, having languished at the bottom of their respective fleet's lists and were just beginning to draw the honey from the system, were robbed of the fruits of their longevity by this change.
Unfortunately, the much vaunted advantage of this new deal was to prove a double edged sword. The advantage was that people could now bid for lifestyle instead of money. What they didn't realise at the time was that, having no advantage to flying to Japan (and other otherwise unpopular destinations) over weekends and public holidays, people did just that: they bid for lifestyle and created huge work coverage problems for BA. They were able to cover the trips mostly, but at a huge cost of 1.5 x the trip's worth (including flying hours - to give you an idea: a 10 yr F/O's Hourly rate is about £70 x 1.5 x (flying hours) eg SIN = 25hrs = £2625 + allowances!! A tidy sum!!). Draft at BA got to unacceptable levels and lives were constantly disrupted because BA didn't want to employ anyone else.
There is a lot more to that story but it lead to a review of work coverage and many changes were implemented because BA (quite reasonably, I suppose) wanted to get the 1043 credit hours worth that we are contracted to provide out of us (that includes hours credited for leave etc). The changes were quite drastic and many will tell you that on, for instance, a part time contract of around 75%, they are working as hard today as they were 7 years ago, for LESS money!
Our latest work coverage re-jig and the BMI absorbtion saw 1/2 hour shaved off our Sch 10 which is the framework of our agreement and the consequence of that has been 3 man HKG/RIO/GRU/BKK which may not sound like much, until, that is, you have to endure one having enjoyed a 4 man one. The return from those places in the winter can extend beyond 13 hours!
Most of the changes were not greeted enthusiastically at the time but everything was explained to us in a manner we could understand. As I have said many times I was not convinced and the predictions offered as alternatives always seemed to me to be pandering to management. My life seemed to get more and more difficult as a result.
Posterity has proved me wrong and has vindicated Il Duce and his cohorts. Il duce, for all his faults has an incredible capacity for understanding and balancing facts and reality which many of us do not possess. He also works very hard on our behalf at the expense of family and life in general.
What I'm trying to say, Aporrizaje, (and BASSA) is that if you wanted IAG/BA to have offered you what looks like a great deal, you would have had to begin some 10 years ago. And before anyone suggests it, I am not for one moment suggesting that BA pilots have saved the company but we have made it so that we are not part of the problem, hence why they don't come after us in the same manner. It's no good after 10 years of decline in the industry and no change in your T&C's to say, "Oh no, we want that deal there", you have to recoup 10 years worth of savings as well; the 10 years worth you weren't willing to give up when you were in a stronger position.
When they come to us, they come knowing that they have to get their story straight, they know the BACC will see through lies and deceptions (because they know their business) but most importantly, they know that if there is a problem, the company council will work with them.
Last edited by relightengine; 17th Jan 2013 at 10:10.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and just to clarify: the illustration above (SIN draft payment) is not what we are payed for a rostered trip; the hourly rate under normal circumstances is part of your wages. Also, that was what we USED to get payed for a draft trip, it is now 1.12 in real terms. Yet another change due work coverage.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they come to us, they come knowing that they have to get their story straight, they know the BACC will see through lies and deceptions (because they know their business) but most importantly, they know that if there is a problem, the company council will work with them.
Last edited by 4468; 17th Jan 2013 at 12:42.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aporrizaje
What your illustration fails to show, is the moment when capacity at Barajas was doubled in 2006. I strongly suspect that had a far greater influence on IB's plunge from profits than anything connected with the British (though of course as with much of the improved infrastructure in Spain, British taxpayers part-financed it.) Iberia have been eaten alive since then.
Good luck.
What your illustration fails to show, is the moment when capacity at Barajas was doubled in 2006. I strongly suspect that had a far greater influence on IB's plunge from profits than anything connected with the British (though of course as with much of the improved infrastructure in Spain, British taxpayers part-financed it.) Iberia have been eaten alive since then.
Good luck.
Last edited by 4468; 17th Jan 2013 at 17:30.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aporrizaje, Iberia hasn't been in decline for ten years but the industry has. Unfortunately for you you live in an area whose market has been systematically chipped away at by the likes of Easyjet and Ryannair for a good many years. Iberia also had one important market, South America. The dangers of putting all your eggs in one or two baskets (EU/SAM) is now evident. Good CEO's would have seen this coming and good union leaders would have too...