Is BALPA fit for purpose
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: england
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is BALPA fit for purpose
If your Airline has a seniority based culture this thread effects you!
You may have heard that Flybe plans to make 179 out of 600 pilots redundant.
You are probably not aware that the 179 are the most senior in the company
(People with up to 25 years loyal Flybe service)
Flybe have a seniority based culture. Their policies state that redundancies will be carried out using LIFO (Last IN First Out) regardless of seat, fleet or base. The management unilaterely (without union or employee agreement) withdrew these policies just before announcing the redundancies, saying
1. We can't afford to do it that way
2. We think it would infringe age discrimination laws
Flybe have a mixed fleet (Prop and Jet). All the senior pilots (Jet) have been put at risk of redundancy. luckily for them no prop pilots have been.
If Balpa allow Flybe to get away with disregarding the policies that all pilots have based their career decisions on it will set a national president! So this effects pilots everywhere!
I'm not convinced that Balpa have the backbone for this fight, which is why I'm seeking to apply pressure on them by starting this thread.
I believe the time has come to test LIFO in the courts, so that all airlines will know if its an enforceable principle.
The Flybe LIFO issue could be one of Balpa's finest moments or it could prove them to be spineless (unfit for purpose).
Flybe are in consultation with Balpa now and it will be concluded mid Jan.
If you feel this issue is important then please watch what happens closlely and comment on this thread.
I shall reserve my judgement until the end but hope to applaud them. Otherwise I shall find myself in a tribunal, with many others, at our own expense wondering why we paid all those Balpa subscriptions.
You may have heard that Flybe plans to make 179 out of 600 pilots redundant.
You are probably not aware that the 179 are the most senior in the company
(People with up to 25 years loyal Flybe service)
Flybe have a seniority based culture. Their policies state that redundancies will be carried out using LIFO (Last IN First Out) regardless of seat, fleet or base. The management unilaterely (without union or employee agreement) withdrew these policies just before announcing the redundancies, saying
1. We can't afford to do it that way
2. We think it would infringe age discrimination laws
Flybe have a mixed fleet (Prop and Jet). All the senior pilots (Jet) have been put at risk of redundancy. luckily for them no prop pilots have been.
If Balpa allow Flybe to get away with disregarding the policies that all pilots have based their career decisions on it will set a national president! So this effects pilots everywhere!
I'm not convinced that Balpa have the backbone for this fight, which is why I'm seeking to apply pressure on them by starting this thread.
I believe the time has come to test LIFO in the courts, so that all airlines will know if its an enforceable principle.
The Flybe LIFO issue could be one of Balpa's finest moments or it could prove them to be spineless (unfit for purpose).
Flybe are in consultation with Balpa now and it will be concluded mid Jan.
If you feel this issue is important then please watch what happens closlely and comment on this thread.
I shall reserve my judgement until the end but hope to applaud them. Otherwise I shall find myself in a tribunal, with many others, at our own expense wondering why we paid all those Balpa subscriptions.
The company are quite correct that using just LIFO could be deemed illegal under age discrimination law if someone involved took the company to court.
During a similar process at bmi some years ago the BALPA CC came up with a system which slightly skewed the list based on things like disciplinary warnings and a few other factors which I can't honestly remember off the top of my head.
The result was almost LIFO but the company lawyers were happy with it. Of course it didn't get challenged in court, the people who were made redundant took it on the chin and left without a fight as far as I know so we will never know if the system they came up with was legal or not.
Good luck to all at Flybe, I know all too well what an uncertain future feels like and its not nice at any time let alone just before Christmas.
During a similar process at bmi some years ago the BALPA CC came up with a system which slightly skewed the list based on things like disciplinary warnings and a few other factors which I can't honestly remember off the top of my head.
The result was almost LIFO but the company lawyers were happy with it. Of course it didn't get challenged in court, the people who were made redundant took it on the chin and left without a fight as far as I know so we will never know if the system they came up with was legal or not.
Good luck to all at Flybe, I know all too well what an uncertain future feels like and its not nice at any time let alone just before Christmas.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposed redundancies are extremely bad news.
Changes to legislation have resulted in statutes that all companies have to adapt to and comply with. In many cases this will result in changes of previous policies that might otherwise be unlawful. Obviously, a policy has no supremacy to a law, particularly in a court.
Many companies are now having to amend their employment contracts and general terms and conditions to take into account these changes. LIFO isn't necessarily a violation of the Equality act 2010, however when used in isolation it may well be. Many companies have now adopted a "matrix" of criteria to be applied in the event of redundancies, so that the requirements of the act are best complied with.
I think you mean "precedent" but it doesn't matter. The statute has supremacy. You are of course correct in that it does affect pilots (and other staff) in most companies. BALPA (as a trade union and collective of its membership) would be the same as an individual in these circumstances. You would take legal advice. If that advice is that you have a weak case (however much it affects you, or you disagree,) then you must decide what you wish to do. Plenty of people have spent a great deal of money fighting cases that were doomed from onset. A trade union (using their own legal advice) would likely make their decisions in the realisation that it was the collectives money they were using to embark on that course of action.
Have they indicated to you what the advice they have received is? Presumably the negotiations taking place include various options and potential compromises. A bad time, and I wish you the best possible outcome.
Changes to legislation have resulted in statutes that all companies have to adapt to and comply with. In many cases this will result in changes of previous policies that might otherwise be unlawful. Obviously, a policy has no supremacy to a law, particularly in a court.
Many companies are now having to amend their employment contracts and general terms and conditions to take into account these changes. LIFO isn't necessarily a violation of the Equality act 2010, however when used in isolation it may well be. Many companies have now adopted a "matrix" of criteria to be applied in the event of redundancies, so that the requirements of the act are best complied with.
If Balpa allow Flybe to get away with disregarding the policies that all pilots have based their career decisions on it will set a national president! So this effects pilots everywhere!
Have they indicated to you what the advice they have received is? Presumably the negotiations taking place include various options and potential compromises. A bad time, and I wish you the best possible outcome.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 938
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big unknown, due to the usual lack of facts to be found here, is what BALPA are doing behind the scenes in terms of discussions with FlyBe but also in terms of future legal action. It is inconceivable to me that they have not taken legal advice and they will undoubtedly fight any case they can realistically win. I can only commend Bealzebub's excellent post and wish all those affected the very best.
I can't see it as being illegal, it happens everyday in the public and private sector. A position is made redundant it has nothing to do with the person filling that position. I know of friends even family that have been made redundant due to the position they were filling being made redundant with them serving many years in the company.
If the jet jobs are to go then that's just the way it is.
LIFO seems the fairest but is not a legal requirement.
If the jet jobs are to go then that's just the way it is.
LIFO seems the fairest but is not a legal requirement.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South East
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of q400 pilots currently at risk. Mostly jet pilots at risk though as the aircraft are being parked up full time (instead of the usual 70%).
Itch read your contract it states that the company reserve the right to make redundancies and use fleet as a discriminator. Policy F said the opposite. Policy F was made redundant.
Anyhow there are some jobs around if you have jet time or command time, take the paltry redundancy and run before a volcanic apd powered snow storm makes everyone redundant...
Itch read your contract it states that the company reserve the right to make redundancies and use fleet as a discriminator. Policy F said the opposite. Policy F was made redundant.
Anyhow there are some jobs around if you have jet time or command time, take the paltry redundancy and run before a volcanic apd powered snow storm makes everyone redundant...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itch
No Prop pilots have been put at risk? I can assure you they have. I am looking at my at risk letter as I type this, and the measly £2700 I'll get paid upon exiting the door.
No Prop pilots have been put at risk? I can assure you they have. I am looking at my at risk letter as I type this, and the measly £2700 I'll get paid upon exiting the door.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company are quite correct that using just LIFO could be deemed illegal under age discrimination law if someone involved took the company to court.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itch,
Hardly a precedent.
As Max Angle mentions, this issue arose over 5 years ago in bmibaby. Were other BALPA members not paying attention to what happened there?
Anyone relying on LIFO in a redundancy scenario these days is in for a surprise.
The world doesn't work like that anymore.
Again, if the meaning of the word "Solidarity" meant that all pilots, across airline borders, stood together, then maybe a defence of LIFO would gain traction, but, again, that isn't the way the world works....lamentably in my opinion.
That isn't BALPA's fault, its yours, and mine and that of every other pilot.
Lets take some responsibility for the **** we're in rather than look to blame someone else.
Hardly a precedent.
As Max Angle mentions, this issue arose over 5 years ago in bmibaby. Were other BALPA members not paying attention to what happened there?
Anyone relying on LIFO in a redundancy scenario these days is in for a surprise.
The world doesn't work like that anymore.
Again, if the meaning of the word "Solidarity" meant that all pilots, across airline borders, stood together, then maybe a defence of LIFO would gain traction, but, again, that isn't the way the world works....lamentably in my opinion.
That isn't BALPA's fault, its yours, and mine and that of every other pilot.
Lets take some responsibility for the **** we're in rather than look to blame someone else.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Lgw
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a Flybe pilot but think the purpose of this thread is directed at UK pilots in general & maybe we should all stick together & get Balpa to start looking after our interests instead of their own . I am a supporter of the idea of a Union but Balpa is no longer fit for purpose .
If enough people support their colleagues at Flybe & withhold their union subscriptions for a period of time , Balpa may start looking after the British Airline Pilot again like Airline unions on the continent seem to be able to do for their members.
Good luck to all at Flybe.
If enough people support their colleagues at Flybe & withhold their union subscriptions for a period of time , Balpa may start looking after the British Airline Pilot again like Airline unions on the continent seem to be able to do for their members.
Good luck to all at Flybe.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here, there, everywhere
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A major part of the issue inside of flybe is that we used to have a lovely policy in place to deal with such matters, the document formally known as Policy F.
The thing about Policy F, was that all the pilots agreed with it, so did Balpa and the company. It was enshrined in the same document as our scheduling, pay etc.
Despite having years to amend, or change the company did nothing. Policy F sat dormant.
When it came down to using it as a tool in redundancy, we all discovered that the cost of retraining Embraers drivers back onto the Dash made the policy entirely unworkable. Chopping the bottom of the list only gets rid of the cheap FO's, and the cost of retraining would bankrupt the company.
It's also true, some of the senior guys are paid as much as 4 FO's combined.
Sitting in the bottom third of the list, I have to say it feels pretty lowsy to think I might be 'safe', but another friend or colleague with years more service might be out. That doesn't sit right.
I've been working angles myself to leave, but without meaningful jet time, or command time on the Dash I'm stuck.
The thing about Policy F, was that all the pilots agreed with it, so did Balpa and the company. It was enshrined in the same document as our scheduling, pay etc.
Despite having years to amend, or change the company did nothing. Policy F sat dormant.
When it came down to using it as a tool in redundancy, we all discovered that the cost of retraining Embraers drivers back onto the Dash made the policy entirely unworkable. Chopping the bottom of the list only gets rid of the cheap FO's, and the cost of retraining would bankrupt the company.
It's also true, some of the senior guys are paid as much as 4 FO's combined.
Sitting in the bottom third of the list, I have to say it feels pretty lowsy to think I might be 'safe', but another friend or colleague with years more service might be out. That doesn't sit right.
I've been working angles myself to leave, but without meaningful jet time, or command time on the Dash I'm stuck.
I feel for all of the Flybe pilots whether they have been made redundant or not. They are about to face up to the realities of the seniority system that has governed their lives since the time they joined that company.
Suddenly, the bubble has burst and 179 of them have to go.
So, who has to go?
That is indeed the question.
I have been deeply invoved in this question on at least three occasions during my long aviation career.
The first time that it affected me was when I was a DC-10 captain in Laker. We were told that we were going to have to cut back, and, because of my seniority number (nothing to do with my ability or my needs to feed my family) I was going back into the right seat.
I was a pretty young man in those days and my first thought was why don't they get rid of the old expensive captains and keep me?
As it turned out, Fred went bust before I had to make the move.
I then went to work in the US of A and got to know ALPA and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters quite well. Out there, it is quite vicious. Your seniority number is all that matters. It is EVERYTHING. So, if the company needs less pilots in the winter, then you will either move back to the right seat or get furloughed at the drop of a hat (mind you, I did learn how to use the Railway Labor Act of 1928 or whatever it was to my benefit).
My third experience of the seniority system was when I became No.1 on the seniority list in my airline which operated around 40 aeroplanes. It was actually a very pointless position to achieve because by the time they get round to firing the last forty or so pilots then their is no airline left.
I am always very wary of the call for total solidarity in taking industrial action for the simple reason that few people can afford the privilege but a lot of the others are quite simply stuffed financially and can't afford the luxury of protest.
I have vivid memories of coming out of one of one the UAA DC-10 simulators in Denver and airlining back to Miami. At the airport there was still a line of Continental pilots in uniform protesting about the take over of Continental by Frank Lorenzo. This was three years after the take over and they were still protesting. The depressing fact was that Continental were still flying every single flight that they had done before the unpleasantness.
In other words, they had found a sufficient number of pilots who didn't give a toss for the senior pilots and were quite prepared to fly for the new reduced terms.
So, there is nothing new this side of the universe.
Therefore, despite BALPA, there are going to be a lot of pilots who are going to have to seriously look at their own problems and decide whether to take a stand on the seniority position or not.
Many of them might wish that they belonged to the Teamsters rather than the rather ineffectual BALPA.
Suddenly, the bubble has burst and 179 of them have to go.
So, who has to go?
That is indeed the question.
I have been deeply invoved in this question on at least three occasions during my long aviation career.
The first time that it affected me was when I was a DC-10 captain in Laker. We were told that we were going to have to cut back, and, because of my seniority number (nothing to do with my ability or my needs to feed my family) I was going back into the right seat.
I was a pretty young man in those days and my first thought was why don't they get rid of the old expensive captains and keep me?
As it turned out, Fred went bust before I had to make the move.
I then went to work in the US of A and got to know ALPA and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters quite well. Out there, it is quite vicious. Your seniority number is all that matters. It is EVERYTHING. So, if the company needs less pilots in the winter, then you will either move back to the right seat or get furloughed at the drop of a hat (mind you, I did learn how to use the Railway Labor Act of 1928 or whatever it was to my benefit).
My third experience of the seniority system was when I became No.1 on the seniority list in my airline which operated around 40 aeroplanes. It was actually a very pointless position to achieve because by the time they get round to firing the last forty or so pilots then their is no airline left.
I am always very wary of the call for total solidarity in taking industrial action for the simple reason that few people can afford the privilege but a lot of the others are quite simply stuffed financially and can't afford the luxury of protest.
I have vivid memories of coming out of one of one the UAA DC-10 simulators in Denver and airlining back to Miami. At the airport there was still a line of Continental pilots in uniform protesting about the take over of Continental by Frank Lorenzo. This was three years after the take over and they were still protesting. The depressing fact was that Continental were still flying every single flight that they had done before the unpleasantness.
In other words, they had found a sufficient number of pilots who didn't give a toss for the senior pilots and were quite prepared to fly for the new reduced terms.
So, there is nothing new this side of the universe.
Therefore, despite BALPA, there are going to be a lot of pilots who are going to have to seriously look at their own problems and decide whether to take a stand on the seniority position or not.
Many of them might wish that they belonged to the Teamsters rather than the rather ineffectual BALPA.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told that the wage balance was way out with the top third of pilots taking over 2/3rds of the wage bill.
I can't see the Q400 fleet fighting for the Jet pilots, they would be fighting to make themselves redundant.
There won't be a lot BALPA can do about it either if the rest of the pilots are just happy to have a job.
I can't see the Q400 fleet fighting for the Jet pilots, they would be fighting to make themselves redundant.
There won't be a lot BALPA can do about it either if the rest of the pilots are just happy to have a job.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not at Flybe.
I take no joy in what is happening at Flybe.
What I will say is that if you think there will be universal or even popular support for any action to protect those at the top of a system of seniority which the current crop at the bottom can never hope to enjoy the fruits of then you are living in a dream world.
Perhaps this salutary tale might make a few others start to question the "fairness" of seniority systems.
The ones who argue hardest for seniority systems are the ones who don't believe that they will ever have to experience starting again at the bottom as many of us have had to do.
p.s. no, BALPA is not fit for purpose. Us junior guys have known it for a while, now it turns out it is no good for the senior guys either.
I take no joy in what is happening at Flybe.
What I will say is that if you think there will be universal or even popular support for any action to protect those at the top of a system of seniority which the current crop at the bottom can never hope to enjoy the fruits of then you are living in a dream world.
Perhaps this salutary tale might make a few others start to question the "fairness" of seniority systems.
The ones who argue hardest for seniority systems are the ones who don't believe that they will ever have to experience starting again at the bottom as many of us have had to do.
p.s. no, BALPA is not fit for purpose. Us junior guys have known it for a while, now it turns out it is no good for the senior guys either.
Last edited by Tourist; 7th Dec 2013 at 23:09.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIFO
As one of the pilots on the jet fleet at risk of redundancy I have to say that there needs to be some system in place to protect loyalty surely? If all airlines are just allowed to make people redundant at the drop of a hat everytime they move or remove an airframe then none of us can sleep soundly in our beds at night can we?
The point about LIFO is that when you join an airline you know you're vulnerable - but its the price you pay for getting a job. As you stay with an employer and advance your career you expect that your loyalty to the firm will result in increased job security. The crucial point is that both the Flybe written policy F and also the pilot employment contract state quite plainly that LIFO will be used as the basis for any redundancies and indeed this fact has been widely accepted by both management and the pilot community. It is this sudden shifting of the goalposts with no union negotiation that is so abhorrent and why so many of the affected pilots are considering legal action. The original poster is right though - as a membership we have all paid our subs over many years (and BALPA membership isn't cheap). Now at a time when the very basis of our contract is being attacked we need BALPA to fight for us in court if necessary. As individual pilots facing redundancy we should not be forced to engage in legal action on our own - this is a battle BALPA must fight if they wish to protect the employment rights enshrined in the written policy - and its outcome has ramifications in all airlines.
Retraining people may not be as expensive as the company likes to claim. They are currently paying for simulators, line trainers and TRI's whether they are using them or not. Many of us still hold valid Q400 type ratings and last flew it within 2 or 3 years. The truth is that a couple of sim sessions and an LPC would see many back on line and a bit of live training could follow. We're not talking about the company having to provide a full type rating for 150 people. In addition as a compromise I suspect many would be prepared to contribute to the training cost if it secures their job - however that isn't an option that is currently being offered...
The point about LIFO is that when you join an airline you know you're vulnerable - but its the price you pay for getting a job. As you stay with an employer and advance your career you expect that your loyalty to the firm will result in increased job security. The crucial point is that both the Flybe written policy F and also the pilot employment contract state quite plainly that LIFO will be used as the basis for any redundancies and indeed this fact has been widely accepted by both management and the pilot community. It is this sudden shifting of the goalposts with no union negotiation that is so abhorrent and why so many of the affected pilots are considering legal action. The original poster is right though - as a membership we have all paid our subs over many years (and BALPA membership isn't cheap). Now at a time when the very basis of our contract is being attacked we need BALPA to fight for us in court if necessary. As individual pilots facing redundancy we should not be forced to engage in legal action on our own - this is a battle BALPA must fight if they wish to protect the employment rights enshrined in the written policy - and its outcome has ramifications in all airlines.
Retraining people may not be as expensive as the company likes to claim. They are currently paying for simulators, line trainers and TRI's whether they are using them or not. Many of us still hold valid Q400 type ratings and last flew it within 2 or 3 years. The truth is that a couple of sim sessions and an LPC would see many back on line and a bit of live training could follow. We're not talking about the company having to provide a full type rating for 150 people. In addition as a compromise I suspect many would be prepared to contribute to the training cost if it secures their job - however that isn't an option that is currently being offered...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If all airlines are just allowed to make people redundant at the drop of a hat everytime they move or remove an airframe then none of us can sleep soundly in our beds at night can we?"
Unfortunately that has been the case in the non-airline world for 150 years - technology changes and the staff take the hit - not many traditional printers, or hand loom weavers around......................
PS I suspect the "re-training" issue is a red herring - they just want/have to cut the numbers of staff fast - retaining people to have to cut them anyway - no chance
Unfortunately that has been the case in the non-airline world for 150 years - technology changes and the staff take the hit - not many traditional printers, or hand loom weavers around......................
PS I suspect the "re-training" issue is a red herring - they just want/have to cut the numbers of staff fast - retaining people to have to cut them anyway - no chance
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Policy F
Spandex,
The company state that Policy F is non-contractual
The lawyers state that written policy becomes contractual if accepted by both parties over a period of time.
In short I think the issue at hand might be which is cheapest for the company - negotiating some kind of retraining programme/part time working compromise maybe even part subsidised by the employee or face the unknown quantity that is a large class action lawsuit with 150 people that could result in bad press, prolonged litigation and a significant compensation payment.
The company state that Policy F is non-contractual
The lawyers state that written policy becomes contractual if accepted by both parties over a period of time.
In short I think the issue at hand might be which is cheapest for the company - negotiating some kind of retraining programme/part time working compromise maybe even part subsidised by the employee or face the unknown quantity that is a large class action lawsuit with 150 people that could result in bad press, prolonged litigation and a significant compensation payment.
