BA Direct Entry Pilot.
Joined: Sep 2008
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 940
Likes: 57
From: Scotland
For those of you wishing to join, suggestion is in the vicinity of 300 DEPs needed in 2019, both short haul and long haul. DEPs certainly to the 777 and 787, I am guessing the 747 too but not the 350/380.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 88
From: N/A
Current three crew trips: CPT, JNB, YVR, LAX, PHX, NBO, SAN, MIA, LAS, DEN, SFO
..all heavy both ways giving you artificially higher seniority because the rest of us will be fighting over the operating seats on routes like CPT, PHX, SAN, SFO etc
So yeah, I’d be making the most of it too!
..all heavy both ways giving you artificially higher seniority because the rest of us will be fighting over the operating seats on routes like CPT, PHX, SAN, SFO etc
So yeah, I’d be making the most of it too!
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
From: Under the table
Not sure what you mean by FO and SFO, you'll all start at FO.
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 66
Likes: 25
From: UK
As as has been mentioned elsewhere though, bottom of a very long seniority list on seriously uncompetitive money....who would want it?!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
I’m making an assumption here 
but I read DF’s post as asking if your posting on arrival on BA depended on whether you were coming to BA having been a low hours FO vs. having been a higher hours SFO..
Agree with all in your reply.
but I read DF’s post as asking if your posting on arrival on BA depended on whether you were coming to BA having been a low hours FO vs. having been a higher hours SFO..Agree with all in your reply.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 54
Likes: 1
From: UK
Living within 15 mins of LGW with young children still a while away from school age I’m happy to take it. I’m well aware of life at the bottom at LGW (It wasn’t long ago) and it isn’t all that bad to be honest. As long as weekends off isn’t absolutely paramount things are actually not too bad at all. Very personal decision obviously but while not competitive it is still more money. If I really don’t like it I can apply for part time and be in the same financial position as I am now or; 5 years down the line, bid RHS LH.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 73
From: UK
And that, JS6, is precisely why terms and conditions for the junior end of the command scales will not improve. All the while people are prepared to do the job for below par reward, BA will certainly allow them to do so. I understand your train of thought, that it is more money for you so why not, but at the same time BA are laughing all the way to the bank. It is the same argument people who constantly pick up overtime make. “I might as well be earning more money for the same work.” However, it means BA get away with employing fewer pilots so everyone has to work harder and again, BA are laughing all the way to the bank. We are our own worst enemy. The managers are not stupid.
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 54
Likes: 1
From: UK
And that, JS6, is precisely why terms and conditions for the junior end of the command scales will not improve. All the while people are prepared to do the job for below par reward, BA will certainly allow them to do so. I understand your train of thought, that it is more money for you so why not, but at the same time BA are laughing all the way to the bank. It is the same argument people who constantly pick up overtime make. “I might as well be earning more money for the same work.” However, it means BA get away with employing fewer pilots so everyone has to work harder and again, BA are laughing all the way to the bank. We are our own worst enemy. The managers are not stupid.
I have made a personal choice for my family and I to be in the seat I want to be in at the base of my choice if (read when) the industry takes a downward turn and the current levels of movement stop.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: London
Hang on, I haven’t reinvented the pay scales. I and you alike knew what they were when we joined. Where you consider it acceptable to take command (if available) on those scales is personal choice. If a LH command suddenly became very junior would you be accusing them of lowering T’s & C’s for taking it? Out of interest at what pay point does it suddenly become acceptable to take command?
I have made a personal choice for my family and I to be in the seat I want to be in at the base of my choice if (read when) the industry takes a downward turn and the current levels of movement stop.
Secondly any attempt by junior guys in increase their pay would almost certainly be met with horror by many within the BA community who have been very vocal on various forums that any attempt to improve their conditions would be blocked because it’s “robbing Peter to pay Paul”! So you won’t let us get improved conditions then shout at us when we pick at the crumbs you guys have left. And for anyone wondering why BA is such a fractured, unpleasant working enviroment there you have it!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 73
From: UK
Sorry, my post has clearly come across incorrectly. I am not knocking anyone for the decisions they make. It is acceptable for anyone to take a command whenever they deem it appropriate. It is not my decision to make, and I am not knocking anyone for it, just as I would not tell someone who picks up overtime not to do it. I am simply pointing out that it is good for BA when people choose to do so, and terms and conditions will not improve while it is happening. Just as BA will not hang up on the cost cutting and efficiencies until people are leaving for better pastures. It is all about market forces, and if there are people who will do it, the reward is not going to improve, even if that reward is not as good as at other companies. BALPA cannot pluck improved terms and conditions out of thin air.
Just for a little more education on why senior long haulers do not tend to take short haul commands; it is not quite correct to say things for them on long haul are too good. The biggest thing is the overall reward consideration. A NAPS long hauler has a collosal tax bill upon obtaining their command. It is so large that they are working entirely for free for the first couple of years, and instead handing their wages to the government. The junior guys do not have that bill and so do not work for free for a few years. So the senior long haulers have generally decided the short haul command reward is not appropriate, even though the money BA are handing over is more than for their junior colleagues. ie the market forces are different depending on whether you are NAPS or not. I am in the fortunate position to be senior enough for long haul command within the next couple of years, but I am very much in two minds whether I should even take that when the time comes. I probably will do it, but it certainly will not be for the financial reward because it will benefit the government far more than it will benefit me. I know plenty of people who will not take a BA command, long haul or short haul, because the reward for them is not enough. A far greater number will never take a short haul command because the reward is not great enough. However, BA do not currently need to improve the reward because more junior colleagues who do not have the crazy taxation, consider the reward acceptable.
Just for a little more education on why senior long haulers do not tend to take short haul commands; it is not quite correct to say things for them on long haul are too good. The biggest thing is the overall reward consideration. A NAPS long hauler has a collosal tax bill upon obtaining their command. It is so large that they are working entirely for free for the first couple of years, and instead handing their wages to the government. The junior guys do not have that bill and so do not work for free for a few years. So the senior long haulers have generally decided the short haul command reward is not appropriate, even though the money BA are handing over is more than for their junior colleagues. ie the market forces are different depending on whether you are NAPS or not. I am in the fortunate position to be senior enough for long haul command within the next couple of years, but I am very much in two minds whether I should even take that when the time comes. I probably will do it, but it certainly will not be for the financial reward because it will benefit the government far more than it will benefit me. I know plenty of people who will not take a BA command, long haul or short haul, because the reward for them is not enough. A far greater number will never take a short haul command because the reward is not great enough. However, BA do not currently need to improve the reward because more junior colleagues who do not have the crazy taxation, consider the reward acceptable.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
...any attempt by junior guys in increase their pay would almost certainly be met with horror by many within the BA community who have been very vocal on various forums that any attempt to improve their conditions would be blocked because it’s “robbing Peter to pay Paul”! So you won’t let us get improved conditions then shout at us when we pick at the crumbs you guys have left.
As for “robbing Peter to pay Paul” the last time I literally saw that expression used was in a forum debate about the (dire) Maternity provision for female pilots, where one or two of our well meaning but IMHO naive colleagues suggested the community should forgo an element of next years pay rise in order to improve maternity benefits...again this was seriously being suggested at a time when the company is making over a billion in profits......
We need to be pressurising the company into divvying up some reward across the board for everbodies hard work, not arguing that those on Fleet XXX should be subsiding those on Fleet YYY, or those with a seniority number of less than 2000 should be taking a smaller pay increase to top up the payrise of those with a bigger senority number...
and yes...I do agree with what was mentioned earlier, we at BA can be our own worse enemy...and the management know it.
Last edited by wiggy; 27th November 2018 at 15:52.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: London
Sorry, my post has clearly come across incorrectly. I am not knocking anyone for the decisions they make. It is acceptable for anyone to take a command whenever they deem it appropriate. It is not my decision to make, and I am not knocking anyone for it, just as I would not tell someone who picks up overtime not to do it. I am simply pointing out that it is good for BA when people choose to do so, and terms and conditions will not improve while it is happening. Just as BA will not hang up on the cost cutting and efficiencies until people are leaving for better pastures. It is all about market forces, and if there are people who will do it, the reward is not going to improve, even if that reward is not as good as at other companies. BALPA cannot pluck improved terms and conditions out of thin air.
Just for a little more education on why senior long haulers do not tend to take short haul commands; it is not quite correct to say things for them on long haul are too good. The biggest thing is the overall reward consideration. A NAPS long hauler has a collosal tax bill upon obtaining their command. It is so large that they are working entirely for free for the first couple of years, and instead handing their wages to the government. The junior guys do not have that bill and so do not work for free for a few years. So the senior long haulers have generally decided the short haul command reward is not appropriate, even though the money BA are handing over is more than for their junior colleagues. ie the market forces are different depending on whether you are NAPS or not. I am in the fortunate position to be senior enough for long haul command within the next couple of years, but I am very much in two minds whether I should even take that when the time comes. I probably will do it, but it certainly will not be for the financial reward because it will benefit the government far more than it will benefit me. I know plenty of people who will not take a BA command, long haul or short haul, because the reward for them is not enough. A far greater number will never take a short haul command because the reward is not great enough. However, BA do not currently need to improve the reward because more junior colleagues who do not have the crazy taxation, consider the reward acceptable.
Just for a little more education on why senior long haulers do not tend to take short haul commands; it is not quite correct to say things for them on long haul are too good. The biggest thing is the overall reward consideration. A NAPS long hauler has a collosal tax bill upon obtaining their command. It is so large that they are working entirely for free for the first couple of years, and instead handing their wages to the government. The junior guys do not have that bill and so do not work for free for a few years. So the senior long haulers have generally decided the short haul command reward is not appropriate, even though the money BA are handing over is more than for their junior colleagues. ie the market forces are different depending on whether you are NAPS or not. I am in the fortunate position to be senior enough for long haul command within the next couple of years, but I am very much in two minds whether I should even take that when the time comes. I probably will do it, but it certainly will not be for the financial reward because it will benefit the government far more than it will benefit me. I know plenty of people who will not take a BA command, long haul or short haul, because the reward for them is not enough. A far greater number will never take a short haul command because the reward is not great enough. However, BA do not currently need to improve the reward because more junior colleagues who do not have the crazy taxation, consider the reward acceptable.
Whilst I take your point regarding your tax problem this only exists amongst ex NAPSs members a scheme that closed to new entrants about 15 years ago, so anyone joining since then would not have this tax burden, so I think there are more issues at play than the financial rewards or lack of.