Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

BA Direct Entry Pilot.

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

BA Direct Entry Pilot.

Old 8th Dec 2018, 15:47
  #5521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,364
The problem is, that would bring us closer to strike action, and BALPA are scared stiff to find themselves in a battle with BA/IAG after what happened with openskies
Yep...........
wiggy is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 14:26
  #5522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,632
Originally Posted by Thegreenmachine View Post
All of the above sounds horribly fatigue inducing.. How seriously is this taken at BA? Until a raft of fatigue reports come in, with crew stuck down route then nothing will change will it.
As someone above alluded to also there is a fantastic non punitive fatigue reporting system at current outfit, by sounds of it may well need it at BA too.
The problem is if the Company has to look at their FRMS processes / trip builds etc then it's only fair that they look at crew members responsibilities also so as wiggy mentioned the C word comes into it (and that's not Christmas). So crew X on a crappy LAX 24hr layover don't operate as their too tired. So will BA look at the layover or what the crew got up to pre-flight - did they comply with crew members responsibilities before the outbound flight and downroute- with this in mind will crews report or keep quiet I wonder...
Yes there are some airlines out there with FRMS systems which are now mature and have been around for some time. Up until recently there was a well known quote "there is no fatigue at BA" - might have to get through the "yee who has the last laugh" before things move in the right direction for both BA and its crews.
Mr Angry from Purley is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 19:51
  #5523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 590
I suspect if you asked a senior long haul FO what they had in common with a new FO at LGW, I suspect it might be easier for the list of differences to be highlighted rather than what they have in common within the context of their job. One doesn't need to look too far to see how there are numerous aspects of flying for BA that can create differences between colleagues. LHR vs LGW, Shorthaul vs Longhaul, Carmen vs Bidline (in a historical context of course) and BARP vs NAPS and that is coming from someone who doesn't work for the company, so I suspect more could be added to the list!! The more differences amongst colleagues, then the more challenging it has to be to create any solidarity in the workplace.

Reading some of the previous posts reminds me of an ex BA skipper who stepped into a Flight Ops management position at my last company after he retired. It was rather irksome to see how reluctant he was to engage with management and to address any issues that were passed up the food chain. After a few beverages down route one night, one of the cabin crew actually took him to task over his reluctance to communicate and help create change where it was needed. He admitted he had no desire to 'rock the boat' unless he himself was going to benefit as well. A carry-over from his BA days perhaps?

As I said earlier, I am not at BA but I do have a few friends still there, so I do read this thread from time to time out of interest. I left the UK to become an ex-pat aviator before EASA FTLs were brought in, so my knowledge of them is rather scant, to say the least. Regardless of that, any manager worth their salt will use their FTL framework as a guideline for enhancing crew productivity and I have seen this where I am now. It seems that no airline in IAG appears to be immune from this nowadays either. If 24 hours down route in the US west coast is legal, then it's a case of when rather than if it ever happens before your management consider tweaking with your rosters. Having crews away from home base longer than needed, seems to be a bÍte noire for management in any airline and it is a very easy way for them to reduce operating costs.

Some of you seem to have suggested that change will be forthcoming for trips that are changed to include shorter layovers, once a paper trail has started involving safety and fatigue reporting. I can assure you from first-hand experience that it is nothing short of a gargantuan task to revert roster practices, back to a level that reduces crew productivity. If a trip is deemed to be legal and if you raise your head above the parapet and shout fatigued and not fit to operate, then I would suggest that caution may be prudent, since BA may find it convenient to view the reporter as the problem rather than the timings of the trip itself. A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. With the company seeming to wish to take a greater interest in how you all travel to work, then I suspect what may seem to be a rather invasive action, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Such actions could also act as a deterrent to those thinking of whistleblowing as well. If a trip is deemed to be legal in the eyes of the regulator, then it takes a lot of people to create a case for it to be deemed to be not fit for purpose.

From reading this thread it would seem that some BA aviators here, seem to have lost hope in your CC as well but this has to be your last line of defence against unfavourable change. If enough of you are disillusioned about your CC as some of the posters on this thread appear to be, then what would the outcome of a petition of 'No Confidence' in your CC be?

Good Luck and I shall be watching from the sidelines!
Emma Royds is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 23:31
  #5524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 680
A VNC in the BACC?

How many friends did you say you have in BA?
4468 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 06:43
  #5525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,364
Originally Posted by Emma Royds View Post

A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established.
There’s no uncertainty about that, it is already a “given”. A manager at BA stated in print a few weeks back that in the event of a fatigue report/ASR being filed travel arrangements would be examined (and anecdotally it seems it is not just air travel that gets looked at, apparently even a < 90minute drive to/from home between short haul days has already raised comment).

Last edited by wiggy; 10th Dec 2018 at 07:55.
wiggy is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 08:03
  #5526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post


There’s no uncertainty about that, it is already a “given”. A manager at BA stated in print a few weeks back that in the event of a fatigue report/ASR being filed travel arrangements would be examined (and anecdotally it seems it is not just air travel that gets looked at, apparently even a < 90minute drive to/from home between short haul days has already raised comment).

I can vouch for that. I filed a Fatigue ASR not so long ago and was asked to detail (by email ie in writing) how I usually manage my commute which is just under 90 mins by car. I was doing short haul at the time.

Was subsequently followed up with a phone call from the DFCM to go through it. I felt very much that the wrong answer would lead to another less pleasant phone call.

Last edited by 2 Whites 2 Reds; 10th Dec 2018 at 13:35.
2 Whites 2 Reds is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 13:09
  #5527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Emma Royds View Post
. If a trip is deemed to be legal and if you raise your head above the parapet and shout fatigued and not fit to operate, then I would suggest that caution may be prudent, since BA may find it convenient to view the reporter as the problem rather than the timings of the trip itself. A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. With the company seeming to wish to take a greater interest in how you all travel to work, then I suspect what may seem to be a rather invasive action, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Such actions could also act as a deterrent to those thinking of whistleblowing as well. If a trip is deemed to be legal in the eyes of the regulator, then it takes a lot of people to create a case for it to be deemed to be not fit for purpose.!
This paragraph. What you say re caution, I know is well meant. Id be very surprised if anyone at BA is unaware of their commuting being looked at before filing such reports. The surveillance of commuting on personal time is very well known and a hot potato. Incidentally I’ll add the current monitoring is not solely triggered by a fatigue report. It’s a wide spread audit that’s seemingly increasing in resources.

Re EASA FTL. There was an important re emphasis from the previous essence of state regulations when EASA FTL was constructed re fatigue reporting.

I appreciate you may not be too aware of EASA FTL not flying under them. But the FRMS system was a hand in glove condition to fly to EASA FTL rules. EASA FTLs were constructed only such that airlines MUST have an active FRMS. A legal roster or more correctly a roster constructed to FTL limits, does not infer fatigue free under EASA rules, hence the FMRS.

That’s the very essence of the system. It is not a singular side addition as previous state FTLs. As such airlines and the regulator have to respect fatigue reporting. I do agree changing a fatiguing section of work will take somewhat of a trend in reality to stop outliers causing constant disruption to scheduling, but equally they cannot sit on reports in ignorance waiting for an artificial high amount.

That is precisely the system and a culture of treading lightly and discouragement of fatigue reporting goes against EASA FTL. Some U.K. airlines adopt their FRMS responsibility that allows them to fly under EASA FTLS quite well. I gather EasyJet for example have an active, open and well used FRMS. That is exactly the way flying under EASA was meant to be treated. It was acknowledged during construction the rules can not possibly catch all fatigueing combinations. They have great limitations.

“You can fly to these limits, but only, and only if you have an FRMS to catch fatigue”. A feedback loop system. It’s not meant to be a section of railway track that disappears into the buffers with fatigue reports being filed away ne’er to be seen again. Hence fatigue reporting goes to MOR (although when filed through airlines at least BA seem to override the MOR status sometimes)

I have filed a fatigue report with BA and disappointingly did not meet the same positive response as others. I was told “BA fatigue reporting culture is still new and we’re learning”

A somewhat concerning statement of juvenile innocence given fatigue has existed for years, and holding an AOC requires a mature compliance and understanding of state procedures. I hope the comment was just that manager’s attitude and not indicative of a wider culture.

You are right. If someone is abusing their commute they would be wise to visit their lifestyle before blaming a line. However, reporting fatigue is not only a legal requirement it’s meant to be open and encouraged. After all no airline wants knackered crews either.

Last edited by Wireless; 10th Dec 2018 at 17:46.
Wireless is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 14:35
  #5528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Timba Hold
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Emma Royds View Post

Some of you seem to have suggested that change will be forthcoming for trips that are changed to include shorter layovers, once a paper trail has started involving safety and fatigue reporting. I can assure you from first-hand experience that it is nothing short of a gargantuan task to revert roster practices, back to a level that reduces crew productivity. If a trip is deemed to be legal and if you raise your head above the parapet and shout fatigued and not fit to operate, then I would suggest that caution may be prudent, since BA may find it convenient to view the reporter as the problem rather than the timings of the trip itself. A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. With the company seeming to wish to take a greater interest in how you all travel to work, then I suspect what may seem to be a rather invasive action, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Such actions could also act as a deterrent to those thinking of whistleblowing as well. If a trip is deemed to be legal in the eyes of the regulator, then it takes a lot of people to create a case for it to be deemed to be not fit for purpose.
Much like post above I really think you need to be careful before posting things like this (especially In bold). We are LEGALLY required to report if we are are fatigued or likely to become so during our duty- such that safety becomes compromised. We are professionals and I'm sure the vast majority observe EASA rules regarding commuting and rest before work. Please do not try to scaremonger people into not reporting fatigue. It is the only way some of these dangerous rostering practices will be changed.

Whether a trip is legal or not is irrelevant. Fatigue is personal! Some people find things more/less fatiguing than others. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I don't know where you work but BA claims to have an open and just culture- we should be reporting fatigue. We should not be punished for it and Im 100% sure the regulator would not take well to punitive fatigue management.

Baring in mind you're not at BA and obviously don't work in an airline with a decent FRMS I'm not sure how relevant your post is to current/prospective BA pilots so please think about what you post and its effects on readers.
MikeAlpha320 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 20:01
  #5529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 38
Posts: 379
I spoke positively about fatigue reporting.

I was wrong I received a unpleasant phone call recently with a view to discredit my report.
bex88 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 22:32
  #5530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Timba Hold
Posts: 59
Did you CC Balpa in on it Bex? What did they try to discredit your report with?
MikeAlpha320 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 00:25
  #5531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: somewhere between Miami and Havana
Posts: 114
Originally Posted by bex88 View Post
I spoke positively about fatigue reporting.

I was wrong I received a unpleasant phone call recently with a view to discredit my report.
Please call me tomorrow.

Email if the phone thing scares you.

B
Buter is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 00:40
  #5532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 590
It seems as if my post has ruffled a feather or two, which was not the intention, but the personal accounts of 2 Whites 2 Reds and bex88 have to some degree, illustrated the point I was trying to make. There is a fine line between collating data following fatigue reporting and being unnecessarily invasive and/or unpleasant in how this is achieved. There has been an FRMS at my outfit for around a decade (maybe longer) and I have personally seen the excellent side of fatigue reporting but I have also heard of some rather unfavourable accounts from colleagues. Given that FRMS seems to be in its early days at BA based on what others have posted, I simply wished to highlight a side to FRMS reporting, that 2 Whites 2 Reds and bex88 have highlighted to some extent.

Wireless

“You can fly to these limits, but only, and only if you have an FRMS to catch fatigue”. A feedback loop system. It’s not meant to be a section of railway track that disappears into the buffers with fatigue reports being filed away ne’er to be seen again. Hence fatigue reporting goes to MOR (although when filed through airlines at least BA seem to override the MOR status sometimes)

You raise the interesting point about how the regulator is part of the reporting loop for fatigue reporting and this raises an interesting predicament, since an operator is obliged to preach that they wholeheartedly support an open a fair fatigue reporting system, yet any operator will wish to keep the number of fatigue reports to as few as possible, so that it does not warrant extra attention from the regulator.

MikeAlpha320

Whether a trip is legal or not is irrelevant. Fatigue is personal! Some people find things more/less fatiguing than others.

That is what makes this process one that can be unfairly biased in favour of the operator and not the reporter. It is far more convenient for the operator to try pin the cause of the fatigue on the individual and not on the operator's processes. There is no intent to scaremonger on my part and no one should be scared to report fatigued in any company. I myself will report fatigued, as I have done so in the past but I have seen some colleagues who would rather just call sick rather than call sick due to fatigue and subsequently document their fatigue, as it will remove any potential spotlight being shone on their life outside of the flight deck. The post-fatigue reporting follow up process by the operator, must be relevant but it is imperative that the reporter stands up, should they feel what they are being asked to account for is not relevant. Your colleague has mentioned how their commute of just under 90 minutes had to be accounted for in detail but is all this detail actually relevant given that the long-standing 90 minute time recommendation for traveling to home base, was complied with? I have seen a few colleagues with a higher than average number of sick days being referred for medical tests so that their reported fatigue can be 'investigated' and it is easy for any operator to defend such a practice as not being punitive, as it can be linked to due diligence being performed within the context of their FRMS. On the other hand, one could argue that such an approach is perhaps excessive and could act as a deterrent to others but it's highly subjective depending on if you view this from the perspective of the reporter or the operator. None of us would like our sleeping, eating, exercise and travel history probed into and especially so when one will probably be unsure what will constitute an answer that will draw extra unwanted attention towards our personal life.

4468

A VNC in the BACC?

How many friends did you say you have in BA?


Funnily enough, none of them seem to have expressed their concern about any of the issues that have been discussed here recently. Either it's another case of 'I'm alright Jack' as has been alluded to here or perhaps they are just apathetic.
Emma Royds is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 07:41
  #5533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by bex88 View Post
I spoke positively about fatigue reporting.

I was wrong I received a unpleasant phone call recently with a view to discredit my report.
I had a sort of similar experience Bex, and Iíd strongly advise you check to audit trail of comments between people in eBasis when youíre next in.
2 Whites 2 Reds is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 10:35
  #5534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Does anyone know what the procedure is should you be unsuccessful this time round? I have heard a rumour (so this would be the perfect place to discuss...!) that whatever stage you were unsuccessful at, you can reapply in six months and recommence the process from there...eg unsuccessful at stage 3, wait six months, back for another sim ride.
VOR.DME is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 11:03
  #5535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: London
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by VOR.DME View Post
Does anyone know what the procedure is should you be unsuccessful this time round? I have heard a rumour (so this would be the perfect place to discuss...!) that whatever stage you were unsuccessful at, you can reapply in six months and recommence the process from there...eg unsuccessful at stage 3, wait six months, back for another sim ride.
I'm not in a position to confirm, and it may have changed, but in my experience it was + 1 year, and restart the process from the beginning. I had heard rumours of people who failed the sim being called back to redo, but I've got colleagues I know first hand who had to go back to stage 1 from the sim.
clvf88 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 11:41
  #5536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 299
It used to be 6 months if you were unsuccessful at the application stage and 12 months if you were unsuccessful at any of the assessment stages.

I know people have been called back sooner in recent times but can't confirm what the official policy is these days. I think it stated it on the assessment invitation email when I went through but that was 4 years ago and there's been a changing of the guard since then.

Best of luck with it.
2 Whites 2 Reds is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 11:49
  #5537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 38
Posts: 379
MikeAlpha320. Not in BALPA (rightly or wrongly) so no BALPA not copied

Buter. As above. Honestly I don’t have the confidence to speak openly in fear of reprisals.

bex88 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 15:27
  #5538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: springfield
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by bex88 View Post
MikeAlpha320. Not in BALPA (rightly or wrongly) so no BALPA not copied

Buter. As above. Honestly I donít have the confidence to speak openly in fear of reprisals.

Then you might as well just go back to pissing into the wind...
hoody_mcboob is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 19:23
  #5539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Timba Hold
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by hoody_mcboob View Post

Then you might as well just go back to pissing into the wind...
Brings up an interesting point about fatigue for me. I'm not sure if you're suggesting not being part of BALPA means 'you're pissing into the wind' but how I've read It (perhaps wrongly- sorry!). Fatigue isn't industrial. It shouldn't need BALPA if the company were fulfilling their part of the EASA regs- as posted above. Like I said above it shouldn't be punitive and should allow for open and honest reporting- without fear of consequential action. I don't like the way reports are handled at BA and have forwarded several to BALPA to look at. Maybe condescending and unprofessional responses from flight crew managers are normal in regard to fatigue at BA- but thats not something I am personally willing to put up with. The company expect us to be professionals out on the line, give us the same courtesy of professionalism when we report something we are legally required to do.

I do really hope it gets improved upon. We need a proper system in place. One that is not subject to certain managers (flying one trip a month) and their subjective opinions. Collect data. Use it to identify fatiguing patterns. I don't need a response suggesting that I should be bidding for more days off- If I could get more days off I would certainly already be doing it.

Lets see what next year and JSS rosters at LHR- lots of DEPs (ezy with FRMS experience) and what seems to be a more defiant CC will bring.
MikeAlpha320 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 20:36
  #5540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The North
Posts: 929
Fatigue shouldn't be industrial, but the EZY experience is that in the absence of effective regulation, where the CAA and EASA basically look at one another and shrug and then get on with something else, then the only way to make any progress is to make it industrial.

You have the moral high ground and the safety argument, which is good. However it's a lot harder to conduct a sustained campaign over it - it's not just pushing out a pay offer and letting the pilots say yay or nay. BA is made even more complicated by the SH vs LH and the seniority.

Good luck!
rod_1986 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.