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

IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs

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.

IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs

Old 10th May 2020, 19:57
  #461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by blind pew View Post
The initial letter to Balpa inferred that BA was throwing all of the contracts plus terms and conditions out of the window.
Simply immoral and strongly illegal during this pandemic.
In many countries redundancies are illegal during this pandemic due to new legislation specifically in place to protect jobs and T&Cs' e.g. in Spain nobody can be made redundant for a further 6 months after the last government financial help received by the employer. This type of legislation has been introduced specifically to avoid corporate abuse during the crisis, in the UK the intention of the legislator was basically the same when the various measures were announced (loans, grants, furlough etc).
BA will be LEGALLY exposed as consultation of workforce & Unions during this crisis (e.g furlough or sickness/self isolation & lockdown) is not a realistic option and any action should have been postponed to a post crisis phase.
Unprecedented times however any good & responsible employer should consider redundancies as the very last resort. New lower, irreversible and permanent T&Cs' simply "a criminal act" in the middle of Covid19.
Quite shocking.
The government should introduce new legislation to avoid this kind of corporate abuse during a crisis of this magnitude whilst providing the necessary financial support.
The vast majority of BA workforce would very likely accept part-time contracts for as long as needed.
This would be the best solution.

Last edited by ILS27LEFT; 10th May 2020 at 20:30.
ILS27LEFT is offline  
Old 10th May 2020, 20:07
  #462 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,590
Simply immoral and strongly illegal during this pandemic.
It may well be immoral but it is not illegal.

Also BA will be LEGALLY exposed as consultation of workforce & Unions during this crisis (e.g furlough or sickness/self isolation & lockdown) should have been postponed to a post crisis phase.
Er.....how?

Unprecedented times however any good & responsible employer should consider redundancies as the very last resort.
So if you were running an airline with few aircraft flying, few passengers and no sign of the airline industry recovering for a considerable time what would you do?

You posts are full of firebrand rhetoric but seem to ignore the reality of the dire situation airlines across the world are facing. So instead of suggesting the government, i.e. taxpayers and government borrowing, supply funds to stop people being made redundant why not suggest some practical and sustainable measures that would work?
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 10th May 2020, 20:27
  #463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: england
Posts: 738
I would imagine paying decent severance payments might be a step in the right direction. If other airlines in IAG are offering generous VR terms, why not the powerhouse of IAG? Or does the money only flow one way?
hunterboy is offline  
Old 10th May 2020, 22:02
  #464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by M.Mouse View Post
It may well be immoral but it is not illegal.



Er.....how?



So if you were running an airline with few aircraft flying, few passengers and no sign of the airline industry recovering for a considerable time what would you do?

You posts are full of firebrand rhetoric but seem to ignore the reality of the dire situation airlines across the world are facing. So instead of suggesting the government, i.e. taxpayers and government borrowing, supply funds to stop people being made redundant why not suggest some practical and sustainable measures that would work?

He just did?
(Part-time contracts).
777JRM is offline  
Old 10th May 2020, 23:13
  #465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Sussex
Posts: 2
The maximum number of redundancies is stated in the S188 letter. The BA MOA states the selection criteria is LIFO, plus the redeployment agreement means a years pay per pilot. The best reason for keeping LIFO is that it makes the savings required much less to offset the most junior 1000 pilot salaries.

There has already been a considerable amount of PTW granted over CV19. Add in a few seniors about to go, and maybe a small take up of the RAF Deal, and the numbers come down even more.
PTGamekeeper is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 07:31
  #466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by blind pew View Post
The initial letter to Balpa inferred that BA was throwing all of the contracts plus terms and conditions out of the window.
Then BALPA should be fighting to protect every T&C which employees have agreed to be employed under, including the redundancy selection criteria. Otherwise what's the point of T&Cs?

I also wouldn't discount industrial action so soon. The fleet is not grounded and the airline is operating a sizable number of flights, predominantly cargo only. Air freight costs have increased massively since the decimation of passenger flights, the majority of these flights will be operationally profitable to the company, not to mention the long standing cargo contracts that need protecting. BA have four 777s coming in from JFK alone today. Even a 747 is getting an outing today. The number of flights is increasing again and given the time scales, any action would coincide with the "meaningful" ramping up of passenger operations.

If the airline is in "survival mode", as AC and WW seem to keep insisting, then the unions and workforce do have some bargaining power. It sounds like the Union and work force are resigned to their fate, and arguing about who should be thrown under the bus isn't going to help your cause.

Vokes55 is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 08:19
  #467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Yes, Willie Walsh has always been about divide and conquer. Time to decide what we can agree on, not pick them not me. The latter is Willie Walsh's wet dream.
Bridchen is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 08:36
  #468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,892
The problem is folks, much as I hate to say it... a handful of 777s, a 747 and the odd 787/350 do not a summer make. We need passengers back..

Any thoughts of a "meaningful" ramping up of passenger operations anytime soon is holed below the waterline by the idea of the 14 day quarantine being floated in the media, no doubt by HMG, who as usual are being vague and unhelpful. You can bet your last dollar that WW is going to use that proposed/rumoured government policy PDQ and repeatedly as a "here's why I'm being forced to do this" when he gives evidence to the Transport Select Committees..

I do think that by some clever footwork and imaginative thinking BALPA can prevent the BA pilot job losses getting into four figures, I hope and think it will not even close to four figures, but looking at the "realpolitik" I cannot for the life of me see how some compulsory pilot redundancies can be completely avoided.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.
wiggy is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 08:44
  #469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Ramping up to 50% from July, apparently.
BA isn’t fighting for survival (yet), it is positioning itself for greater market share.

14-day self-quarantine cannot be policed, it is political posturing to look like something is being done.
Anyhow, people would be coming into the UK from probably less-infected countries.
.
777JRM is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 08:50
  #470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 861
NZ and Aus seem to have managed to police 14 day lockdowns with good effect, is that beyond you?
There are two choices in this
Lock the borders, create massive financial damage, have a relatively low death rate or
Don’t close your borders, create massive financial damage, have a massive death toll. For those of you who think it’s acceptable losses, thank you for volunteering your oldies as tribute.
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 08:52
  #471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,892
Originally Posted by 777JRM View Post
14-day self-quarantine cannot be policed, it is political posturing to look like something is being done.
Anyhow, people would be coming into the UK from probably less-infected countries.
.
Going off topic, it can be policed if there is the will, and such quarantines, especially as applied to passengers, certainly are policed at some places I (?you) have been on the Long Haul network in the last couple of months.

The problem is if the UK introduce a quarantine for appearances sake they will get "found out", and that in turn could have implications for us in the travel industry and aviation.

Back to topic..

(ozbiggles beat me to it)
wiggy is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 09:11
  #472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
WW to be grilled by MPs this morning

just a reminder that WW is before MPs this morning at 10:00. Here's the link:
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Inde...e-e7fe97ac55bb
Stoic is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 10:50
  #473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,556
Originally Posted by macdo View Post
if a legal challenge is mounted it can still only be for plain unfair dismissal, for which the max. compensation is peanuts for the employer. (I think its 40k last I looked)
Do bear in mind that all outcomes from the Employment Tribunal, who hear these cases, are a matter of public record, and any future employer who has a thorough on-boarding process is able to see who has taken any previous employer to the tribunal.

Guess what that commonly means ...
WHBM is online now  
Old 11th May 2020, 11:58
  #474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 3
Willie Walsh

Originally Posted by Stoic View Post
just a reminder that WW is before MPs this morning at 10:00. Here's the link:
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Inde...e-e7fe97ac55bb
Willie Walsh has proven that the UK Government must urgently retake a stake in the national carrier.
He did not answer any question, he only referred to consultation, no intent to save UK jobs or keep jobs in the UK (those jobs that will be offshored).
New lower T&Cs not answered and back to consultation too.
How can he justify his salary which is beyond any logic? He got his salary reduced by 20% , what a joke. "Leading by example" principle totally ignored.
Willie Walsh has earned over 33 million in BA.
An insult to the entire BA workforce & the UK Tax payers.
The Committee clearly did not trust a word he said.
The Government must act now if the UK wants to preserve the future of its national carrier.
BA, the UK national carrier, is clearly in the hands of a non-UK entity and the consequences are very serious. Covid19 is only reiterating the dangers of having critical national services in foreign hands.

Watch carefully from time 11.23.12 please.

Recording here:
Recording

or link:
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/...e-e7fe97ac55bb

Last edited by ILS27LEFT; 11th May 2020 at 21:51.
ILS27LEFT is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 12:09
  #475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 688
He has proven nothing of the sort! Despite their frustrations, the MPs surely did not anticipate receiving answers to many of their lines of questioning. His answers were entirely predictable.
GS-Alpha is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 12:20
  #476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 121
The people with the business smarts to have questioned him effectively, in a manner we would have all liked, are all sat on the same side of the table as him.
Northern Monkey is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 12:30
  #477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 452
Is he not in a 45 day consultation period with unions? Be pretty stupid to give away their negotiating position ahead of those discussions. Also he would have to notify the capital markets as per the law.
MCDU2 is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 13:48
  #478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by ozbiggles View Post
NZ and Aus seem to have managed to police 14 day lockdowns with good effect, is that beyond you?
There are two choices in this
Lock the borders, create massive financial damage, have a relatively low death rate or
Don’t close your borders, create massive financial damage, have a massive death toll. For those of you who think it’s acceptable losses, thank you for volunteering your oldies as tribute.

A lockdown of everyone can be policed, but a self-imposed quarantine of a part of society cannot.
Is that beyond you?

Back to topic.....
777JRM is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 14:44
  #479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 861
I guess it’s only fair you take it back on topic seeing as you took it off topic....
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 14:55
  #480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 141
Anyone said anything about BA Cityflyer not heard anything?
GKOC41 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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