IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 866
Originally Posted by cessnapete
One of my relatives is LH FC, and almost certainly to be made redundant under the same BA management regime, I’m on your side.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,129
Originally Posted by Raph737
We could argue that it’s understandable that the relationship between the unions is sour, considering pilots volunteered to break the cabin crew strikes last time.
I do accept it can be hard to keep track...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by RexBanner
if the FC in that post stands for Flight Crew I can assure you that absolutely nobody has the faintest idea at the moment who the unlucky ones will be.
TTR (well in the bottom 500 and waiting for my P45).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 866
The fact is that Balpa haven’t even yet addressed whether BA will be allowed to get away with splitting the number evenly between Captains and FOs. If BALPA are even remotely interested in protecting jobs it’s certainly not in their interest (nor BAs) to be chopping the bottom 1130 off the MSL as all that is achieving is chopping a load of low paypoint PP34s, the result of which will be that the cost saving does not reach far enough and the number will have to go higher up the list. There will be a deal done somewhere with a nod to LIFO(plus) but that may well be fleet dependent and don’t be surprised to see some people well up the seniority list receive their marching orders.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 261
I agree BA probably would be happy with fleet & seat, but they don’t really care. What they want is to reduce the budget by X%. BALPA will get the numbers down, but with a surplus north of 1100 there’s only so much magic they can do, and in that situation, CR will creep up from the bottom. If you’re a skipper, you’ll probably lose your command; if you’re an FO, you’ll probably lose your job. Any retraining from dead fleets will be borne by cuts to pay etc.
You can see it a mile off. It’s just the numbers that’ll change. I hope I’m wrong, if I am ill buy you an expensive downroute hotel beer Rex.
You can see it a mile off. It’s just the numbers that’ll change. I hope I’m wrong, if I am ill buy you an expensive downroute hotel beer Rex.
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by wiggy
Just so I'm clear by the "last time" do you really mean the Mixed Fleet Strike of 2017??
I do accept it can be hard to keep track...
I do accept it can be hard to keep track...
The division still there, and sadly the company decided to call for volunteers to break the strike, claiming the cabin crew demands were unreasonable and everyone had to do their bit in their “fight for survival”.
I don’t remember the exact figure but I believe it was on the region of 300 pilots, who did the fast track course and flew as cabin crew, undermining their colleagues. Although the majority of volunteers were ground staff, still left a lot of crew feeling bitter against the pilots.
I remember that time and I wonder if those guys and gals regret their actions now, as it is clear that they had a point and the company have been waiting a long time time to do this, they didn’t manage back then.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 866
Originally Posted by thetimesreader84
If you’re a skipper, you’ll probably lose your command; if you’re an FO, you’ll probably lose your job.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,150
Originally Posted by Chijmes
Yes, you are right. Sorry. Pilots and engineers are not included in the mass redundancy. Just cabin crew, contact centres, ground staff and head office (although there are probably a few people in there exempt from it)
Be interesting to see what happens around 13 June
Be interesting to see what happens around 13 June
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Brexland
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by thetimesreader84
True, but it doesn’t take a genius to work out if you’re in the bottom (about) 800 on the MSL, you’re right in the firing line; if you’re in the bottom 500 it’s worth updating your CV to make it more palatable for Tesco.
TTR (well in the bottom 500 and waiting for my P45).
TTR (well in the bottom 500 and waiting for my P45).
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,129
Originally Posted by Raph737
Apologies Wiggy, I could have been clearer. I meant the strike 10 years ago that led to the birth of mixed fleet.
.
.
With regard to "fight for survival", etc, I do indeed recall the company running a very co-ordinated campaign. It was clear that if you happened to bump into a manager the casual "chat" that resulted was well scripted. I think that sort of thing spooked some people and led to unfortunate consequences.
Anyway here we are.....I think the worry is ( and this is not an original thought) that those at the top of company will be so busy taking advantage of this "opportunity" and too tied up in fighting it's staff (again) that they won't notice the first glimmer of any upturn....
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 39
Posts: 473
Rex: It’s called bumping and is legal. The big difference at Flybe is they had DEC and regional basing. Whatever happens let’s just hope we are presented with options that allow us to avoid any CR. Fingers crossed.
Who knows what BA want but I suspect it is a financial saving of x and flexibility of y. Chopping captains also makes no sense. Why chop them if you can just trash their pay and achieve the saving you want? You can even RHS check them giving ultimate flexibility, and if not that you can transfer them from RHS to LHS in days not a month or more.
The truth is both of us feel vulnerable so voice our own case to make ourselves feel better.
Who knows what BA want but I suspect it is a financial saving of x and flexibility of y. Chopping captains also makes no sense. Why chop them if you can just trash their pay and achieve the saving you want? You can even RHS check them giving ultimate flexibility, and if not that you can transfer them from RHS to LHS in days not a month or more.
The truth is both of us feel vulnerable so voice our own case to make ourselves feel better.
Last edited by bex88; 27th May 2020 at 08:27.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by RexBanner
There’s legal difficulties around making someone redundant (an FO) and then immediately parachuting someone else (a Captain) into their seat. Flybe knew this in 2013. I suspect that’s one of the reasons why BA have split the number between ranks.
Personally I think it’ll be a big number, well into 3 figures (but I have no special inside knowledge). I really, truly, honestly hope it isn’t, but hope doesn’t pay the mortgage.
BALPA want to save as many jobs as they can, but it’s probably easier for them to save the more senior pilots than those at the bottom.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 866
The Zoom meeting didn’t really tell us anything. It was a wish list for Balpa effectively just as BA have theirs, who’s more likely to get what they want? It’s a fact that it’s the position made redundant not the individual. That means anyone displaced only to find someone else taking up their position has a case for unfair dismissal. Not watertight as transferred redundancy (bumping) is not in itself illegal (as Bex has said) but it’s proven to be very difficult to justify for the company concerned. It usually takes place in cases where just one role has been made redundant, not both. Whether BA are going to want to potentially fight a load of unfair dismissals in court when it gives them the additional logistical and financial headache of having to retrain and retain a captain sitting on P1 pay to sit in the RHS is very much open to question.
I’m not saying it won’t go the way you suggest not for one moment. I’d very much like you to be correct because with mitigation efforts from Balpa and about 900 or so sitting below me on the MSL that might mean I’m safe. However I’m suggesting it won’t be as clear cut as that.
Bex the case I’m advocating actually makes me more vulnerable not less ;-)
I’m not saying it won’t go the way you suggest not for one moment. I’d very much like you to be correct because with mitigation efforts from Balpa and about 900 or so sitting below me on the MSL that might mean I’m safe. However I’m suggesting it won’t be as clear cut as that.
Bex the case I’m advocating actually makes me more vulnerable not less ;-)
Last edited by RexBanner; 27th May 2020 at 08:55.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by wiggy
Just so I'm clear by the "last time" do you really mean the Mixed Fleet Strike of 2017??
I do accept it can be hard to keep track...
I do accept it can be hard to keep track...
After years of ‘divide and conquer’ with different contracts, it is now ironic that the crew will all be under the same contract.
Therefore they should have greater unity, when needed.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Age: 52
Posts: 114
I sit 1120 off the bottom of the MSL (after 5 1/4 years) that equates to 20% on the LHR A320 Fleet.
The upshot of that is there are about 450 FOs junior to me at LHR and about 100 LGW A320 FOs in the firing line if LIFO is used as the basis of redundancy (BALPAS preferred option) and lets say there is a 20% reduction in SH flying this equates to 400 type ratings / conversion courses needing to be done - the cost monetary wise and in lost productivity is astronomical, Time is the main problem here If BA can train at a rate of 30 a month (unlikely) it will still take a year to replace the lost FOs, by that stage the situation should be improving and pilots may be needed again or fleet moves happening. I just don’t see BA going for it.
All the company needs to do to comply with the law and the S188 is have a negotiation, it does not need to end in agreement - direct quote -
“Consultation does not have to end in agreement, but it must be carried out with a view to reaching it, including ways of avoiding or reducing the redundancies.”
Whether we like it or not (and we don’t) BA can pretty much do as they please in selecting redundancy victims and present it as a business case (look at what’s happening to the Cabincrew) so no one is “safe” I am ever hopeful that BALPA and BA will reduce the numbers by various schemes and the pain will be lessened..
good luck one and all.
The upshot of that is there are about 450 FOs junior to me at LHR and about 100 LGW A320 FOs in the firing line if LIFO is used as the basis of redundancy (BALPAS preferred option) and lets say there is a 20% reduction in SH flying this equates to 400 type ratings / conversion courses needing to be done - the cost monetary wise and in lost productivity is astronomical, Time is the main problem here If BA can train at a rate of 30 a month (unlikely) it will still take a year to replace the lost FOs, by that stage the situation should be improving and pilots may be needed again or fleet moves happening. I just don’t see BA going for it.
All the company needs to do to comply with the law and the S188 is have a negotiation, it does not need to end in agreement - direct quote -
“Consultation does not have to end in agreement, but it must be carried out with a view to reaching it, including ways of avoiding or reducing the redundancies.”
Whether we like it or not (and we don’t) BA can pretty much do as they please in selecting redundancy victims and present it as a business case (look at what’s happening to the Cabincrew) so no one is “safe” I am ever hopeful that BALPA and BA will reduce the numbers by various schemes and the pain will be lessened..
good luck one and all.
Last edited by Icanseeclearly; 27th May 2020 at 09:11.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 78
I appreciate that if CR are required (fingers crossed it's zero), rather than using LIFO they're suggesting using the LIFO+ matrix. But surely for new-joiners it doesn't make a difference since it's an almost guaranteed chop, there's no 'performance' or 'skills', to have assessed in such a short time (despite no sickness or disciplinary).. it just looks dire regardless of how they decide the criteria.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 152
. if LIFO is used as the basis of redundancy (BALPAS preferred option)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by Sick
Has balpa offered a legal justification for this policy? For as long as they dogmatically follow what they consider to be airline pilot protocol and lengthy procedure, they risk doing a great disservice to their members, and creating a legal morass
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 688
The stated at risk numbers are indeed dire. They are also complete fantasy. There is no way they actually want to get rid of that many pilots; they simply want to maximise cost savings, and they know exactly how BALPA will approach this. LIFO would be difficult to imagine if indeed 1100 were made redundant, but given that they actually just want the cost saving equivalent, we are far better to be demanding that LIFO be part of the matrix (as per our agreements).
