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 26th May 2020, 21:48
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 866
Originally Posted by cessnapete View Post
One of my relatives is LH FC, and almost certainly to be made redundant under the same BA management regime, Iím on your side.
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.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 26th May 2020, 21:58
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,129
Originally Posted by Raph737 View Post
We could argue that itís understandable that the relationship between the unions is sour, considering pilots volunteered to break the cabin crew strikes last time.
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...

wiggy is offline  
Old 26th May 2020, 21:59
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by RexBanner View Post
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.
True, but it doesnít take a genius to work out if youíre in the bottom (about) 800 on the MSL, youíre right in the firing line; if youíre in the bottom 500 itís worth updating your CV to make it more palatable for Tesco.

TTR (well in the bottom 500 and waiting for my P45).
thetimesreader84 is offline  
Old 26th May 2020, 22:06
  #604 (permalink)  
 
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.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 26th May 2020, 22:40
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 261
I agree BA probably would be happy with fleet & seat, but they donít 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 thereís only so much magic they can do, and in that situation, CR will creep up from the bottom. If youíre a skipper, youíll probably lose your command; if youíre an FO, youíll probably lose your job. Any retraining from dead fleets will be borne by cuts to pay etc.

You can see it a mile off. Itís just the numbers thatíll change. I hope Iím wrong, if I am ill buy you an expensive downroute hotel beer Rex.
thetimesreader84 is offline  
Old 26th May 2020, 23:10
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
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...
Apologies Wiggy, I could have been clearer. I meant the strike 10 years ago that led to the birth of mixed fleet.
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 ďfight for survivalĒ.

I donít 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 didnít manage back then.
Raph737 is offline  
Old 26th May 2020, 23:21
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 866
Originally Posted by thetimesreader84 View Post
If you’re a skipper, you’ll probably lose your command; if you’re an FO, you’ll probably lose your job.
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.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 00:36
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,150
Originally Posted by Chijmes View Post
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
ALL staff are under threat of redundancy. ALL. The figures were already publisheed..EG 120 Licenced Engineers (LAEs) are to go. Also, the threat of having our contracts torn up and offered new contracts is universal. BALPA may well be negotiating, good luck to em I say, but the threat to them is the same.
TURIN is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 07:09
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Brexland
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by thetimesreader84 View Post
True, but it doesnít take a genius to work out if youíre in the bottom (about) 800 on the MSL, youíre right in the firing line; if youíre in the bottom 500 itís worth updating your CV to make it more palatable for Tesco.

TTR (well in the bottom 500 and waiting for my P45).
Out of curiosity how long with the company would one need to be to be 1100 deep into the MSL? At Jet2 we recruited 220 bods last year not including the TCX guys.
Whitemonk Returns is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 07:19
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,129
Originally Posted by Raph737 View Post
Apologies Wiggy, I could have been clearer. I meant the strike 10 years ago that led to the birth of mixed fleet.
.
Ah OK, no worries, I just wondered of I'd missed something so thanks for the clarification.

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....
wiggy is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 07:45
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 39
Posts: 473
Whitemonk returns: I would estimate 6 years
bex88 is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 07:50
  #612 (permalink)  
 
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.

Last edited by bex88; 27th May 2020 at 08:27.
bex88 is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 08:09
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by RexBanner View Post
Thereís 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 thatís one of the reasons why BA have split the number between ranks.
BALPA are, according to the recent Zoom meeting, pushing hard for us to be considered as one pilot body (as opposed to 747 pilots, LGW Pilots, etc), and think they have a very good chance of BA agreeing. The implications of that are fairly straightforward, P1s will be demoted on their fleet, surplus fleets will be retrained, the bottom X of the MSL will be cut via a LIFO+ matrix. All absolutely legal, at least as far as my tame HR family member can see. The X variable will depend on whatever concessions and mitigationís they will find, but Iíd be absolutely amazed if itís 0.

Personally I think itíll be a big number, well into 3 figures (but I have no special inside knowledge). I really, truly, honestly hope it isnít, but hope doesnít pay the mortgage.

BALPA want to save as many jobs as they can, but itís probably easier for them to save the more senior pilots than those at the bottom.
thetimesreader84 is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 08:34
  #614 (permalink)  
 
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 ;-)

Last edited by RexBanner; 27th May 2020 at 08:55.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 08:39
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
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...

After years of Ďdivide and conquerí 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.
777JRM is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 08:54
  #616 (permalink)  
 
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.

Last edited by Icanseeclearly; 27th May 2020 at 09:11.
Icanseeclearly is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 08:55
  #617 (permalink)  
 
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.
HEJT2015 is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 09:05
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 152
. if LIFO is used as the basis of redundancy (BALPAS preferred option)
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
Sick is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 09:08
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by Sick View Post
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
BALPA are on record as wanting ďLIFO+Ē. Essentially LIFO, with some nods to other criteria (mainly disciplinary it looks like) to ensure itís just about legal.
thetimesreader84 is offline  
Old 27th May 2020, 09:10
  #620 (permalink)  
 
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).
GS-Alpha 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.