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 3rd Jun 2020, 19:32
  #721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Delta of Venus
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
You were doing well until that point.
Now that's a passive-aggressive statement if ever I heard one, and you've used it before, with opinions you don't like. Using statements like that you are promoting yourself as an unqualified arbiter, n'est pas convenable?...
Private jet is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 19:57
  #722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by 747-436 View Post
The threat of taking away LHR slots won't work, if they took away slots BA would need less employees to fly them, so it would only cause more damage, and that taking away slots might not be possible anyway.
On the other hand, if BA are determined to hold on to every LHR slot, it gives some sort of indication of how many aircraft - or at least movements - BA intends to use going forward. BALPA report that this information has not been forthcoming so far. Without it BAs proposals for the number of redundancies required mean nothing and draw little credibility.
Smokey Lomcevak is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 23:22
  #723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Odiham
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by Smokey Lomcevak View Post
On the other hand, if BA are determined to hold on to every LHR slot, it gives some sort of indication of how many aircraft - or at least movements - BA intends to use going forward. BALPA report that this information has not been forthcoming so far. Without it BAs proposals for the number of redundancies required mean nothing and draw little credibility.
Not if you intend to shrink BA and han over the slots to AL/Vuellig/IB/Level - under some kind of group agreement / codeshare. Lower wages, more profit. How can you shrink the airline by 25% and still want all the slots, plus 12 pairs gained in Mar from Flybe?

Taking the slots away does not threaten BA, it threatens IAG. What we are watching is the slow destruction of a premium airline for the benefit of LOCOs. It's all about the margins.
wokawoka is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 00:44
  #724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,267
Originally Posted by Smokey Lomcevak View Post
On the other hand, if BA are determined to hold on to every LHR slot, it gives some sort of indication of how many aircraft - or at least movements - BA intends to use going forward. BALPA report that this information has not been forthcoming so far. Without it BAs proposals for the number of redundancies required mean nothing and draw little credibility.
Surely its up to the individual Arline how many people they employ and how they employ them. BA might want to use sub-contract staff in place of permanent employees or outsource great swathes of the company, so the number of redundancies will have no bearing on the size of the operation going forward.

On the other point about the government taking away slots as punishment - not going to happen as to be seen to be fair you would have to do the same to any other airline that makes people redundant. The government cannot punish individual companies simply because they make more fuss in the media.
Jet II is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 00:57
  #725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 3,037
Jet II
The punishment is not for the redundancies. It is for the way it is being handled during a period where BA is accepting government money in the form of the Covidvirus Job Retention Scheme. BA is also making all the staff effectivley redundant (despite what certain posters on here keep saying) and re-hiring on reduced pay and T & Cs. Not exactly ethical at the best of times but now its just morally abhorent.

If BA at the outset had offered some form of Voluntary redundancy scheme and initiated meaningful negotiations before issuing the redundancy notice then this thing would probably be done and dusted by now. There would have been a stampede in the rush to leave with a few quid in one's pocket .
TURIN is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 06:09
  #726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,999
Originally Posted by Private jet View Post
Now that's a passive-aggressive statement if ever I heard one, and you've used it before, with opinions you don't like. Using statements like that you are promoting yourself as an unqualified arbiter, n'est pas convenable?...
Umm...I thought this was done and dusted several days ago but obviously not.

Regardless of how you perceive my tone HZ123 was factually incorrect when he/she claimed "Pilots as always at the top happy to watch other groups cast out" and was making an unpleasant incorrect generalisation. That was a shame because the rest of the post contained some valid points.

I hope that is a bit more "conveable".
wiggy is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 06:53
  #727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK, South East
Posts: 75
I’m with Wiggy. That comment doesn’t represent myself or most of my mates
Jumpjim is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 12:02
  #728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,702
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Jet II
The punishment is not for the redundancies. It is for the way it is being handled during a period where BA is accepting government money in the form of the Covidvirus Job Retention Scheme. BA is also making all the staff effectivley redundant (despite what certain posters on here keep saying) and re-hiring on reduced pay and T & Cs. Not exactly ethical at the best of times but now its just morally abhorent.

If BA at the outset had offered some form of Voluntary redundancy scheme and initiated meaningful negotiations before issuing the redundancy notice then this thing would probably be done and dusted by now. There would have been a stampede in the rush to leave with a few quid in one's pocket .
Turin,
most of your input is well worth a read. However, the "reduced pay and T and C" bit is not completely accurate. WW and some EF fleet will be on worse T & C. Not the MF fleet.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 12:54
  #729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Meh
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Ancient Observer View Post
Turin,
most of your input is well worth a read. However, the "reduced pay and T and C" bit is not completely accurate. WW and some EF fleet will be on worse T & C. Not the MF fleet.
MF is mostly worse as well with few 'improvements'.
wannabe024 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 13:29
  #730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here and there
Age: 46
Posts: 587
BA not popular with politicians.

Coronavirus: British Airways threatened with loss of Heathrow slots after job cuts

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...cies-j9xtzntn6
Serenity is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 13:54
  #731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,267
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Jet II
The punishment is not for the redundancies. It is for the way it is being handled during a period where BA is accepting government money in the form of the Covidvirus Job Retention Scheme. BA is also making all the staff effectivley redundant (despite what certain posters on here keep saying) and re-hiring on reduced pay and T & Cs. Not exactly ethical at the best of times but now its just morally abhorent.
Unless any redundancies are carried out in violation of the Law then there are no grounds to punish anyone irrespective of how the Company decides to carry them out. It might be that the Government and some MP's dont like the idea of redundancies whilst the company uses the Job Retention Scheme but if the Legislation is does not specifically forbid it (and I suspect it does not given the speed with which it was introduced) there is nothing in Law preventing any lay-offs.
Jet II is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 14:20
  #732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 3,037
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
Unless any redundancies are carried out in violation of the Law then there are no grounds to punish anyone irrespective of how the Company decides to carry them out. It might be that the Government and some MP's dont like the idea of redundancies whilst the company uses the Job Retention Scheme but if the Legislation is does not specifically forbid it (and I suspect it does not given the speed with which it was introduced) there is nothing in Law preventing any lay-offs.
This is where the law is an ass.

BA may well be breaking the law but because of the ridiculous way our legal system works, challenging BA can only be done after the fact. Even then it can only be challenged at tribunal and the award if successful is miniscule compared to the damage the redundancy causes. Such as the loss of a home due to mortgage default.

The maximum amount that you can be awarded as compensation for Unfair Dismissal is presently the statutory cap of 88,519, or 52 weeks gross salary- whichever is the lower. This is in addition to the basic award which can be ordered by the Tribunal of up to a maximum of 16,140. These figures are from 6th April 2020.


Unfair Dismissal


Last edited by TURIN; 4th Jun 2020 at 14:22. Reason: bed spilling
TURIN is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 14:21
  #733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 3,037
Originally Posted by Ancient Observer View Post
Turin,
most of your input is well worth a read. However, the "reduced pay and T and C" bit is not completely accurate. WW and some EF fleet will be on worse T & C. Not the MF fleet.
Very kind of you. I often 'shoot from the hip' and get it wrong.
TURIN is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2020, 06:43
  #734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Uk
Posts: 1
Its not just BA that are trying impose new contracts on existing staff. Virgin doing exactly the same...using government furlough scheme, making redundancies, and going to offer new contracts to all remaining (ground) staff with greatly reduced terms and conditions.
Mr Cobra is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2020, 12:47
  #735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,702
Turin is right about the law being an ass. If you can only sue/claim about an employer's action after the fact, the employer does something and you then run the risk of a Tribunal, I am not sure how big a deterrent that is to bad behaviour.

Allegedly, BASSA/Unite/whatever are trying to launch action to get Protection Order put in place, but their grounds are thin and entirely untested in UK law.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2020, 17:55
  #736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 211
Originally Posted by 747-436 View Post
The threat of taking away LHR slots won't work, if they took away slots BA would need less employees to fly them, so it would only cause more damage, and that taking away slots might not be possible anyway.
The loss of slots would hit BA very hard. If the plan is to pull out of LGW and retreat into fortress Heathrow then that is where the previous LGW flights that they want to retain would go, using slots from unprofitable flights from LHR. Over time a migration back to LGW could begin using crews based at LHR on miserly pay and conditions, with outsourced ground support and a relatively low cost base. What BA do not want is to lose LHR slots to their major competitors, knowing that once gone it would be unlikely that they would ever return.
Bengerman is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2020, 02:26
  #737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,072
Possible cessation of BA op at LGW!.

I believe in a leaked BA LGW 1 st May memo it was stated 'there is no certainty as to when or if these services can or will return'.

BA have 74 routes accounting for 17% of LGW capacity being about 20% of all operatrions at Gatwick. There is direct competition on 75% of these destinations. With exception of check-in staff the ground handling/dispatch was outsourced some years ago. I doubt that operating a wing of BA there is relatively low cost.

May be just a bluffing?
HZ123 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2020, 06:47
  #738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by The Foss View Post
where has it been announced that the plan is to pull out of Gatwick?
From yesterday’s interview with Willie Walsh on sky news:

What about this campaign from Unite for you to lose slots at Heathrow? If you lose 25% of staff will you need as many slots in the future?

“It is a challenge I will be honest with you, but don’t forget this is across the British Airways group, so British Airways has a significant operation at London City, at Gatwick and at other airports so it’s not just about Heathrow. But clearly we would like to for the future, secure all of the slots that we currently have at Heathrow. That may not be possible. It may require us to leave some of the slots that we don’t intend to operate, but we would like to see, given that slots at Heathrow tend to be at a premium, we’d like to see if we can retain all of those. If we can’t because the business can’t afford to do so that will be a regrettable decision, but it just puts into context the crisis we are facing today.”

So he did not directly say he would pull out of Gatwick, but he appears to suggest he would rather lose Gatwick and London City operations before losing a single Heathrow slot.
GS-Alpha is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2020, 07:38
  #739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 753
Originally Posted by HZ123 View Post
Possible cessation of BA op at LGW!.

I believe in a leaked BA LGW 1 st May memo it was stated 'there is no certainty as to when or if these services can or will return'.

BA have 74 routes accounting for 17% of LGW capacity being about 20% of all operatrions at Gatwick. There is direct competition on 75% of these destinations. With exception of check-in staff the ground handling/dispatch was outsourced some years ago. I doubt that operating a wing of BA there is relatively low cost.

May be just a bluffing?
But they (or Virgin for that matter) do not want to give up the slots - they only want to lease them out. Understandably, the likes of Wizz want some certainty in their operations rather than be kicked out when the market picks up.

Watching Wizz in the background to all of the other airlines floundering is quite something... it's almost as if they're in a parallel universe to everyone else.

I don't know how, but there needs to be a better mechanism of allocating slots - all the current grandfathering system does is protect the status quo and impedes competition.
Dannyboy39 is online now  
Old 6th Jun 2020, 07:55
  #740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Posts: 133
With regards redundancy, you cannot make a position redundant only to employ again in the exact same job role, the role has to have been diminished and a new different role created. For example, if you have a business with a van driver/logistics only position, you can make that position redundant but you could re-employ them (on different terms as they can re-apply) or someone else with a different role, such as warehouse and logistics.

So how you can make a Captain redundant and re-employ them on reduced terms I'm not sure as you can't them make them Captain and cabin crew, the position wouldn't allow it.
BirdmanBerry 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.