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 29th Jun 2020, 14:37
  #1121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by GS-Alpha View Post
It was, and it is.
Then whatís the point of this discussion? Then the only objective should be about preventing as many redundancies as possible, as the criteria is already set out in your MOA.
Vokes55 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 15:06
  #1122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 72
I believe that’s why talks have been ongoing for 2 months now..
3Greens is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 15:17
  #1123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by B744IRE View Post
Their money-purchase pension fund will have dropped 35% (like mine) and the pension will be £25K a year.
Haha I have joined BA in my 30s, and £25k/yr pension was what I was expecting if everything went to plan, working full time till 65. (Total BARP fund around £500k @5%). Covid And any other major upsets will reduce it from this figure!
Looking forward, if I am looking at £30k for a new set of pearly whites in retirement, I honestly think I'll be looking at dentures instead. That's after a full career in aviation, 25-30yrs in BA.
No ill feeling B744IRE, it just goes to show how far the industry has already fallen.

Originally Posted by Whitemonk Returns
If you go after the guys at the top, guess what, by the time you get there it won't look very pretty.
I completely agree. I am squarely in the firing line at the bottom of the list. But I could not support going after the senior guys because they are more expensive because hopefully one day I will be in that position! Seniority is hard earned in this company.

To round off, I wouldn't hold a grudge against any senior pilot deciding to keep their position at the expense of a junior. All individual circumstances are different and we need to respect that. But if one decides to step aside as they are already financially secure and maybe not as enthralled with the job/company as they once were, then I am very thankful for the knock on effect down at my end of the list.
White Van Driver is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 15:47
  #1124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Vokes55 View Post
But why should people not be retrained off "dead fleets"? I understand BA owns their own simulators, so the retraining cost is being vastly over-exaggerated in some people's minds. Your job title is "first officer" or "captain", not "747 first officer". The argument about making one person redundant and retraining somebody else to fulfill their role won't stand up here.
Job roles are made redundant so if a fleet is retired e.g. 747, then BA can legally argue that the roles of the people who flew that fleet no longer exist. Barring contractual issues / collective agreements it is the most straightforward type of redundancy to carry out.

Where a fleet stays but a reduced number of roles is need then BA need to prove that the mechanism they used to choose who keeps or loses their job is fair.

Retraining from one fleet to another is where the situation gets more complicated. If BA made a A350 pilot redundant, and retrained a 747 pilot to fill the roll then the A350 pilot may have a case for unfair dismissal. And BA would need to prove that 747 pilot was better qualified for the role despite needing retraining.
Andy D is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 16:14
  #1125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 347
I would've thought the person who gets made redundant in a way contrary to a signed part of their MOA (assuming, as I've been told above, that BA have a criteria that was renegotiated to be legal and compliant) would have a better case for unfair dismissal.
Vokes55 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 16:25
  #1126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 860
Not only that but can anyone legitimately make a case for fleet as being contractual? It’s mentioned nowhere in my employment contract and, I would imagine, that of every other pilot in BA.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 16:29
  #1127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 682
If I were a rep involved in the discussions, the first thing I would do is determine the minimum number of redundancies BA will accept. Next I would determine a cost associated with that minimum number. Which cost do you want them to use; a PP24 long haul Captain or a PP1 FO as set out by our MOA? (Personally I’d prefer to need to find a smaller cost saving rather than a larger one). Finally, I would investigate alternative collective ways to find those cost savings, reducing the requirement for compulsory redundancies to an absolute minimum. The talks are still ongoing because both sides are doing their utmost to minimise compulsory redundancies. What more is there to understand?
GS-Alpha is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 16:31
  #1128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 859
Originally Posted by Vokes55 View Post
I would've thought the person who gets made redundant in a way contrary to a signed part of their MOA (assuming, as I've been told above, that BA have a criteria that was renegotiated to be legal and compliant) would have a better case for unfair dismissal.
It would be hard to enforce or even argue, in court, for a clause that has been superseded by new legislation. An illegal clause in a contract cannot be used as a legal basis for a case of unfair dismissal or the reverse. The issue of LIFO has been tested a few times and as it, in many cases, now seems to encompass an element of age discrimination - it is impossible to have 30 years in a company if you are only 21 - it may not be a great argument to rest your redundancy scheme upon, irrespective of its appearance in an MOA written many years before.

Last edited by Juan Tugoh; 30th Jun 2020 at 09:44.
Juan Tugoh is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 16:37
  #1129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 860
The debate about LIFO is getting boring. Itís been done to death. One thing to remember; Balpa are pressing ahead with LIFO+ (if we believe the newsletters) so you can be pretty damn sure theyíve had legal advice that has validated that approach. Just for all the armchair lawyers out there.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 16:37
  #1130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by Juan Tugoh View Post
It would be hard to enforce or even argue, in court, for a clause that has been superseded by new legislation. An illegal clause in a contract cannot be used as a legal basis for a case of unfair dismissal or the reverse. The issue of LIFO has been tested a few times and as it, in many cases, now seems to encompass an element of age discrimination - it is impossible to have 30 years in a company if you are only 21 - it may therefore, not be a great argument to rest your redundancy scheme upon, irrespective of its appearance in an MOA written many years before.
But Iíve been told by somebody above, who appears to be employed by BA, that the redundancy criteria in the MOA has been made legal, so thatís the assumption Iím going by.

I donít work for BA so I donít know what your MOA says. I just believe in agreements being adhered to, otherwise its a slippery slope that affects everybodyís future.
Vokes55 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 17:22
  #1131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,083
Im not on the Airbus. I used to be. Got quite a few hours in it. Its stated in my licence I have an A320 rating. I believe BA would have great difficulty in saying I did not have the skills to fly an A319/320/321.

I will be signing up for the new part time. Do I want to? Not really, but I will take a hit and save my colleagues. I would imagine the vast majority of pilots in BA will be applying to do the same.

no sponsor is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 17:34
  #1132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Surrey
Posts: 456
AIUI the new contract isn’t enough to counter the headline number in the s.188, unless they’ve reduced that number or are weighting the salary of each pilot accordingly?
Busdriver01 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 19:00
  #1133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 38
Posts: 464
This theory is so stupidly complicated and littered with holes that it must be true.

Another one for 87.5% but I would like to know what that 87.5% is of. Current pay, pay -15%, pay - 15% and demotion? It makes a difference
bex88 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 19:12
  #1134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by 3Greens View Post
quite a sweeping statement to tar 4500 pilots with that brush ...
If you read carefully, you will notice that I wasn't "tar[ring] 4500 pilots with that brush", my comments were quite clearly targeted at those pilots coming up with those statements. The fact that you are becoming 'twitched' about it appears to be a problem more with you. As others have commented, those statements appear to a minority. That minority is a miserable mob. Just to clarify.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a way to keep all pilots in jobs? As I have mentioned previously, these are extreme and unprecedented times. Stop thinking of 'normal' times, they don't exist.

Good luck.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 20:43
  #1135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
I canít quite believe what Iíve been reading over these last few pages.

It massively saddens me that colleagues have a few of others so wrongly tainted.

These are hard times for all of us. But please spare me the ďpulling up drawbridges/gilted cages diatribe/JSS voted in by senior folkĒ
its just wrong and it worries me that some are willfully misrepresenting others to make a point. It only serves to widen divisions, not mend them
Shaka Zulu is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 10:07
  #1136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: south coast
Posts: 407
The wide divide within BA has always been there and it has been getting wider for many years. Now is the perfect storm for this company
Barcli is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 10:21
  #1137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,845
Yep...

And as some of us know despite rumours of green shoots elsewhere there some are very keen to keep on using the word "crisis" so as to keep the fear of this perfect storm out there front and centre in the mind games that are going on.

I don't envy the reps....
wiggy is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 11:53
  #1138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 130
There need to be HUGE 'green shoots' to turn this from a crisis:


(Care of 'Flight'.)


Just trying to inject some reality. If you don't have that "front and centre in the mind" you are losing touch with reality.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 12:06
  #1139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,845
Everything is relative Noel ..when every missive from your OpCo CEO and Group CEO, hunkered down in the bunker contains the word "crisis" then other airlines scratching around to get pilots in to cover work, and running advertising campaigns to get passengers back has the appearance of tiny tiny "Green shoots"..
wiggy is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 13:58
  #1140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 714
If you read carefully, you will notice that I wasn't "tar[ring] 4500 pilots with that brush", my comments were quite clearly targeted at those pilots coming up with those statements
What, a statement that they have concerns over being able to afford permanently reducing their income with an unscrupulous employer waiting in the wings to take away even more? No one in BA wants any colleague to lose their job. No one.

I'll be blunt, your vocal campaign to extend the retirement age is aimed at benefiting you and your financial situation/retirement. It would, should it ever come to pass, have huge knock on effects for the generations of pilots who follow, but you don't seem to consider any of that, or feel it relevant to your personal situation.

And you come on here and call others selfish?

Please......
BitMoreRightRudder 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.