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 17th Jul 2020, 11:53
  #1321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 818
If you were a cynic, you might suggest it was leaked by the press by the same people who were "forced" to put an email out at an industrially propitious time.
Jwscud is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2020, 15:43
  #1322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by NoelEvans View Post
Pompous to some.
Realistic to others.

Whitemonk Returns has got it spot on in his most recent post.
i didn’t say it was a good idea. just that if someone were to “point it out”; they’d sound like a...
3Greens is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2020, 16:06
  #1323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
1988. Interest went up to about 15.5%. My mortgage interest alone went up to about 110% of my total income! That was fun.

Ditto. I bought my first in 1984. 15% interest rate. Everyone said go for the absolute max you could afford. For my first few months I had no spare money and basically survived on baked potatoes from a large sack that cost me £2.50, an old fridge that cost me £5, and cheap, basic furniture from the 2nd hand furniture shop.

Things got better though. Eventually.
Uplinker is online now  
Old 17th Jul 2020, 18:24
  #1324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 39
Posts: 473
The whole VR thing. LH guys off 747 have been receiving approved VR. Some of the other fleets SH LHR and the above mentioned LH have been getting declined. This has been questioned and it was a no for exit in July/August but a deferral with the date to be confirmed. That would indicate that BA wants to get its house in order and then allow VR to go when they have them covered.
bex88 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2020, 20:43
  #1325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 132
Uplinker

We bought our first in early '88. Mortgage rate of 9.7%. "The lowest you'll ever see", we were told, "buy to the max you can afford". We cautiously bought a smaller house where the payments were 25% of my income, leaving spare for comfort. Then within a year those 15% interest rates hit everyone. Our 'spare' was gobbled up but we lived on. Everyone else was crying about 'negative equity' (I clearly remember an article in the 'Log' headed "For 'Negative Equity' read 'Debt'"). We had that house for 10 years and although it was far from 'palatial', everyone in the family remembers it fondly. Being able to weather through that era comfortably has been an excellent lesson in caution. I have earned 'more than an MP' for very few years of my career, but we have been very happy with what we have had. Especially right now.

Good luck everyone.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 23:26
  #1326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by Raph737 View Post
Flap80 must be a delight to fly with....Enjoys the benefits the union got him but had BA said 787’s to go, he’d be outside with a “BA betrayal” banner calling foul play.

Good luck to you guys, sounds like you need it with colleagues like that!
TUI is right now the best pilot gig in the UK hands down, great agreement by both parties.
There is quite a fundamental difference between TUI and BA. First of all, they have a much smaller fleet so are less affected by cutting back aircraft. They had planned a lot of leasing this summer which can be changed whereas BA simply have too many aircraft now. Those aircraft need trimming back and so do overheads. Additionally BA were already trying to scrabble together savings from the previous industrial action - a bit of a controversial topic - but many cost saving projects were under way to recoup a lot of loss accrued during that action. TUI didn’t have that financial burden.

Also TUI crew “types” are more streamlined and not full of complication which we see at BA (more so CC rather than FC) and welfare costs are lower compared to BA who have to have separate accommodation agreements for different crew. Mixed fleet crew for example can often stay in “cheaper” accommodation vs other crew who may be required under their agreement to be downtown incurring additional expense.

TUI are generally a good company but anyone that thinks the grass is greener is somewhat naive - it’s not and things are hard everywhere. Just because cuts are not happening right now at a given company doesn’t mean they won’t happen within the next 6-12 months.
Cloud1 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 01:06
  #1327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London
Posts: 79
So you’re teaching me about what TUI and BA are? Don’t call me naive, If only you knew....

I understand those agreements at BA very well, I’ve given several of my years to the airline and my partner flies there. I also know what TUI is about and I can tell you from experience on both airlines that the grass is greener. After all, It’s the BA Pilots and crew who are having sleepless nights right now whilst the TUI’s are congratulating their leadership team for doing the right thing.

We can agree to disagree on this, but to me, on top of job security there must be respect and transparency. When was last time Alex Cruz did a vlogg to speak directly to his staff? Because TUI Group CEO, and the airline’s managing director were both releasing communications and holding webinars since this crisis started. Everything was laid bare to staff, from financials to strategy and the questions could be asked directly to the top guys without censorship or fear.

You are right about looking into the future, but we know that the relationship between BALPA and TUI is much healthier and we now know that there is trust and respect between them. Can you say the same about BA?That old “mystique” about flying for the flag carrier is long gone, and some guys were knocked down a notch or two when the company sent them the S188. There are examples on this very forum!

Do you know what is really touching the naïveté line? Is believing that TUI group and it’s complexities (cruise ships, hotels/resorts worldwide, 150 aircraft, 70K staff) with much shorter cash flown than BA, didn’t have a financial burden.

BA was recovering from strikes? Well TUI have six 737Max’s siting around and compensation from Boeing was only agreed now, over a year later, who was paying for it? The others were severely delayed, hence the wet leases. They also had higher debt, whilst BA’s previous financial results showed a healthy wallet. TUI announced severe cuts, 8000 staff to go, although they were overheads, some Staff in Germany lost their jobs already, So I think you’re wrong there as BA was in a much more privileged position.

This is about leadership and priorities, and BA’s are hellbent on ensuring they get their way even tho there were better solutions to deal with their staff. BA is showing their pilots that they are not as special as they thought they were, by putting them in the same bin as the cabin crew.

At the moment, I see little hope to the Unite/GMB cause, because our prime minister is inept and the government so far got it terribly wrong. He was questioned in the PMQ’s two days ago if he was going to do something about BA. His response was that there was no “magic wand” to save everyone’s jobs.

The government washed their hands and Cruz has green light to proceed. The emails for the 1-2-1 meetings with crew were send this week and they are going forward. Even Ryanair had more class in dealing with it’s staff during the crisis....you’re trying to convince me that BA is still the top UK job in aviation?

So my friend, it’s simple, in 6-12 months I do not know where TUI will be. I know that it looks positive now and I know that there isn’t any opportunistic ideas in order to attack the staff. It could change but the evidence suggests that it’s unlikely. But also, one thing is looking more likely now is that in 6-12 months time, the BA pilots T&C’s will be different. They will earn less, work harder and have the feeling that they do not have the respect from their employer. I say this with sadness as people close to me are affected by this.

There is no way to defend a business like that!
Raph737 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 01:13
  #1328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,886
There is no way to defend a business like that!
Spot on, as is the rest of your post.
TURIN is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 06:32
  #1329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 77
Raph737

I guess that the massive bailout from the German goverment helped a bit too....but as for the rest of your post, bang on. Last decade was a cash cow; Cruz and Walsh probably believe their own hype a bit too much. Now, their complete lack of leadership and and sense of empathy and morality is devoid and laid bare. I simply cannot fathom out what the CEO of BA thinks about prior to either typing one of his incredibly depressing emails, or before he records one fo those ridiculous videos. Truly astonishing. I wish TUI a rapid return to success as I have many pals there.

Last edited by 3Greens; 19th Jul 2020 at 09:47.
3Greens is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 07:52
  #1330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,892
Well said Raph....right on the nose.

The "management committee's" style/tone of comms has been consistently depressing and I think has on occasions caused great distress to many people.

Last edited by wiggy; 19th Jul 2020 at 10:08.
wiggy is online now  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 10:01
  #1331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 810
Raph737

Parts of this I agree with; the government have been utterly useless in protecting the aviation sector. When VS were asking for a bail out and there was controversy over Branson the government made it crystal clear - probably due to protest by many - that airlines had to seek their own cost saving initiatives first. This undoubtedly includes reducing fleet and associated staff levels. So this could have ever minimised had the government thought about it a bit better when they were doing their initial response plan.

We will have to agree to disagree though on the main message of my post. I have met crew who have been critical of TUI management as well although the hostility and negativity against Cruz and Walsh is certainly extraordinary but I don’t really understand why anyone would continue to work in a company if they lack that respect. Leave. Pre-Covid there were other flying opportunities around although that cannot be said now.

I haven’t said BA are top dog at all but I have worked for several outfits in my time and I am amazed by how many people seem to think BA are so bad and everywhere is better yet seemingly do jack all about it and just stay where they are.

Ryanair have been criticised in the past for how they “treat” their employees. Everyone is different and perceive the management of a company differently. I have seen posts on this forum about how the retirement of the B747 is a ploy to get rid of crew - I mean FFS. Those are gas guzzling machines requiring a high number of bums on seats which simply cannot be filled hence why VS have got rid of theres. It makes business sense and was predictable but no, some people think it’s just about the crew. It is that attitude I find hard to digest. The way some crew comment about management on the company yammer page is a disgrace as well.

I maintain my original stance; the grass is not always greener. BA are far from perfect but I have yet to find a company that is. TUI and BA are two different companies with a different structure, different network and portfolio, different fleet size and less operational complication developed over years of union input and negotiation.
Cloud1 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 10:13
  #1332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,892
Originally Posted by Cloud1 View Post
I have seen posts on this forum about how the retirement of the B747 is a ploy to get rid of crew - I mean FFS. Those are gas guzzling machines requiring a high number of bums on seats which simply cannot be filled hence why VS have got rid of theres. It makes business sense and was predictable but no, some people think it’s just about the crew. It is that attitude I find hard to digest.
There are certainly some in BA who think that every single business decision is a personal attack solely on them.

At least one of the unions standard MO seems to be to encourage that frame of mind...
wiggy is online now  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 20:29
  #1333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,892
Originally Posted by 8029848s View Post
BA threatened to sack the entire 747 pilot group unless BALPA paid a huge price for LIFO...
I haven't heard that in any discussions I've had away from this place - can you give a hint as to your source...?

the BA / IAG board cam back with the classic line..."we need to sack pilots to mirror other departments".
That I can very easily believe...I also think it's possible the Board see it as an opportunity for a bit of pay back for last years IA and also to finally put to bed forever the idea that BA is an airline that will always go to great lengths to avoid making any of it's pilots redundant..

wiggy is online now  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 21:05
  #1334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 810
Or....just or....it could be that the airline is getting rid of a load of planes and will not progress with expansion due to the sudden and ongoing down turn in demand. Thus they don’t need that many Pilots? Just a whacky idea.
Cloud1 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2020, 22:13
  #1335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 339
Unlikely, the slots are still there to be flown.
Threethirty is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2020, 07:45
  #1336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,892
Cloud1

I don't think the reduction in hulls comes as a surprise to anybody (outside it seems some at UNITE).

The problem is how the company is handling the excess in pilots.

It's been alleged that the company is highly resistant to any proposals from BALPA that would keep everybody on-board, at least for now...there's a bit of a feeling that the underlying mindset at Board level is that they want to be seen to be making some pilots redundant as part of the current process...
wiggy is online now  
Old 20th Jul 2020, 08:33
  #1337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Interesting how a decision seems imminent of maybe considering a lifeboat for several hundred, of which a percentage will be top earners & a long way through the career path. Some with the CRS salary may be earning more than a SH surviving Captain who will be left supporting those unproductive retention salaries and retraining costs with a significant pay adjustment to foot the bill.

And yet a number of CR may well have training loans well over 100k. This appears as a company and workforce that prides “wellbeing”, “care of mental health” and “career development” and yet groups such as this can fall into the abyss whilst at the same time allowing some of the comfortable seniors into the life boat, either on gardening leave or bolstering the CRS salary with alternative work options. One must remember the thousands of other workers in other departments and companies facing the gravest of difficulties. This delivers a dubious signal to other departments that will not aide a unified workforce. If this strategy was used on the Titanic, the women & children would have all perished, thankfully there was some gentlemanly behaviour with that disaster.

Question: Are wages going to be well spent putting the suggested group into the lifeboat, and allowing the future generation whom should be rebuilding this mess to drown??? With any moral backbone, whilst difficult, the answer is plain to see.

Question: What happens if the industry has a further downturn? A further salary adjustment for a bigger lifeboat??

Question: Will those in the CRS repay in any way the working community (or the CR group) the majority of which will never be able to aspire to their remuneration on their return??

Question: It is generally accepted that the whole community should accept alterations to pay and conditions given the precarious outlook with almost impossible forecast conditions for the pandemic. If a pay reduction is to be used to support and protect a vulnerable group then that is no doubt an admirable stance, however there are countless more worthy causes out there. Do you really think this particular group within the wider context of society’s difficulties fits a “worthy cause”?

This is not a solution based on square morals and principles, a responsible British employer ought not to sign up to this complex pyramid act, & if they do there ought to be individual consent without any feeling of detriment to position. Time perhaps to look at ones consciences.........
Survival Cot is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2020, 09:25
  #1338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by Survival Cot View Post
Question: What happens if the industry has a further downturn? A further salary adjustment for a bigger lifeboat??
In keeping with the sailing metaphors I think it’s patently obvious that in the event of a further downturn the CRS will be the first ones cast adrift, which is why anyone with a choice would not want to be in it. There’s not a single pilot who will escape CR that will be wishing to trade places with someone in the CRS Pool. It’s not a paid holiday, it’s one foot out the door. An important distinction.
Plastic787 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2020, 09:50
  #1339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 24
I agree that the majority would rather be working than in the CRS. I certainly would rather work. But don't forget those in the CRS will be able to work outside BA to supplement their income. If they treat it as an opportunity to get into another industry they could actually do very well out of it.

However I disagree that the CRS will be the first to be cast adrift in the case of round 2 redundancies. If the current figure of 450 redundancies was to be increased to say 550, the CRS wouldn't be touched but another 100 from the bottom would be made redundant. In the case of more redundancies later this year or into next year, they'll keep the CRS in tact and just chop off from the bottom using the same matrix that has been agreed for this round.
White Van Driver is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2020, 09:55
  #1340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,892
TBH I think we need to be wary of stereotyping .. "comfortable seniors", thinking all new joiners are paying back 100K loans, and that every skipper on the jumbo is going to be rolling in it/having a comfortable time on CRS...

Anyhow back to the lifeboats, women and children first and voluntarily leaving, taking pay cuts, taking part time in order to help...

I think the problem some are perceiving now is if you offer up your seat on the lifeboat it now appears there's no guarantee that the company will actually fill that seat with somebody " more deserving" ..and I suspect that is starting grip people who have perhaps already volunteered to step back, and will also perhaps also make it more difficult to get volunteers to give up their seats in the future..

I think I'll leave there since as you can tell I've exhausted my knowledge of boaty things...


wiggy is online now  

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.