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 18th Sep 2020, 23:55
  #1821 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,590
Let me remind you how BA pilots assisted as strike breakers in 2010, which directly led to the formation of Mixed Fleet.
If I recall correctly in 2010 WW gave each department a savings target and imposed a deeadline along the lines of 'reach agreement by xx date or I will impose changes'. BASSA, in their true 1970s style had a mass meeting at Kempston Racecourse and on a show of hands voted for 'no more negotiation'. All the other unions negotiated their departments savings.

WW was the first BA CEO who said what he meant and meant what he said. MF wasn't even on the table at the time, he wanted things like the ludicrous Disruption Agreement. For those unaccustomed to the agreements made when BA was a nationalised industry, in a nutshell, an example would be a Singapore London flight might divert to Manchester due fog. The CC would have to have two local nights in a hotel in Manchester before positioning back to LHR where they would then take their 'minimum base turnaround' days before being avilable for work.

WW must have thought all his birthdays had come at once because he promptly introduced MF while BASSA demonstrated their stupidity. When the strike was settled it was a joy to see BASSA claiming that the return of the strikers suspended staff travel as a victory.

As it happens I thought that pilots working as CC during the strike was foolish given the inevitable antagonism this would cause when eventually everybody was back at work after the disruption.
M.Mouse is online now  
Old 19th Sep 2020, 10:57
  #1822 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 257
And now BA are coming back for the pilots. 270 left on CR and not much interest in the derisory VR. Nowhere near the magic 1130 target listed by BA when BALPA finally got an S188
just to put some meat on this bone. Yes, about 270 pilots were made compulsory redundant, but against the S188 target we have;
270 CR
220 VR approved (apparently; and rumours were > 300 applied)
300 in CRS (“off the books” as paid for by the rest of us)
50 to RAF, Etc

Total that up, it comes to 840 pilots leaving the business. They’re rough figures, so we could reasonably say 700-900 pilots are no longer working for BA. Much closer to the approx 1100 that BA wanted.

I’m not saying BA won’t be back for more (I think they will be), but I do actually think they are satisfied with the outcome for round one.

However Balpas response to a clearly deteriorating situation, and their application of the phrase “consideration should be given to the principal of LIFO” was and is wrong. LIFO May prevent pilots being “in the wrong place at the wrong time” but its application at BA has definitely allowed pilots on golden ticket fleets to be in the right place at the right time, and I’m yet to be convinced it’s any more fair.
thetimesreader84 is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2020, 14:25
  #1823 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 864
Balpa can dress it up however they like but the fact is that it ceased to be LIFO the moment you had pilots with a weeks service to the company remain whilst more senior pilots walked the plank. Don’t even start on pilots length of service with a subsidiary airline counting towards their length of service with BA. Lets face it though, people have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their own, nothing about the process is fair however you choose the victims. But it’s extremely disingenuous to dress it up as something it’s not.
RexBanner is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2020, 14:41
  #1824 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London
Posts: 79
It looks like the announcement of a second national lockdown is coming in the next 48hrs, so the “my union is better than yours argument” is the least of your problems, and any aircrew irrespective of the airline they work for. The real enemy here was an incompetent government/ PM who looks like that they wont extend the furlough scheme for aviation, another full month grounded and we will be talking about CR in every UK airline coming October 31st. Who cares you have a grudge against BASSA, you’re all equally screwed!
Raph737 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2020, 07:39
  #1825 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: England
Posts: 88

Amen to that. I was in the 'safe zone' until leapfrogged by about 100 folk, some of which hadn't stepped foot onto a company aircraft in anger yet. Seniority is not everything it seems.
Thegreenmachine is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2020, 08:21
  #1826 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Agreed. What is needed is an MOA with agreed, and transparent detail on redundancy, obviously maintained & guided by evolving current laws. It follows that a responsible employer should not shift costs of that agreement onto the remaining workers. How individuals subsequently choose to square their morals with charitable organisations/paths beyond this should be a personal matter for them.
Survival Cot is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2020, 12:08
  #1827 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,070
Ralph: Point taken and not entirely in disagreement but the government i.e.us the taxpayer cannot keep paying furlough to the aviation industry as surely it has far more important calls on the funds?
HZ123 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2020, 13:05
  #1828 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 607
The deals on pay and conditions going forward may be concluded but I suspect long periods of unpaid leave are just around the corner.
stormin norman is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2020, 08:44
  #1829 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: shenzen
Age: 39
Posts: 326
IAG is a penny share as of right now.
kungfu panda is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 18:44
  #1830 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 51
PLEASE can someone explain why BA didn't furlough (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme CJRS) ANY pilots?

It just doesn't make sense!

Presumably BALPA didn't want pilots furloughed? But look at these figures:

Given the schedule since March, BA could have furloughed ALL 747 and 380 pilots, and probably 40% of A320 (given LGW not flying), probably 60% of 777 pilots, and 40% of 787 and A350 pilots. If not even more than this! We REALLY have not been flying much as an airline!

So lets say 3500 pilots (leaving 1200 active), for 7 months (April to October), at 2500 GBP per month per pilot. That takes us to:

61,250,000 GBP (61.25 MILLION).

"Free" money from the Government to BA and thence to the pilots.

BUT hold on a minute.... We just made the ~250 newest pilots (with the exception of about 2 who weren't the most junior) redundant..... so lets assume they are all on Pay Point 1, and a mix of DEP and SSPs. So lets say 50,000 salary each....... That 61 million from the Government could have paid their full salary for.....

4.9 YEARS!

What were you doing BALPA?

This money could have kept people employed at least until October, and could have meant more funds for a better VR deal and therefore more leaving voluntarily "off the top of the list" thus retaining people who would otherwise have been made VR.

So WHY? Why was the Government CJRS not used? I just do not understand it!
Dave is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 19:37
  #1831 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Surrey
Posts: 457
Because they [WW and I suspect JM] had a political score to settle and they were going to achieve it at any cost. Not only did they get retribution for last year but they destroyed the idea that “BA has never made a pilot CR” setting themselves up nicely for achieving whatever they want in the future.
Busdriver01 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 21:07
  #1832 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 257
I have it on very good authority that it was discussed, however BA wanted to furlough by fleet, seat and base. BALPA declined fearing it would undermine the all important LIFO*. Jury’s out whether it was the right call I guess (I know what I think)

*LIFO unless on a particular fleet and don’t have all your uniform yet, or have worked for another airline for a while.
thetimesreader84 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 06:57
  #1833 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 41
Dave, the reason is that BA wanted to maintain flexibility, as they stated at the time.

it was believed that a recovery might be underway by June and it was important to be ready to capitalise on any rebound.
Pickled is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 08:21
  #1834 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Posts: 27

Timesreader84 summarises the current situation and BA in general, up perfectly.

Those that left easyjet for the BA 'dream' and now finding themselves on the scrap heap must be absolutely kicking themselves. As soon as every single easyjet pilot realised they had skin in the game, then the real show of solidarity began. BA? It soon became very clear it was every (most) man/woman out for themselves when their personal fate became clearer.

The current CRS (for a mix of 300 mainly 747 captains and FO's earning on average £110k on 66% pay) cost the workforce 8%. What would it have cost percentage wise, to keep an extra 249 very junior pilots, earning on average £55k, on say 40%-50% pay? Was it really that difficult to negotiate something like that? Who is the real baddy here?

I remember the Balpa brigade entering the room on induction day telling us how it's in all our interests to sign up to the Union. What they should have done is entered the room holding up signs on sticks saying 'be prepared to one day bend over and take one for the senior boys'. This could well be the start of a long slow death for Balpa.
Paddingtonbear is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 08:34
  #1835 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,891
Originally Posted by Paddingtonbear View Post
The current CRS (for a mix of 300 mainly 747 captains and FO's earning on average £110k on 66% pay) cost the workforce 8%. What would it have cost percentage wise, to keep an extra 249 very junior pilots, earning on average £55k, on say 40%-50% pay? Was it really that difficult to negotiate something like that? Who is the real baddy here?
Yes from what I heard it was difficult to negotiate "something like that" and the real baddy here is some in BA management.

As I recall it the claim was BA management were highly resistant to any plans put forward by BALPA that would have prevented any pilot CR...and I'd suggest that was very much down to the political factors Busdriver01 has mentioned.

wiggy is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 09:09
  #1836 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Posts: 27
and I'd suggest that was very much down to the political factors Busdriver01 has mentioned.
Ah yes, that other total debacle orchestrated by you know who. The debacle that fell off a cliff and was never mentioned again after the terribly sad demise of Thomas Cook. The debacle that you're now suggesting has led to 249 pilot redundancies. Well, it was all worth it, wasn't it.
Paddingtonbear is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 09:44
  #1837 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The sky
Posts: 229
Paddington Bear

BALPA put forward several strategies to prevent any redundancies, all were rejected by BA management. BALPA aren’t the bad guys, you should project your anger elsewhere.

Rumour has it the redundancies are payback for the (totally shambolic and I’ll advised) strike combined with enhancing BA’s negotiating position going forwards. Bear in mind it was the newest BALPA reps that orchestrated that strike.

As much as LIFO+ sucks for those at the bottom of the seniority list (and I speak as the second most junior pilot in the company on 911) it is the right thing to do, otherwise no pilot can ever commit to a big financial decision. Also bear in mind those at the ‘top’ have been at the bottom, many have rebuilt careers after redundancies, think Gulf War 1+2, 911, sars etc.
Locked door is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 10:01
  #1838 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Posts: 27
you should project your anger elsewhere
I don't have the energy to be angry. I'm far too busy working out how I'm going to keep a roof over my family's head.

Good day to you.
Paddingtonbear is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 11:07
  #1839 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Surrey
Posts: 457
A few extra things to remember:

- BA wouldn’t allow more than 300 HCE (or FTE? Never did get this) in the CRS
- BA didn’t offer any part time off the back of the part time bid “to save as many jobs as possible” - they only gave part time to people who went for it at the start, which if I have been told correctly has left those people going into the pay cut on a lower contract than they should’ve been on while not saving any jobs.
- JM actually said AB had given out too much part time already - it’s clear that he simply didn’t want to achieve zero CR. With training costs covered by the pay cuts, the unit cost of having everyone part time shouldn’t have increased. Most other major airlines have achieved it. But then they don’t have WW,AC or JM.

The lack of solidarity shown by those who knew they were safe, to those who were not, by way of lack of applications for part time is obviously woeful (I heard only 900 bids were actually made, compared to say, eJ where they had something in the high 90%) and that is something all BA Pilots should reflect upon - it was expected that everyone would go on strike for the pay rise (and I doubt the large majority of the CR group felt like they needed a pay rise) but when it comes to it, everyone for themselves.

However, it wouldn’t have made a difference if all 4300 pilots bid for part time because BA weren’t going to offer it anyway.
Busdriver01 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2020, 11:37
  #1840 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 92

Interesting, the BALPA official view communicated to members was the BA would not consider it rather than BALPA and BA could not agree on how it would be done! Bearing in mind the fact that things are not picking up it will be interesting to see if BA and BALPA can agree a mechanism to use the chancellor's recent jobs saving scheme to actually save jobs!
ASRAAMTOO 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.