IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Dublin
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However if you then look at the top 3000 that would be ‘safe’ under LIFO, would there be any under the age of 30? By virtue of simply not being old enough to reach the required years of service to be that high.
If you end up firing 100% of your staff that were in the 18-30 age bracket it could be a fairly strong argument for age discrimination.
I don’t have a solution by the way, just saying the argument that LIFO wouldn’t take out all of the youngest employees is not strictly true.
Last edited by The Foss; 18th Feb 2021 at 18:26.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: London
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I propose a wager. I bet you that the average age of a member of the bottom 10% of the MSL is lower than that of the top 10%.
There maybe outliers but you know that age and seniority are highly correlated, hence you will not accept this bet and hence why LIFO is ageist.
LIFO as fair as you can get as it does not use any means of personal discrimination. You could start looking at sim grades, sickness, helpfulness, punctuality and any number of subjective qualities, ultimately it will be what the union negotiates with the management. Redundancy is not fair, but LIFO is easy to understand and simple to administer although it will not be favoured by the company as it will probably incur retraining costs and they keep the ones they would like to be rid of.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: London
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIFO as fair as you can get as it does not use any means of personal discrimination. You could start looking at sim grades, sickness, helpfulness, punctuality and any number of subjective qualities, ultimately it will be what the union negotiates with the management. Redundancy is not fair, but LIFO is easy to understand and simple to administer although it will not be favoured by the company as it will probably incur retraining costs and they keep the ones they would like to be rid of.
Of course, lifes not fair; but if that was what we strived for, I can't see anything fairer than names out of a hat. I'm not seriously suggesting it but maybe FIFO would have some merit in the sense of fairness - the pilot leaving would have benefited from the longest period of continuous employment.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting situation because a) BALPA have stated they want LIFO, but also b) their primary focus is to protect jobs. Anyone with brain can see these two items are mutually exclusive. One PP24 long haul skipper costs roughly as much as three PP34 DEPs, so if they have to meet a pre-defined cost reduction and they truly want LIFO, they risk costing jobs as opposed to saving them. Let's not forget that several of the reps may well be vulnerable under the proposed BA terms themselves, so I expect there to be some kind of hash involved if/when CR is required.
As has been said elsewhere, CR in the current climate could quite conceivably spell end of one's flying career. At this point it seems almost inevitable but I truly hope everything is being considered to avoid as much CR as possible.
As has been said elsewhere, CR in the current climate could quite conceivably spell end of one's flying career. At this point it seems almost inevitable but I truly hope everything is being considered to avoid as much CR as possible.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would strongly suggest that to use LIFO, as the sole method of selection for redundancy, is against the law.
Although once a common method of selection, the use of LIFO reduced drastically with the enactment of age discrimination laws in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.
BA and BALPA can agree what they like, whether it is in line with current legislation or not. If they use LIFO as a sole method for redundancy and it is not challenged in court they will get away with it. If it is challenged it will tie both BA and BALPA up for months and years and that is before both sides start digging into their pockets to pay for their defence.
I know what I would be doing in the current climate if I were threatened with redundancy based on LIFO and wanted to keep my job.
Pilots who find themselves without job in a cockpit over the next few months are going to struggle for some considerable time before another flying job comes around.
Although once a common method of selection, the use of LIFO reduced drastically with the enactment of age discrimination laws in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.
BA and BALPA can agree what they like, whether it is in line with current legislation or not. If they use LIFO as a sole method for redundancy and it is not challenged in court they will get away with it. If it is challenged it will tie both BA and BALPA up for months and years and that is before both sides start digging into their pockets to pay for their defence.
I know what I would be doing in the current climate if I were threatened with redundancy based on LIFO and wanted to keep my job.
Pilots who find themselves without job in a cockpit over the next few months are going to struggle for some considerable time before another flying job comes around.
Last edited by 101917; 9th May 2020 at 21:57. Reason: missinf word
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Names out of a hat has to be the worst possible solution for everyone!
Many left more lucrative positions in the good times to start at the bottom of a long list to gain some semblance of career stability by increasing their buffer from the bottom.
Many also avoided slightly riskier fleets and bases to give themselves a better chance.
Names out of a hat means you’re at an equal chance of being let go during each crisis for the rest of your career. In seniority based airlines that’s monumentally depressing!
Many left more lucrative positions in the good times to start at the bottom of a long list to gain some semblance of career stability by increasing their buffer from the bottom.
Many also avoided slightly riskier fleets and bases to give themselves a better chance.
Names out of a hat means you’re at an equal chance of being let go during each crisis for the rest of your career. In seniority based airlines that’s monumentally depressing!
88.. Making the deal as palatable as possible is the task of the negotiators. If they are clever, they can propose terms that will encourage the seniors to leave but it is not going to be so easy now as there are not going to be other opportunities, so its has to be cash above the statutory minimum. In the 3 downsizings I have been through, most people left voluntarily, but there were other jobs around then. Bad times for all, your hat may be a good idea.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: London
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure you that nearer the bottom of the list under LIFO is equally depressing.
Last edited by clvf88; 9th May 2020 at 23:07.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve been at the wrong end of LIFO before, so have many other people. Now these same people are being told it should be names out of a hat instead? Utter cobblers I’m afraid. Everyone joined BA knowing it was seniority driven and for what it’s worth if BA were to chop 1130 off the bottom of the MSL this time it’d be my turn again unfortunately but I still wouldn’t argue against LIFO on principle, for the simple reason that it’s completely transparent. Nothing about this situation is fair for anybody. How could anybody in BA have expected last year with the company recording multi billion profits again that just months later they’d be facing a trip to the dole office? Comments about choosing to be on the wrong fleet are ridiculous, nobody could or should have planned for this. My personal view is anyone who escapes this round will only be receiving a stay of execution anyway. There’s clearly a lot more pain down the road.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to note that discrimination works both ways on any particular characteristic. Just because the common cases of age discrimination are old people, of gender discrimination are women, of sexual orientation discrimination are homosexuals, of ethnic/racial discrimination are people from Black, Middle-Eastern and Asian backgrounds, does not mean that discrimination the other way is any more permitted by law.
Having hiring or firing criteria that penalise younger more than older, or having all the gay managers fire the straight guy because he's not gay like them, a company run by BAME people refusing to hire anyone White, and so on, does not make those ethically correct or legal either.
Not only does LIFO risk age discrimination, it also risks discrimination against other characteristics such as ethnicity or sexual orientation - because those employed longer were hired when discrimination was acceptable or not enforced, a company may well have hired only straight white middle class British people in the past. Having more recently provided opportunities for all, as legally and ethically required, they might now have a more balanced workforce but all the BAME, gay, etc, employees were hired relatively recently. This is particularly important for "lifetime career" companies, and BA is one of those (railways are another). If BA makes the most recently employed people redundant they'll lose many of their non-White, non-British, non-middle-class employees. That would also be discrimination, even if not intentional. BA has a good reputation for treating people much the same regardless of origin, orientation, etc (they all get treated equally badly these days...) but even inadvertent discrimination is still discrimination.
An employer must act positively to avoid discrimination in this day and age, mere passive uncaring is not enough. Lawyers will come calling if they do not.
Having hiring or firing criteria that penalise younger more than older, or having all the gay managers fire the straight guy because he's not gay like them, a company run by BAME people refusing to hire anyone White, and so on, does not make those ethically correct or legal either.
Not only does LIFO risk age discrimination, it also risks discrimination against other characteristics such as ethnicity or sexual orientation - because those employed longer were hired when discrimination was acceptable or not enforced, a company may well have hired only straight white middle class British people in the past. Having more recently provided opportunities for all, as legally and ethically required, they might now have a more balanced workforce but all the BAME, gay, etc, employees were hired relatively recently. This is particularly important for "lifetime career" companies, and BA is one of those (railways are another). If BA makes the most recently employed people redundant they'll lose many of their non-White, non-British, non-middle-class employees. That would also be discrimination, even if not intentional. BA has a good reputation for treating people much the same regardless of origin, orientation, etc (they all get treated equally badly these days...) but even inadvertent discrimination is still discrimination.
An employer must act positively to avoid discrimination in this day and age, mere passive uncaring is not enough. Lawyers will come calling if they do not.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: London
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rex - I'm trying to unravel your comment about why LIFO is fair but I'm afraid your arguement makes no zero sense to me. I do agree with your assertion about a stay of execution though, unfortunately.
Anyway, I've made one too many comments on a topic which I think is going to be irrelevant, so I'm out. All the best to those affected.
Anyway, I've made one too many comments on a topic which I think is going to be irrelevant, so I'm out. All the best to those affected.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rex - I'm trying to unravel your comment about why LIFO is fair but I'm afraid your arguement makes no zero sense to me. I do agree with your assertion about a stay of execution though, unfortunately.
Anyway, I've made one too many comments on a topic which I think is going to be irrelevant, so I'm out. All the best to those affected.
Anyway, I've made one too many comments on a topic which I think is going to be irrelevant, so I'm out. All the best to those affected.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sit well below the chopping line. LIFO seems fair on paper, but my young family who are probably going to lose their house would beg to differ.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Dublin
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even WW’s pessimistic view is that we will be back at 2019 levels in 2023. If we estimate approx 100 retirements in 21/22/23 that will leave them needing to rehire almost 1500 pilots. How many can BA usually bring through in a year? 300? 350? I have no doubt they would like to save the cost of 1100+ pilots right now, but I don’t think they would actually want that many heads out the door.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True. But it also sees the most financially precarious out of a job while those nearing the end of their careers sit happily on whopping salaries.
I sit well below the chopping line. LIFO seems fair on paper, but my young family who are probably going to lose their house would beg to differ.
I sit well below the chopping line. LIFO seems fair on paper, but my young family who are probably going to lose their house would beg to differ.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not quite sure why people are even discussing this very issue about pilot redundancy methods. BA (and Virgin) have both said they're in a fight for survival. BA (and Virgin) have both said that certain fleets will be retired/wound down. BA (and virgin) have both announced a consultation process on redundancy. BA (and Virgin) have both stated that redundancies are to be based on operational requirements i.e. fleets remaining with any further based on Seniority.
Based on the above, can anybody explain to me why either airline would want to retain B747/A380 pilots to then have to get rid of A320/A330 pilots. I'd like to understand how retaining type rated pilots surplus to requirements is going to help an airline in a so called fight for survival?
If LIFO is not applied by airlines can anybody tell me what powers the Unions have to overturn such a decision?
Based on the above, can anybody explain to me why either airline would want to retain B747/A380 pilots to then have to get rid of A320/A330 pilots. I'd like to understand how retaining type rated pilots surplus to requirements is going to help an airline in a so called fight for survival?
If LIFO is not applied by airlines can anybody tell me what powers the Unions have to overturn such a decision?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
‘If LIFO is not applied by airlines can anybody tell me what powers the Unions have to overturn such a decision?’
LIFO should not be applied by the airlines as a sole method of selecting people for compulsory redundancy. The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010 changed the ‘rules’.
BALPA would not try and overturn a LIFO decision as in BA and Virgin LIFO is their policy. BALPA would agree to LIFO. Therefore it would be up to an individual, or a group of individuals to take action against both the airlines, who would be the main culprits and should be first in the firing line and then BALPA who would be supporting them.
I would suggest a good first step would be to get assurances from both BALPA and BA/Virgin that they are going to abide by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.
If they both say they will then monitor the situation very closely. If both duck and dive, as I suspect they will, get a group together and fire a warning shot across their bows that legal action will follow if they do not follow the legislation.
As someone said above, use a reputable London law firm to send the first missile with the treat of going nuclear later on.
Remember it is your job that is at risk and selection for compulsorily redundancy must be done fairly and in line with current legislation.
LIFO should not be applied by the airlines as a sole method of selecting people for compulsory redundancy. The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010 changed the ‘rules’.
BALPA would not try and overturn a LIFO decision as in BA and Virgin LIFO is their policy. BALPA would agree to LIFO. Therefore it would be up to an individual, or a group of individuals to take action against both the airlines, who would be the main culprits and should be first in the firing line and then BALPA who would be supporting them.
I would suggest a good first step would be to get assurances from both BALPA and BA/Virgin that they are going to abide by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Equality Act 2010.
If they both say they will then monitor the situation very closely. If both duck and dive, as I suspect they will, get a group together and fire a warning shot across their bows that legal action will follow if they do not follow the legislation.
As someone said above, use a reputable London law firm to send the first missile with the treat of going nuclear later on.
Remember it is your job that is at risk and selection for compulsorily redundancy must be done fairly and in line with current legislation.