IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs
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!
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!
There is no way to defend a business like that!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 08:47.
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.
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 09:08.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
At least one of the unions standard MO seems to be to encourage that frame of mind...
the BA / IAG board cam back with the classic line..."we need to sack pilots to mirror other departments".
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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...
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...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.........
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.........
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.
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.
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If somebody can post the current BA/IAG trading figures ( including current cash burn , forward bookings, and cash left in the bank ) it just might make some people look at things a bit differently.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 42
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CRS is not a nice idea thought of and funded by BA. It is a response from the pilot workforce and is funded by us. There is no free give away to the pilots. Cut through it all and there is a 20% reduction in crew.
Under this devastating scenario the MOA went out the window and the CRS is our best effort to provide some sort of adherence to it. Without it I think we would see redundancies by fleet.
Under this devastating scenario the MOA went out the window and the CRS is our best effort to provide some sort of adherence to it. Without it I think we would see redundancies by fleet.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloud1
Tui in my experience always had a good relationship with BALPA as both Management and the Union have a mature outlook rather than 'ye who has the last laugh' which goes on at many Airlines with some showing their true colours now. Sure there are always the 5% unhappy with Management but they are the usual ones that the management and no doubt the Union spend 95% of their time dealing with. CV19 has however bought many BA Nigels down to a level that many Aviation staff have faced during their careers. If I'd have joined BA XX years ago I'd still be there rather than my current airline number XX (and I mean XX not X)
Tui in my experience always had a good relationship with BALPA as both Management and the Union have a mature outlook rather than 'ye who has the last laugh' which goes on at many Airlines with some showing their true colours now. Sure there are always the 5% unhappy with Management but they are the usual ones that the management and no doubt the Union spend 95% of their time dealing with. CV19 has however bought many BA Nigels down to a level that many Aviation staff have faced during their careers. If I'd have joined BA XX years ago I'd still be there rather than my current airline number XX (and I mean XX not X)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt BA would risk the litigation of throwing the MOA out of the window. We would certainly see a lot more compulsory redundancies off the bottom and then demotions to fill the FO positions though. BALPA’s main aim has been to save jobs and the CRS is indeed achieving that, but I do not believe the majority of the CRS pilots were ever at risk of redundancy themselves.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Uk
Age: 42
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under normal circumstances with a smaller headcount reduction I would agree. The MOA has already been cherry picked and ignored.
I have heard “the 320 will bear the CR”, actually that really is not true as a fair number of crew joined onto LH fleets.
The CRS is probably the best outcome given the situation and the original proposal. It’s still rubbish but less so.
I have heard “the 320 will bear the CR”, actually that really is not true as a fair number of crew joined onto LH fleets.
The CRS is probably the best outcome given the situation and the original proposal. It’s still rubbish but less so.
Originally Posted by White Van Driver
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.