IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Dublin
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Percula
LIFO..ish.. due to the 787/350 and former BACF immunity, the top end of the 249 made redundant were 350+ places off the bottom of the MSL.
Still junior, but approaching PP3 vs pilots who were only weeks (or days) in the company when Covid hit, and yet to touch a BA aircraft but kept their jobs.
LIFO..ish.. due to the 787/350 and former BACF immunity, the top end of the 249 made redundant were 350+ places off the bottom of the MSL.
Still junior, but approaching PP3 vs pilots who were only weeks (or days) in the company when Covid hit, and yet to touch a BA aircraft but kept their jobs.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Dublin
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine the uproar if BACF DOJ was suddenly used for bidding purposes.
At the end of the day there were approximately 70-80 pilots that got shafted out of seniority order.
In my eyes pilots with c. 2 years flying for BA mainline should not have lost their job ahead of those who may have only been in weeks or months, regardless of fleet or who they worked for previously. That’s exactly what LIFO was for.
At the end of the day there were approximately 70-80 pilots that got shafted out of seniority order.
In my eyes pilots with c. 2 years flying for BA mainline should not have lost their job ahead of those who may have only been in weeks or months, regardless of fleet or who they worked for previously. That’s exactly what LIFO was for.
Last edited by The Foss; 16th Feb 2021 at 18:56.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 38
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no point imagining something that isn’t happening. Re the bidding process.
Although you may not like to think of the BACF Pilots as part of BA, their contracts say otherwise.
Legally their service had to count.
I would question the number being as high as 70-80.
There may well be that many BACF Pilots at mainline, but most of them would have already served more than 2 years. And therefore regardless of their city flyer service wouldn’t have been up for redundancy.
Although you may not like to think of the BACF Pilots as part of BA, their contracts say otherwise.
Legally their service had to count.
I would question the number being as high as 70-80.
There may well be that many BACF Pilots at mainline, but most of them would have already served more than 2 years. And therefore regardless of their city flyer service wouldn’t have been up for redundancy.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Dublin
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
legally their service counts for statutory purposes when calculating a redundancy payment.
But it has no legal standing when determining a redundancy matrix. The company and the union can agree to put whatever they like in there provided it is non discriminatory, as we saw with Virgin when LIFO went out the window.
As LIFO doesn’t legally need to be part of the redundancy matrix, it can’t be legally required to consider DOJ at a subsidiary.
We have LIFO in the MOA to protect us but rely on Balpa to uphold that, which for the majority they did but a small number got very unlucky.
I believe ther were 20-30 former BACF pilots ‘below the line’ plus approx 50 787/350, hence the 70-80 made CR out of order.
But it has no legal standing when determining a redundancy matrix. The company and the union can agree to put whatever they like in there provided it is non discriminatory, as we saw with Virgin when LIFO went out the window.
As LIFO doesn’t legally need to be part of the redundancy matrix, it can’t be legally required to consider DOJ at a subsidiary.
We have LIFO in the MOA to protect us but rely on Balpa to uphold that, which for the majority they did but a small number got very unlucky.
I believe ther were 20-30 former BACF pilots ‘below the line’ plus approx 50 787/350, hence the 70-80 made CR out of order.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 38
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have LIFO in the MOA which states “ total service with an employer shall be taken into consideration” nowhere does it say the MSL is to be used.
And if you’re going to use 787/350 figures then it’s not just Cityflyer people who were saved, they wouldn’t even make up the majority in that group.
Again the MOA mentions retaining employment “in those showing high efficiency”.
Many many people were unlucky in all this, I just hope some sort of normality is in our future.
And if you’re going to use 787/350 figures then it’s not just Cityflyer people who were saved, they wouldn’t even make up the majority in that group.
Again the MOA mentions retaining employment “in those showing high efficiency”.
Many many people were unlucky in all this, I just hope some sort of normality is in our future.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: In the flare
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding from the numerous emails sent out by the union and company was that the 350/787 folk saved did not push the line up. This was explicitly explained so many times it was boring. They were saved at no cost. They were saved at companies request, not the union's. The only issue is it makes is those of us that were screwed a little bitter that junior people kept their jobs. Either x lose their job or x+787/350 lose their jobs. The line didn't rise by 40, 50 or any number to save the 350/78 pilots. It might make you sleep better at night to have them sacked too, but it is a fundamentally worse solution.
350/78 talk just muddies the water IMO. All it did was reduce the number of redundancies (a good thing).
BACF did increase the position of the line, but is legally backed so no arguments there, just the way it is and sadly overlooked by all, initially.
Mainly being devils advocate, a lot of stuff has happened I don't agree with. Covid is (say it together) unprecedented.
350/78 talk just muddies the water IMO. All it did was reduce the number of redundancies (a good thing).
BACF did increase the position of the line, but is legally backed so no arguments there, just the way it is and sadly overlooked by all, initially.
Mainly being devils advocate, a lot of stuff has happened I don't agree with. Covid is (say it together) unprecedented.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Dublin
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainSox
I said both in my first post on the matter, to quote - “due to the 787/350 and former BACF immunity”
It was simply a reply to someone who had said LIFO was used to point out yes, to an extent, but not completely.
I said both in my first post on the matter, to quote - “due to the 787/350 and former BACF immunity”
It was simply a reply to someone who had said LIFO was used to point out yes, to an extent, but not completely.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pips are squeaking.. British Airways to defer £450m of pension contributions
