BA f/os Wanting GSS commands
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ornithopter - good ideas, but it they won't happen. BA mainline guys won't let it happen. They are unable to appreciate that we are all professionals, who are equal in status and deserve fair treatment.
I work for GB. BA pilots would like BA to fly all GB routes with their own aircraft -see their scope clause. That is unrealistic, because GB only fly routes that BA doesn't want to fly, or can't make profitable. The next option is for the BA pilots to fly GB aircraft - see their scope clause. To help our colleagues in BA, it is something that could be discussed, if it is something that they really want. It is something that could quite easily happen in the future, if the GB pilots supported it. There will, however, be no support unless the pilots lists are merged equitably - and being on the bottom of a huge list is not equitable. Why should a 2 day GB guy be below someone with 1 day in BA? Remember BA guys want to fly the GB aircraft. GB guys are not seeking to fly BA aircraft - they are happy where they are.
GB is a small profitable airline (and even forecast to make a small profit for the coming year as well) with a future, in or out of the BA fold. BA is big and unprofitable with huge debts of £5billion and a pension shortfall of £1billion. Not exactly a strong negotiating position.
Perhaps, in a few years when the reality of the current recession has taken its toll, a few more suicidal strike threats have frightened loyal passengers into the arms of competitors etc, and more guys in BA have seen the face of modern commercial reality, then attitudes will change. They will realise that they are actually the same as everyone else (although the very senior ones obviously luckier by joining a state protected nationalised airline). Then, Ornithopter, your suggestions may get somewhere.
I work for GB. BA pilots would like BA to fly all GB routes with their own aircraft -see their scope clause. That is unrealistic, because GB only fly routes that BA doesn't want to fly, or can't make profitable. The next option is for the BA pilots to fly GB aircraft - see their scope clause. To help our colleagues in BA, it is something that could be discussed, if it is something that they really want. It is something that could quite easily happen in the future, if the GB pilots supported it. There will, however, be no support unless the pilots lists are merged equitably - and being on the bottom of a huge list is not equitable. Why should a 2 day GB guy be below someone with 1 day in BA? Remember BA guys want to fly the GB aircraft. GB guys are not seeking to fly BA aircraft - they are happy where they are.
GB is a small profitable airline (and even forecast to make a small profit for the coming year as well) with a future, in or out of the BA fold. BA is big and unprofitable with huge debts of £5billion and a pension shortfall of £1billion. Not exactly a strong negotiating position.
Perhaps, in a few years when the reality of the current recession has taken its toll, a few more suicidal strike threats have frightened loyal passengers into the arms of competitors etc, and more guys in BA have seen the face of modern commercial reality, then attitudes will change. They will realise that they are actually the same as everyone else (although the very senior ones obviously luckier by joining a state protected nationalised airline). Then, Ornithopter, your suggestions may get somewhere.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have a simpler solution.
Why dont we make a reality t.v. show along the lines of wife swap or masters and servants.Then the BA mainline can buzz around the uk and vice versa.
I think it would be amusing to watch an old fossil manage 4 sectors on a crusty sandwich and crustier atr 42 and cringe worthy to watch the provincial oik trying to figure out room service in a five star hotel on the other side of the world, whilst making suggestive remarks to anything he thinks he has a chance with, completely oblivious to the reasons a ticket with ba costs so much.
Charter Rules
Jack
Why dont we make a reality t.v. show along the lines of wife swap or masters and servants.Then the BA mainline can buzz around the uk and vice versa.
I think it would be amusing to watch an old fossil manage 4 sectors on a crusty sandwich and crustier atr 42 and cringe worthy to watch the provincial oik trying to figure out room service in a five star hotel on the other side of the world, whilst making suggestive remarks to anything he thinks he has a chance with, completely oblivious to the reasons a ticket with ba costs so much.
Charter Rules
Jack
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vote too for ornithopters suggestion (as a BA pilot) which also flies in the face of Fifty Fours opinions. I'm also a great believer in the merger of seniority lists on D.O.J. regardless, now does that confuse you Fifty Four?
For all franchise pilots ---------------
You are welcome to come fly British Airways aircraft, anytime. You are welcome to join any seniority list I am on using your date of joining GB/BMed/BACX/GSS. In return could you please lobby you reps as hard as I am lobbying mine to get this stupidity sorted
For all franchise pilots ---------------
You are welcome to come fly British Airways aircraft, anytime. You are welcome to join any seniority list I am on using your date of joining GB/BMed/BACX/GSS. In return could you please lobby you reps as hard as I am lobbying mine to get this stupidity sorted
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Music to my ears...
Land ASAP, if only we could convince more people!
I don't think that merging of the seniority list will happen as there will be too many problems (ie what has gone before etc) but I would love to see more of us support a joining of the lists.
Fifty Four - why should a GB pilot join lower on the seniority? Well good question and I agree that if lists are merged there should be no disadvantage to either party - hence my 4 year suggestion. That way both win - ie GB (or XXX company) pilots get the opportunity to go 'up' if they want, but do not loose out to people pushing them into the other seat, or taking the opportunity that someone has their eye on (and has done for many years). It seems the fairest way, given the attitudes in place. OK, GB are profitable and at the moment we are not, but that is not the fault of the pilots. We all know there are management things that need to be sorted and whether you are BA or GB, the day to day work is effectively the same. Turn up, fly safely, socialise (if you can!) then go home.
Jack Point, I can see your point but to be fair, a lot of the BA pilots have actually done that sort of thing in the past, me being one of them (6 sector day anyone??). To categorise us all the same, is as short sighted as saying that anyone non BA is only trying to get into BA. Both are rubbish. Until this silly getting at each other stops, we can only make things worse.
When will BALPA realise that putting pilots of one company into another only stirs the hornets nest? If work really does 'belong' to BA, then campaign to make it BA, all BA and nothing but BA. Don't go half way, or you just end up alienating a different bunch of pilots, who are equally as good, equally as dedicated and equally as upset when they loose thier jobs. GSS could argue that they won the contract, so it is GSS work, GSS work, GSS work. That way the contract writer is in the wrong, not the GSS workforce. What matters is that BA fly BA stuff (entirely) and GSS fly GSS stuff (entirely) without mixing and matching.
Why don't we all work together to make things better for everyone? Like a UNION should.
[Edited because first post went wrong]
I don't think that merging of the seniority list will happen as there will be too many problems (ie what has gone before etc) but I would love to see more of us support a joining of the lists.
Fifty Four - why should a GB pilot join lower on the seniority? Well good question and I agree that if lists are merged there should be no disadvantage to either party - hence my 4 year suggestion. That way both win - ie GB (or XXX company) pilots get the opportunity to go 'up' if they want, but do not loose out to people pushing them into the other seat, or taking the opportunity that someone has their eye on (and has done for many years). It seems the fairest way, given the attitudes in place. OK, GB are profitable and at the moment we are not, but that is not the fault of the pilots. We all know there are management things that need to be sorted and whether you are BA or GB, the day to day work is effectively the same. Turn up, fly safely, socialise (if you can!) then go home.
Jack Point, I can see your point but to be fair, a lot of the BA pilots have actually done that sort of thing in the past, me being one of them (6 sector day anyone??). To categorise us all the same, is as short sighted as saying that anyone non BA is only trying to get into BA. Both are rubbish. Until this silly getting at each other stops, we can only make things worse.
When will BALPA realise that putting pilots of one company into another only stirs the hornets nest? If work really does 'belong' to BA, then campaign to make it BA, all BA and nothing but BA. Don't go half way, or you just end up alienating a different bunch of pilots, who are equally as good, equally as dedicated and equally as upset when they loose thier jobs. GSS could argue that they won the contract, so it is GSS work, GSS work, GSS work. That way the contract writer is in the wrong, not the GSS workforce. What matters is that BA fly BA stuff (entirely) and GSS fly GSS stuff (entirely) without mixing and matching.
Why don't we all work together to make things better for everyone? Like a UNION should.
[Edited because first post went wrong]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: At work!
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thanks to ORNITHOPTER for bringing the thread back to its original subject and for some sound common sense at last.
To remind you - the action, driven by the BA section of BALPA, to steal commands from GSS F/Os, may seem noble and justified in the eyes of BA pilots, who appear to want to fly aeroplanes and routes irrespective of whether their company can do so profitably. However, they all appear totally oblivious to the disastrous effect it will have on the career and employment prospects of the GSS F/Os that will be deposed.
Guys, this is not just some esoteric argument about who should fly whose aeroplanes. You are dealing with people’s livelihood here. People, just like you, that have families to support, mortgages to service and bills to pay. Spare a thought as to how you would feel if it were your command prospects that had just virtually disappeared into thin air or your job that is in jeopardy. It does not take many brain cells to realise that in order to take BA direct commands, GSS will be forced to reduce their existing establishment and redundancies are likely to follow.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot – these are fellow BALPA members!
Think on please!
To remind you - the action, driven by the BA section of BALPA, to steal commands from GSS F/Os, may seem noble and justified in the eyes of BA pilots, who appear to want to fly aeroplanes and routes irrespective of whether their company can do so profitably. However, they all appear totally oblivious to the disastrous effect it will have on the career and employment prospects of the GSS F/Os that will be deposed.
Guys, this is not just some esoteric argument about who should fly whose aeroplanes. You are dealing with people’s livelihood here. People, just like you, that have families to support, mortgages to service and bills to pay. Spare a thought as to how you would feel if it were your command prospects that had just virtually disappeared into thin air or your job that is in jeopardy. It does not take many brain cells to realise that in order to take BA direct commands, GSS will be forced to reduce their existing establishment and redundancies are likely to follow.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot – these are fellow BALPA members!
Think on please!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eicas GP
If you join a two aircraft company set up to serve a limited BA cargo contract its rather rash to assume you'll get a command based solely on the possibility of a future expansion.
Errr, no. Not unless GSS are currently flying around with three aircrafts worth of crews instead of two. If they're not then the third aircraft will require recruitment to crew. 50% of the new commands are available to BA pilots. 50% of the new commands are available to existing GSS pilots, 100% of the new FO positions are available to GSS pilots. Where does redundancy come into it?
Fiftyfour- GB is indeed a small and profitable airline, and BA are large and currently unprofitable. However without the BA brand GB effectively become a high class charter airline, no different to, say, Monarch scheduled services. Would they continue to be as profitable in that form? We're acutely aware of modern commercial reality as we watch privately-owned flag carriers do things better than us, whilst state-owned ones do it worse but get away with it anyway because of subsidies. Are you confident GB would last as a stand alone outfit against the charter big boys and the low costs?
Jack Point - Four sectors? Bring it on! Thats 20% less than I used to do in a day, and I used to bring my own crusty sandwiches because they were better than the crew 'meals'.
Ornithopter - As an ex-regional pilot I have to take issue with two of your points:
BA already had a 'regional' payscale and a 'regional' scheduling agreement, which they used for the profitable BA Regional division. You propose a new and lower payscale. Perhaps when the losses mount management could propose a lower scale still? Gotta be cost effective for BA! It appears you've fallen for the managment line of 'crew wages to blame'. Regional profitability stands or falls on far larger issues than pilot wages. Compare and contrast the better paid and profitable BA Regional, with the poorer paid and loss making BACX operations at BHX and MAN.
Thats what the vast majority of BA Regional guys wanted to do as well, which is why they tolerated poorer pay and conditions. Strangely enough, there was no sympathy for them when the base closures were announced and a number wanted to stay on the RJ100. In fact if you trawl through the archives of PPRuNe you'll find plenty of people rubbing their hands with glee at the news and telling the BAR guys to F*** off back to LHR. This very thread contains some posts filled with resentment that they actually got to stay.
to steal commands from GSS F/Os
. It does not take many brain cells to realise that in order to take BA direct commands, GSS will be forced to reduce their existing establishment and redundancies are likely to follow
Fiftyfour- GB is indeed a small and profitable airline, and BA are large and currently unprofitable. However without the BA brand GB effectively become a high class charter airline, no different to, say, Monarch scheduled services. Would they continue to be as profitable in that form? We're acutely aware of modern commercial reality as we watch privately-owned flag carriers do things better than us, whilst state-owned ones do it worse but get away with it anyway because of subsidies. Are you confident GB would last as a stand alone outfit against the charter big boys and the low costs?
Jack Point - Four sectors? Bring it on! Thats 20% less than I used to do in a day, and I used to bring my own crusty sandwiches because they were better than the crew 'meals'.
Ornithopter - As an ex-regional pilot I have to take issue with two of your points:
2. Create a 'regional' payscale - make it the same as the BACX scales.
It should be remembered that quite a few BACX guys work there because that is the sort of flying they want to do. Home every evening to see the kids or not many nightstops.
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: poll position
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are a couple of f/o s that i know at gss that are probably best left where they are, so that their provenance can catch up with them before they get made up, so its all for the best really.
allegedly.
edited for spelling, not content
allegedly.
edited for spelling, not content
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite...
Hand, I take your points, but you misunderstand slightly. My suggestion of a regional pay scale is to keep the BACX guys on what they are on at the moment - not reducing their wages. The suggestion is only there so that we can be realistic, and then negotiate in the future. BA will not increase the BACX scales up to the BA scales, so it will never happen. (If they would, then great, for all of us!). I have not fallen for the 'crew wages to blame' as it plainly isn't true. What I would like to see if all of us on the same wage, regardless of what we fly (as essentially it is the same job), however realistically that isn't going to happen.
The rumours in BACX were that BAR was not profitable and that when added to the BACX fleet the profitable Manx, BRAL and Brymon became unprofitable. Whatever the truth is (and it depends on which accountant you ask) is again immaterial. The complaints when RJ crews wanted to stay/go were because there were two different workforces involved. There would be no 'f*****g off back to Heathrow' as you put it, if we were all the same workforce. Basically, BACX guys saw the BA guys as 'taking' there jobs, much the same way as the BA guys see operations by BACX out of Gatwick as 'taking' their jobs.
We can get rid of all this rubbish of them and us by making all of us into one 'us'. It makes things cheaper, makes people happier, makes the company more profitable and more flexible, and what is more, everyone is a winner. Stay regional if you want or go longhaul, or somewhere inbetween.
The rumours in BACX were that BAR was not profitable and that when added to the BACX fleet the profitable Manx, BRAL and Brymon became unprofitable. Whatever the truth is (and it depends on which accountant you ask) is again immaterial. The complaints when RJ crews wanted to stay/go were because there were two different workforces involved. There would be no 'f*****g off back to Heathrow' as you put it, if we were all the same workforce. Basically, BACX guys saw the BA guys as 'taking' there jobs, much the same way as the BA guys see operations by BACX out of Gatwick as 'taking' their jobs.
We can get rid of all this rubbish of them and us by making all of us into one 'us'. It makes things cheaper, makes people happier, makes the company more profitable and more flexible, and what is more, everyone is a winner. Stay regional if you want or go longhaul, or somewhere inbetween.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I'm now bordering on the pedantic, you said:
This one doesn't depend on which accountant you ask. BAR made money. £12M profit. The accounts are there to see and there is no disputing that. Adding that profitable entity to BACX did not make it suddenly unprofitable.
But the BACX crews didn't see the closure of the regional bases as taking BA jobs, did they? They were offered jobs on the RJ by their management before any discussion had taken place between BA and BALPA about how or if the aircraft would be transferred and who would crew them. Those offers were no more valid than if BACX had offered them positions on Concorde in case they could get hold of those when BA disposed of the aircraft.
We could already have a regional payscale in place and a single workforce with better T&Cs than the current BACX ones, plus a BA seniority number for some (if not all) BACX pilots with a route into BA mainline proper for all. Unfortunately the BACX reps didn't want that, and so we are left with the situation we have now.
The rumours in BACX were that BAR was not profitable and that when added to the BACX fleet the profitable Manx, BRAL and Brymon became unprofitable. Whatever the truth is (and it depends on which accountant you ask) is again immaterial
. Basically, BACX guys saw the BA guys as 'taking' there jobs, much the same way as the BA guys see operations by BACX out of Gatwick as 'taking' their jobs.
We could already have a regional payscale in place and a single workforce with better T&Cs than the current BACX ones, plus a BA seniority number for some (if not all) BACX pilots with a route into BA mainline proper for all. Unfortunately the BACX reps didn't want that, and so we are left with the situation we have now.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ornit
I don't know of a BA pilot who wouldn't endorse most of your ideas.
Fiftyfour you either can't read or the shoulder chip is affecting your judgement. You're not in BA . Live with it. Get over it and life will suddenly be a lot happier.
NN capt LHR
I don't know of a BA pilot who wouldn't endorse most of your ideas.
Fiftyfour you either can't read or the shoulder chip is affecting your judgement. You're not in BA . Live with it. Get over it and life will suddenly be a lot happier.
NN capt LHR
This is a completely pointless thread. No BA F/O in his right mind, (I presume there are a few) is ever going to bid for a GSS command.
1. They simply could not take the hit in salary and allowances.
2. They would soon discover what hard work really is about.
3. They would also find that single-pilot operation on a 744F is not easy (when everyone else has walked off the flightdeck).
4. They would be unlikely to survive their first night stop in one those places where it is very easy to get people blown away (quietly) for USD10.00 with no questions asked.
5. They know nothing of freighting and would be quite useless at trying to negotiate dash in Lagos for example.
6. The whole reason that GSS is doing so well is simply because BA have been completely useless at shifting freight economically ever since the Avro York and even that is in question.
1. They simply could not take the hit in salary and allowances.
2. They would soon discover what hard work really is about.
3. They would also find that single-pilot operation on a 744F is not easy (when everyone else has walked off the flightdeck).
4. They would be unlikely to survive their first night stop in one those places where it is very easy to get people blown away (quietly) for USD10.00 with no questions asked.
5. They know nothing of freighting and would be quite useless at trying to negotiate dash in Lagos for example.
6. The whole reason that GSS is doing so well is simply because BA have been completely useless at shifting freight economically ever since the Avro York and even that is in question.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand, it is difficult to see what other see sometimes.
When BACX people complain about BAR loosing money and being lumped with BACX, it is things like the 767 flying out of MAN which is 'BACX' but cannot be flown by BACX pilots and allegedly looses money. Surely you can understand why people say that sort of thing? IF BAR made money, why did BA keep talking about its loss making regional business (and I don't mean BACX). Why did they impose £79 fares on routes that were full with £300 fares being paid at BACX, which then turned around and made a loss (surprise!)?
No they didn't, as the way they saw it was that BA transfer the RJ to BACX and the Airbus to mainline, merge BACX with BAR and voila, the jobs are all the same, but on different aircraft at different bases. No one ever said you would fly the same aircraft all your career, but I must admit the base change thing is often very distressing (moving house, partners jobs etc) so the best thing to do would have been to merge the workforces there and then, so no one lost a job or a base. Same number of aeroplanes, same number of routes, same number of pilots with a wider fleet to bid into, everyone's a winner.
The key to your point about SCOPE is that SOME of the BACX guys would get into BA, but what of the others? Do they just sit back and watch while some guys in the airline get better T+C's and others don't? How absurd. Would you accept it if BA said everyone on Ornithopter's fleet gets to bid for Concorde, while everyone on Hand's fleet get to stay where they are for a very long time?
Some of the clauses in the suggested scope deal were plainly stupid. Ever heard of the yanks taking seats out of an aircraft to keep it below a scope limit? Do you think that would never have happened? The BACX workforce were advised by BACXCC (part of BALPA) to refuse what BACC (part of BALPA) had suggested. What a stupid situation. BALPA fighting BALPA. Whether scope was a good or a bad thing, the people who we pay to be in the know (or whos organisation we pay) were saying DON'T DO IT! What would you do in a situation like that with professional advice?
Can't you see that mixing pilots of one airline with another advantages one airline to the cost of another? What have the guys in the smaller airline done to deserve that?
I have made my suggestions, some more enlightened people on this forum seem to see the good side. My entire point is that there is no place for fighting between airlines, BALPA or separate workforces with the same job. Until BALPA realise that forcing one airline onto another is creating, rather than attacking the root of the problem it will never be resolved.
BALPA wants to increase its membership - well represent us all then, rather than representing small bunches of people and then making the bunches fight.
Skim - You can always accomodate secondees as the name suggests, they are seconded not posted. Obviously if there is a pilot on a given wage, you cannot just take it away. Details like that are for the union to negotiate, my suggestions are broad brush, but you get the idea.
Off for tea and biscuits, I'll keep reading, but I get bored repeating myself, so I might keep quiet for a while....
When BACX people complain about BAR loosing money and being lumped with BACX, it is things like the 767 flying out of MAN which is 'BACX' but cannot be flown by BACX pilots and allegedly looses money. Surely you can understand why people say that sort of thing? IF BAR made money, why did BA keep talking about its loss making regional business (and I don't mean BACX). Why did they impose £79 fares on routes that were full with £300 fares being paid at BACX, which then turned around and made a loss (surprise!)?
But the BACX crews didn't see the closure of the regional bases as taking BA jobs, did they? They were offered jobs on the RJ by their management before any discussion had taken place between BA and BALPA about how or if the aircraft would be transferred and who would crew them. Those offers were no more valid than if BACX had offered them positions on Concorde in case they could get hold of those when BA disposed of the aircraft.
The key to your point about SCOPE is that SOME of the BACX guys would get into BA, but what of the others? Do they just sit back and watch while some guys in the airline get better T+C's and others don't? How absurd. Would you accept it if BA said everyone on Ornithopter's fleet gets to bid for Concorde, while everyone on Hand's fleet get to stay where they are for a very long time?
Some of the clauses in the suggested scope deal were plainly stupid. Ever heard of the yanks taking seats out of an aircraft to keep it below a scope limit? Do you think that would never have happened? The BACX workforce were advised by BACXCC (part of BALPA) to refuse what BACC (part of BALPA) had suggested. What a stupid situation. BALPA fighting BALPA. Whether scope was a good or a bad thing, the people who we pay to be in the know (or whos organisation we pay) were saying DON'T DO IT! What would you do in a situation like that with professional advice?
Can't you see that mixing pilots of one airline with another advantages one airline to the cost of another? What have the guys in the smaller airline done to deserve that?
I have made my suggestions, some more enlightened people on this forum seem to see the good side. My entire point is that there is no place for fighting between airlines, BALPA or separate workforces with the same job. Until BALPA realise that forcing one airline onto another is creating, rather than attacking the root of the problem it will never be resolved.
BALPA wants to increase its membership - well represent us all then, rather than representing small bunches of people and then making the bunches fight.
Skim - You can always accomodate secondees as the name suggests, they are seconded not posted. Obviously if there is a pilot on a given wage, you cannot just take it away. Details like that are for the union to negotiate, my suggestions are broad brush, but you get the idea.
Off for tea and biscuits, I'll keep reading, but I get bored repeating myself, so I might keep quiet for a while....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ornithopter, you are spot on unfortunately BALPA is blind and only sees the small picture rather than the BIG picture. They shoved a whole crowd of loyal pro BALPA pilots outside of their community with their so-called "fair" pay deal this year in BA. Proving that they don't care for minorities, only their head in sand individual gains. BACC chairman?
Until BALPA works as a proper UNION representing the whole pilot workforce then we are doomed to fight amonst ourselves whilst the indidual companies ride rough shod over all of us.
Seniority of course its important but do remember that altough RAF/NAVY/ARMY pilots are pilots they arenot nor were they Civil pilots.
They made a decision on their careers long ago, they did not have to leave their chosen service, they even were given pension rights should they wish to stay on.
Their careers were based on a different playing field. The case however for a common civil seniority list is different i personally support it but it'll never happen as certain LCCs are to jealously guarding their own space.
C'est la vie!
Until BALPA works as a proper UNION representing the whole pilot workforce then we are doomed to fight amonst ourselves whilst the indidual companies ride rough shod over all of us.
Seniority of course its important but do remember that altough RAF/NAVY/ARMY pilots are pilots they arenot nor were they Civil pilots.
They made a decision on their careers long ago, they did not have to leave their chosen service, they even were given pension rights should they wish to stay on.
Their careers were based on a different playing field. The case however for a common civil seniority list is different i personally support it but it'll never happen as certain LCCs are to jealously guarding their own space.
C'est la vie!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW 411
1. Yes
2. As a fellow TRE , I will happily swap rosters but not pay. (but will buy you a beer as I almost live in Cbank)
3. That is not true single pilot operation, there are guys out there flying harder for less. So invalid point. And unless you are landing / taking off, if you cannot handle the 744 on your own; retire. You have some good FO’s is GSS who are more than capable.
4. Don’t you believe it sunshine, some of the backgrounds of our colleagues are various. ( I assume you were not threatening to organise the $10 hit. Although I think one or two of the Nigels I know would take it on for FUN!!! Not joking)
5. When I was freighting we loaded the cargo by ourselves. Oh and dashes in Nigeria are straight forward, Indonesian islands are much more complicated. You had to know every cousin of Sohato.
6. Basically agree, but as a pilot would you not try to maximise your earnings potential.
I agree the GSS deal is bad news for everybody but please do no generalise about the Nigel’s .It just shows a shallow depth of character. I have the privilege of working with some great guys with very different backgrounds. OK there are a few pratts, but I assume you can think of one or two in every company you have flown with.
Do not forget we are all pilots, there are bigger worries out there.
Regards,
Wide.
1. Yes
2. As a fellow TRE , I will happily swap rosters but not pay. (but will buy you a beer as I almost live in Cbank)
3. That is not true single pilot operation, there are guys out there flying harder for less. So invalid point. And unless you are landing / taking off, if you cannot handle the 744 on your own; retire. You have some good FO’s is GSS who are more than capable.
4. Don’t you believe it sunshine, some of the backgrounds of our colleagues are various. ( I assume you were not threatening to organise the $10 hit. Although I think one or two of the Nigels I know would take it on for FUN!!! Not joking)
5. When I was freighting we loaded the cargo by ourselves. Oh and dashes in Nigeria are straight forward, Indonesian islands are much more complicated. You had to know every cousin of Sohato.
6. Basically agree, but as a pilot would you not try to maximise your earnings potential.
I agree the GSS deal is bad news for everybody but please do no generalise about the Nigel’s .It just shows a shallow depth of character. I have the privilege of working with some great guys with very different backgrounds. OK there are a few pratts, but I assume you can think of one or two in every company you have flown with.
Do not forget we are all pilots, there are bigger worries out there.
Regards,
Wide.
Last edited by Wide-Body; 25th Aug 2003 at 17:42.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well said wide.
JW seems to think that his bunch of middle class first world freighters have the monopoly on wild existences. A bit like each countries bush pilots are the only ones who can fly attitude.
I personnally earned my money to fund my training as a paid thug in the third world in the eighties, and i know many ex legionaires in the business. i also know some of the gss f/os .
Indianna jones they are not, more like bridget jones. (the post of diksy refers).
Now if he worked for MK then i may have time for him.
Jack
JW seems to think that his bunch of middle class first world freighters have the monopoly on wild existences. A bit like each countries bush pilots are the only ones who can fly attitude.
I personnally earned my money to fund my training as a paid thug in the third world in the eighties, and i know many ex legionaires in the business. i also know some of the gss f/os .
Indianna jones they are not, more like bridget jones. (the post of diksy refers).
Now if he worked for MK then i may have time for him.
Jack
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ornithopter if you must post then lets stick to FACT, not RUMOUR
Yes, because they've been too lazy to bother checking the facts. The 767 was a BAR service, latterly operated for BACX like all BAR services were. BACX and BAR were entirely seperate financial entities, which published seperate accounts. BAR made money, BACX to my knowledge has never made a significant profit since it's formation. All the ground handling at MAN and BHX was accounted for under the BAR budget too, so you can't claim they got it free.
Well they did mean BACX. See above. In the 12 months post Sept11th 2001 BAR was the only fleet in BA to make profits, £12M pounds worth. I still have the BA news reporting this 'loss'.
Now you're really letting yourself down with this one. Do you think Ryanair or Easy sell all their seats at £1? Of course they don't so I'll say no more. Its easy to charge £300 when you have a monopoly, not so easy when the low costs start to compete though, as BACX found.
Well we saw it differently. It was a straight transfer of 200 jobs from BA mainline to BACX, a move the BACC was absolutely right to oppose. Hardly all the same jobs when one has substantially poorer terms and conditions.
Is something better than nothing? Is your glass half full or empty? Thats for BACX to decide, not us.
Yes, thats why the Scope agreement precludes it. You should try reading it.
Perhaps, but which way is the advantage going in this scenario? BACX now have access to plenty of RJ commands and jet flying they previously did not. Whilst the BA secondees are now well paid, the opportunity to bid for those commands is very restricted and BA pilots have effectively lost a significant number of command opportunities. BA BALPA could have said no to any BACX RJ flying if they'd wanted, would that have been a better solution for you?
You say you want BALPA to represent us all rather than making groups fight each other. Well what is they best way to represent us all? By striving to uphold better pay and conditions, or negotiating them down to the lowest common denominator. BACX pilots were more than happy to undermine the BAR pilots position by doing their work for lower wages. Is that the solidarity you crave?
When BACX people complain about BAR loosing money and being lumped with BACX, it is things like the 767 flying out of MAN which is 'BACX' but cannot be flown by BACX pilots and allegedly looses money. Surely you can understand why people say that sort of thing?
IF BAR made money, why did BA keep talking about its loss making regional business (and I don't mean BACX)
Why did they impose £79 fares on routes that were full with £300 fares being paid at BACX, which then turned around and made a loss (surprise!)?
the way they saw it was that BA transfer the RJ to BACX and the Airbus to mainline, merge BACX with BAR and voila, the jobs are all the same, but on different aircraft at different bases
Would you accept it if BA said everyone on Ornithopter's fleet gets to bid for Concorde, while everyone on Hand's fleet get to stay where they are for a very long time?
Ever heard of the yanks taking seats out of an aircraft to keep it below a scope limit? Do you think that would never have happened?
Can't you see that mixing pilots of one airline with another advantages one airline to the cost of another? What have the guys in the smaller airline done to deserve that?
You say you want BALPA to represent us all rather than making groups fight each other. Well what is they best way to represent us all? By striving to uphold better pay and conditions, or negotiating them down to the lowest common denominator. BACX pilots were more than happy to undermine the BAR pilots position by doing their work for lower wages. Is that the solidarity you crave?