BA f/os Wanting GSS commands

[Captain Correlli]

Reap what you sow.....

You are a particularly arrogant individual Kevin old chap. To comment about BACX when you are not actually part of it, and consistently misquote the situation there is bad enough. Yes, the secondees are professional, 'nice' blokes. They have been treated professionally and nicely, as most of us in BACX recognise the situation for what it is - a management and BACC stitch-up.

Let us not (again) discuss the history, let US (in BACX) advise YOU that the situation may be about to change. If there are to be mandatory redundancies in the BACX pilot community (as now looks likely) whilst we are supporting a a mainline surplus on one of our fleets on our AOC, I think you may well find the courts being approached, and BALPA for once having to be even handed.

I don't work for GSS, but the stench of heavy handed bullying comes across all too well. The smooth, glib, posturing employed by you and your ilk to 'justify' your position reminds me oh so much of a certain Antony Linton Blair. Doubtless you all feel content with the 'totality' of YOUR position too - for the moment!! I'm sure the GSS situation is once again just the BACC getting their foot in the door, and things will continue to change for the worse because a precedent will have been set.
Don't ever forget that what goes around, comes around.

Oh- maybe it would be more appropriate to refer to mainline guys as "Kevins" because that certainly aligns more accurately with their self serving, arrogant, meretricious, greedy, pompous, verbose and glib attitudes. A pox on you BA, the sooner the economic realities are served to you by the banks and finance houses the sooner we can all start again!



Yes, that is a bit of a rant - put it down to finally reading one post too many by the likes of Kevin Solo and Tandem Rotor et al, and being pointed toward the dole queue by their management practices!

[EICAS-GP]

Hand Solo

'Incidentally, less than 50% of GSS pilots are BALPA members.'

Well, its not really surprising since:-

1/ BALPA is the driving force behind the blatant theft of their commands - ironic that this battle is not against an employer, but against one's union!.
2/ BALPA has failed totally to offer their members in GSS any effective represention to counter the decimation of their careers in GSS
3/ BALPA has totally endorsed the 'bully-boy' tactics of the BACC to steal commands from GSS F/Os
4/ BALPA is dominated by the BACC and, sadly, the pilots in GSS see no evidence that this would change even if they were 'recognised'.

For these reasons, GSS pilots are not rushing to join BALPA [and who can blame them] - in fact many existing members are leaving and getting a 1% pay rise. Sadly this fails to compensate the F/Os who are now faced with forgoing the substantial payrise that they could have reasonably expected upon upgrade.

'..... but I suspect its stretching credulity to claim that the entire GSS pilot body will display open hostility towards the secondees as that would be both immature and unprofessional.'

Don't bet on it - there is a lot of genuine anger in GSS, and not just amongst the pilot work force. Professional we will try to be - that goes without saying - but the BACC have placed the BA secondees in an invidious position. Just think how you would feel working with a stranger, an interloper, who had just caused you to lose a £20K+ rise rise? But no doubt, GSS pilots will try to adhere to the maxim - 'don't get mad, get even'. After all, GSS pilots are the victims of the bullying tactics of the BACC and have right on their side.

' No new contract means no third aircraft means no new commands. New contracts means new commands for GSS pilots.'

I wish it were as simply as that. Quite a few commands will be generated in house by the ex BA and ex Cathay Captains reaching retirement age - nothing to do with the third freighter.
In fact, it is my understanding that even if the contract for the third freighter is not renewed in May, the BA secondees remain!
Also, threats have been made by the BACC to take ALL commands in GSS commands in the near future.

How unreasonable can you get?


Finally - and this may come a surprise, although I fundamentally disagree with your arguments, may I compliment you Hand Solo on the tone of your posting. It is refreshing to read a posting from a BA PPRuNer that is polite, well argued and devoid of emotional, arrogant, OTT, claptrap.

Thank you
[

[Marty-Party]

Hand Solo

Whilst I agree with most of your post, I would suggest that any F/O above about PayPoint 9 in BA would not be interested. The money will be similar but they will lose 2 weeks effective leave (duty free week) and life style choice via bidline.

It appears that all the successful bidders are PP9 or below (seniority number 2000 or higher).

However a very substantial inducement for these guys is the heavy command time. From October 2006, the current Compuslory Pension Age of 55 will have to be scrapped at BA. This means that all commands will be delayed for up to 5 years and for some of the more mature F/Os this will mean forever - even for shorthaul at LGW.

Time to command has also been distorted by the absorbtion of CitiFlyer. Some of the CitiFlyer Captains have "Grand Father Rights" and so will be placed in the left seat of a mainline fleet before some more senior BA F/Os. Some of the CitiFlyer F/Os have been placed in the right hand seat on long-haul. Not bad eh? Turbo-prop to Jumbo in one leap!

BA F/Os get screwed just like everyone else.

To those in GSS who regard the BA F/Os as stealing their commands - what about your currrent Captains? Some get more than 2 times a GSS F/Os pay just from their BA pension. Then they get GSS command pay on top! Why don't you ask them to just slide off gracefully and let you have their job?

So to all those in GSS, aviation life in not fair.
Of course you at GSS have the right to moan, but it's a done deal so learn to live with it or go elsewhere.

[Maximuss]

It's interesting to note that it seems to be only BA postees who are enthusing about the:

"well, that's aviation, just bend over and smile, your turn will come..."

outlook on this type of situation. Of course, from the point of view of the big battalions, that is understandable, if morally and ethically bankrupt. One genuinely looks forward to reading the howls of outrage when the cold winds of economic reality finally affect the BA mainline pilot community.

[EICAS-GP]

Marty-Party

'To those in GSS who regard the BA F/Os as stealing their commands - what about your currrent Captains? Some get more than 2 times a GSS F/Os pay just from their BA pension. Then they get GSS command pay on top! Why don't you ask them to just slide off gracefully and let you have their job?'

The Captains of whom you speak were employed as a 'command bridge'. Every start up company needs experience in the LHS and trainers to do the command training.
This is why GSS employed ex BA, ex Cathay, and ex Cargolux Captains. Almost all of them will be retiring or 'sliding off gracefully' as you kindly put it, in the next couple of years.
The intention was that they would be replaced in house, by GSS F/Os - that is why they joined GSS on inferior pay and conditions.
Now thanks to the bullying tactics of the BACC, they will in fact, be replaced by greedy BA F/Os who have nothing to gain except the fourth ring on their sleeve. When they have finished in GSS they will return to their secure career in BA, to be replaced by yet another thief from BA.
Meanwhile the GSS F/O is supposed to sit in his RHS , say nothing nasty; exercise good CRM on and off the aeroplane; be professional; not be 'immature'; forget the £20K+ annual payrise; accept that 'aviation life is not fair' as you put it and have no command expectations - it is asking a lot don't you think?
It might stretch the most reasonable of men , me-thinks!

This bullying action by the BACC to steal commands in another company, is morally bereft and those who initiated it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

[Avius]

EICAS-GP,

well said, your last post describes the situation very well. I looks like the BA chaps are asking GSS F/O 's to be more professional then they are (themselves). Obviously just a "lip service" to justify their greed.

But...I would not give up on this whole thing quite yet. The courts can make "done deals" null and void. It looks like the GSS guys have very good cards in their hands, when it gets to the legal side.

Why don't you guys file a law suit. Since a lot of GSS pilots (ex. BALPA members) are getting a 1% payrise, use that to get some lawyers involved. If you're right, you're right. Not even the mighty BALPA can do anything against that..

Cheers

[EICAS-GP]

Avius

'Why don't you guys file a law suit'

Funny you mention that.....!.

Thanks for your support

[Hand Solo]

Corelli - I'm afraid you've confused me with someone completely different old chap, my names not Kevin. I may not be part of BACX, but I know and am in regular contact with a lot of people who are. The only time I misquote anything on here is when it doesn't match up with what your BA appointed managers are telling you for their own benefit. Also, there is no mainline surplus of pilots, recruitment is almost inevitable in the next 18 months. Those were places that could have been filled directly by CX pilots if their company council had not turned down the opportunity. Quite who will be approaching the courts on your behalf? It won't be the BA managers in BACX. If its your company council they'd have to explain why they are unhappy with a grant of 100+ jobs and 16 aircraft to BACX, and why they turned down a deal which would resolve the redundancy issues. Hardly a convincing case.

EICAS-GP - Yes that compliment did come as a surprise, but I thank you for it anyway.

On the subject of BALPA membership, it seems to me that you are putting the cart before the horse. Your defence of low BALPA membership is that BALPA didn't do anything to help you, which is of course not enough of you are in BALPA. You can't ask an insurance company to pay out for your car on the promise that you'll take out a policy with them afterwards, the same is true of BALPA.

My understanding of the secondment arrangements are that BACC seek a proportion of new commands. Clearly this differs from your understanding, with implications for the positions vacated by retiring Captains and the consequences of a failure to renew the contract for the third aircraft. As neither of us can be certain which interpretation is correct then any further discussion on those subjects just becomes wild speculation which helps neither of us, so I'll refrain from that.

I've no doubt BACCs goal is all commands at GSS, which would tie in with their long term goal of all BA passenger and cargo work being done by BA pilots. As a BA pilot I fully endorse that long term goal, but what is ideal and what is realistically achievable are very different beasts and I doubt either goal will be achieved any time soon.

Maximuss - you wrote

One genuinely looks forward to reading the howls of outrage when the cold winds of economic reality finally affect the BA mainline pilot community.

I'm sorry, did I miss Foot and Mouth, 9/11, SARS, shoe-bombers, missile attacks, recession, a war, massive security costs, LHR congestion, low cost carriers, price wars, subsidies for competitors, wildcat strikes and a whole host of other financial catastrophes for the airline?

Avius - I don't know which country you are based in, but in the UK you can make just about any contract you want legally binding provided it is reasonably fair to both parties. BA can quite legitimately include a stipulation in the contract for a third freighter that they wish it to be partly crewed by BA pilots. It's no different to any outsourcing contract in any other industry which stipulates the contractor will use certain staff requested by the customer. Incidentally if it wasn't for the mighty BALPA then the GSS work would still be being flown by Americans using Atlas freighters.

[Avius]

Hand Solo,

thanks for the lesson in UK law. I can assure you that the principal of free contract negotiation is valid in just about every country of the civilized world, which I'm sure the UK is a part of.

Just like you correctly mentioned, it depends on the circumstances, HOW the agreement was reached, particularly on the positive intention of both parties. Not knowing all the facts, but reading through the posts, this agreement seemed to be reached under rather dubious circumstances..

There is many "if's" and "when's", but it appears, that a smart lawyer could have fun tearing BALPA apart...

[Tandemrotor]

I genuinely did want to cease posting (and reading) this thread. However, as my parting contribution, I can do little more than echo Hand's educational contribution.

In a nutshell:

Gss's major (only?) customer, BA, identified work for a third aircraft. But they insisted that A PROPORTION of the NEW jobs created at gss by this expansion, be allocated to mainline pilots.

(Why is this so unreasonable?)

As gss is an entirely DEPENDENT, as opposed to INDEPENDENT operator, they were faced with a choice.

Reject the request, and stagnate, or grow the business by accepting the reasonable request of it's client.

THEY alone had the choice, THEY alone made their decision.

Ever heard the phrase, "the customer is always right"?

So you see, all this talk of 'stealing our jobs' is very arguable, as the jobs would never have existed without the arrival of a SMALL number of mainline pilots.

As far as filing a 'law suit' (sounds like an americanism!) I wouldn't hold your breath!

As for Capt Corelli, I am intrigued. You wrote:

"You are a particularly arrogant individual Kevin old chap. To comment about BACX when you are not actually part of it"

Doesn't that sit rather uncomfortably with the fact that you feel able to comment about gss, when you are not actually part of THAT?

Would that be sufficiently;

"polite, well argued and devoid of emotional, arrogant, OTT, claptrap" for you eicas?

[Avius]

Tandemrotor,

polite...yes, well argued...ok, but not correct. The "reasonable request" you are talking about is more like "Uncle Vito's (initially) gentle persuation" to "OFFER" protection for small business owners in good old Napoli.

BA's core business is......Passenger Transport.., not Freighter Services. BA World Cargo is nothing but a Freight forwarder, just like Panalpina, Kuhne & Nagel and many others. They do not own or operate Freighters, therefore have NO Cockpit Jobs. (mathematically ZERO cockpit jobs). How can you take away jobs if there is ZERO to begin with ???

Come on you BA guys, you must have had math in school to become pilots !!!!!

Bottom line, GSS does not take ANY jobs away from BA. On the contrary, they create office jobs at BAWC and fill the gap for a product, which BA does not provide on their own.....and BA doesn't own GSS !!

And the "customer is right" thing.....According to your logic I can buy myself a ticket on BA and then just claim, that I have the right to fly the airplane myself (Customer is always right, huh ??)

Sorry - no offence, but get real !!

[EICAS-GP]

Tandemrotor

'As gss is an entirely DEPENDENT, as opposed to INDEPENDENT operator, they were faced with a choice.
Reject the request, and stagnate, or grow the business by accepting the reasonable request of it's client.'

It might be your last posting, but I cannot let this go without challenging your use of 'reasonable'.
Since when has abject bullying been 'reasonable'?
It might be in your world, for but the rest of us, it is far from 'reasonable'. The BACC is big and powerful, GSS is small and not - QED. No negotiation - just do it or else! And then... oh yes,....stop whinging!
= BULLYING!

The BACC decided to appease the understandable complaints from their members concerning the haemorraging of work to other airlines such as Qantas [SIN to OZ], Aer Lingus [all routes to Ireland] Com Air, [JNB to GBE and DUR] GibAir, BMed etc..etc etc....... by attacking a new vulnerable fledgling airline called GSS. They were going to be easy prey and it would look good to BA pilots as the BACC would be seen to be 'doing something about it'.
The fact that BA never had the freight work in the first place - as opposed to the above airlines - seems to have been conveniently overlooked.
They then managed amazingly, to persuade a BA Flights Ops IR person [who then disappeared from the scene] to sign an agreement to allow command bidding to a completely different INDEPENDENT airline, GSS, who happened to be contracted at the time to fly BA's main deck cargo. No one in BA or BALPA thought fit to mention this to GSS.
Then the plot thickens!!
BA realised that GSS might not be too pleased - to say the least - so, following 'pressure' from BALPA to implement the agreement, BA Flight Ops themselves used threats and intimidation [cancelling the freight contracts] to force GSS into agreeing to accept BA F/Os into the LHS of their aircraft. Sign here or face commercial ruin.

'But they insisted that A PROPORTION of the NEW jobs created at gss by this expansion, be allocated to mainline pilots.'

Come on.... the BACC initially wanted ALL commands in GSS and settled for a proportion very reluctantly, under duress. Furthermore, the signs are that the BACC will be after ALL commands again in the future. Also, the agreement is so one- sided that even if the contract for the third freighter is not renewed later this year, the BA theives still stay in the left hand seat of GSS aeroplanes, thus denying GSS F/Os of their rightful commands and a pay rise of £20k+ per annum.

As I said before, this deal is totally morally bereft and those BA pilots in the BACC should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
In my view, bullying, intimidation and threats are far from 'reasonable'. What do other Ppruners think?

[Captain Correlli]

Tandem Rotor, an interesting comment ref my own posts on this thread.

To clarify, whilst I have indeed made my thoughts plain on the overbearing 'might is right' attitude of BA and the BACC on this thread about GSS, what I have not done is discuss any contractual specifics, pay grades, job entitlements which go with either pilot community. This is because, not being part of either community, I am factually unaware of those specifics. This does not preclude me from observing the broad brush ethical and moral bankrupcy of the BACC case.
Now, with ref Hand Solo, though not part of BACX, he has the gall to persistently refer to BACX terms and conditions and the detail thereof, which he consistently gets wrong. He refers to BACX CC decisions and decision making processes, which he had no part in, and which he blurs the emphasis of.

Like many of the BA community posting here, he should be a politician, because his prevarications, mendacity and posturing only ever seek to better his own lot (nothing philosophically wrong with that, BTW), but at the expense of smaller more vulnerable pilot communities. I suppose the larger hogs always manage to get their snouts in the trough sooner and stay for longer. Watching the BACC's endeavours, I am depressingly reminded of a cynic's description of life as rather like being a maggot in a jamjar, always trying to get to the top by climbing over one's colleagues.


(Finally, if his name isn't Kevin, why does it appear as such on the BA BALPA website (some of us have contacts too!!)

[BlueDog]

I hate to intrude on this to-ing & fro-ing between both parties, but, it would seem that neither side is really listening to each other. Instead of launching into a tirade of abuse please read the other's post carefully and try to see his/her point of view. As always there are two sides to every story. Yes the situation is not entirely fair and I can see the point of view of both sides.

As I understand it as GSS is BA's only client, they would have some right to ask how this work is conducted. Agreed the customer is not always right but it is important to please them?This is tragic for those joining GSS expecting a quick(er) command on a Jumbo. In BA, I believe, with a possible increase in retirement age, the retirement bulge almost over and an influx of CityFlyer pilots above those recent entries the time to command (even on BA LGW shorthaul - which is becoming almost an easyJet type affair) is likely to rise to perhaps 15 years. Not fair on those new joiners either?

Also, I thought all the BA mainline secondees had all left BACX & been absorbed into the mothership? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I hope this post doesn't attract some of the vitriolic language afforded other people... please?

[Skylion]

The fact is that BA long haul have never successfully operated all cargo services in their own right. BOAC started subcontracting ( to Skyways) in the 1940s and their occasional forays into doing it themselves with Yorks,DC- 7Fs, B 707s and later the single 747F quickly sold to Cathay have not been profitable. BEA and BA shorthaul efforts with DC 3s and later Argosys and the Merchantman ( Vanguard) were no more successful, although thet carried a lot of cargo. The same would be if GSS were to incur BA costs, working practices etc,- it would simply fail.

[Kurtz]

Bluedog - none of the BA mainline guys have left BACX.

[BlueDog]

Thanks for the info Kurtz. I had heard that there were a few FO's at LGW whom had been on the ATP at Manchester etc.?

[Tandemrotor]

GSS F/Os are on absolutely rock bottom pay with no perks whatsoever.

So why work for such a bad employer?

[spencer drake]

GSS revisited

Since my first posting some time ago much has been said and argued about and even now there still seems to be many misconceptions among BA crew about GSS.
Misconception 1. It is BA work.
BA has not done this type of work since the 70s, it has no freighters, no pilot jobs have been lost. It was originally Atlas work if you remember, but there was much wailing and gnashing and teeth about the Americans flying European work (rightly so) and over a period of time GSS was set up as a predominately euro owned company to do the work. GSS is at least 49% owned by Atlas. So the term “bring the work back to BA” as used often on the BA forum is totally inappropriate, as BA would have to “start up”, their own freight outfit, virtually from scratch.
Why do you think BA didn’t use it’s own pilots/infrastructure in the first place? Does it show a lack of faith in itself to deliver a cost effective operation? This is where your real argument should be focused, if you feel strongly that BA should start flying the cargo then sit down with your management and make a convincing case. You don’t need to threaten strikes. You just need to prove on paper you can make more money, after all that is what business is all about. Stealing commands from other airlines such as GSS is an admission of defeat in this argument and is seen as desperately scavenging for the titbits thrown to you by BACC and management, and in the process upsetting the career structure (on which all pilots depend) within a small expanding independent airline.

Misconception 2. GSS fly in BA liveries.
There is no excuse to still believe this. Just look at the GSS website. Do they look familiar? They do bear a striking resemblance to Atlas don’t they? In fact they are leased to GSS by Atlas, the s.o.ps used by GSS are based on the Atlas ones. We do use “Speedbird” callsigns but then who doesn’t these days.
Misconception 3 There are more Captains than F/Os.
Untrue it is the other way round.

There is one thing however that the postings on the BA forum were right about, and that is the hostile reception from GSS to BA pilots taking GSS commands. Although why the surprise? After all didn’t I, and many others inform you of that. The interviews may well have appeared hostile because the attitude of everyone is hostile, they were merely trying to make sure you know what to expect, and that it is real and not just a way to put you off.
GSS is an independent airline and BAWC is merely the launch customer, when GSS has it’s second customer the argument that GSS is wholly dependant on BA (as BALPA argues) will be lodged firmly in the orifice from whence it spewed.
C.R.M is still a major concern, and GSS pilots will of course be as professional as they can despite the despicable circumstances they find themselves forced to accept. Another concern in GSS is that some of these BA direct entry Captains do not even meet the experience requirements as laid out in the GSS ops manual, so GSS is having to lower it’s standards to be able to accept them. Some of these so called Captains have never commanded anything larger than a light aircraft, and yet they seem to think they can command in this arena, where most of their F/Os have vastly superior experience levels and previous airline command experience. But I suppose it won’t be the first time an inferior pilot is sitting in the left as compared to the right (at least in terms of experience).
So I repeat my original statement for those pilots thinking of joining GSS, think again!! It’s not too late to withdraw as many of your number had the foresight to do. Do you really want to be imprisoned for three years in a company that didn’t invite you, doesn’t want you, and can’t wait to see the back of you. Harsh but true.

[WhoopWhoop Whoops]

GSS is an artificial airline the way AML was.Both were creations of the Failing Ayling years. Its just that GSS is still around.

When the freight work reaches a critical mass BA will suck it back into the company, probably when it can get some of its pax 747's converted. All it needs is a new idea from someone at WaterWorld. (Doesn't happen often)

It won't be tomorrow but when the guys at WW decide its Bye Bye GSS. It will be brutal for all in it.

AML cabin crew all were made redundant with 3 months notice when that change of policy took place re: AML.

All in GSS for a career take note.

It is NOT A LONG TERM BET. Sorry, but the way BA operates you better find some more customers, to survive for the long term.

BA is a fickle partner.