Expedite_Climb

BA is a good airline and still thought of by many as the best in the UK. But the margin by which it beats its best rivals is becoming slimmer as time passes.

The terms and Conditions enjoyed by each new "generation" of pilots it employs is reduced, which is a shame for all of us.

In First Choice Airways, First Officers will routinely take home £3300+ per month and will work 600(ish) hours per year. Which is similar to £3600 for 900 hours a year.

Monarch has a pay bridge on its old contracts, which most pilots are on.

Many pilots in the Charter carriers (FCA, BY, MON, TCX) will be on Final Salary pensions and those that aren't will have 15% or so of a basic salary (higher than BA's basic) into their Money Purchase Pension. BA make up alot of take home pay with non pensionable allowances. It is the low Cost Carriers that get away with 5-7%.

It is of no doubt that compared with the new bread of low cost carriers that the differences in terms and conditions with BA are wider. But they make up for it by offering quick commands.

Taking a global picture where BA are competing, then again they do not offer the terms and conditions that many flag carriers (AF, LF etc) do either.

Don't get me wrong, BA are a very good airline, but smugness will get the better of you if you're not carefull!

I think we are in danger of looking backwards not forwards as to the reasons for experienced pilots wanting to join BA. Yes the current deal isn't the best ... but, then again pay and conditions could hardly get worse otherwise even less would apply to join and even more would leave (especially now there is no FS pension scheme to look forward to).

So, whilst BA pilots will continue to be worked hard (why should they be different to the rest of the world), pay - being the only quick and easy solution - is likely to improve.

Final point - BA sits on an extraordinarily valuable piece of real estate that is virtually recession-proof. As people have pointed out already, pay isn't the be all and end all, but it really hurts when there isn't any at all.

AFAIK, ten DEPs were recruited straight onto the -400. Don't know the whys or wherefores but I would assume they were already type-rated. Suffice to say, there are (more than) sufficient valid internal bids onto it so it's politically easier for BA to type-rate existing employees rather than train new joiners and cause a mutiny. :ouch:

BOEING 7E7

I work for TCX and am a 5 year FO.

I have done a short time on loan at AMM in 2002, and I can tell you that I NEVER took home £3300 at either AMM or TCX yet.

I work 600 hours a year for TCX and take home about £3000 per month, I pay 5% of salary into my FINAL SALARY pension scheme.

If AMM Fo's earn £3300 per month for a 600 hour year, why are you considering Industrial action at this current time?

Surely all must be rosy in the garden at those pay rates ????

The ten DEPs who went straight to the 400 were A320 rated from bmi! Explain that one away.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr???????

I would have typed "Er" but you know what they're like with their bandwidth. In which case, it suggests that a similar arrangement occurred to the last time ('98 ish) when a whole bunch of DEPs said "-400 or nothing".

Plus ca change....

Wheel Barrow

Why so prickly?

You wouldn't have taken home £3300 when you were with Amm in 2002 beacause that is 3 years ago. If your take home pay is not near £3300 then accept my appologies. A few nights away from base a month and this figure is easily obtained.

The pilots gripe at FCA at present is about a lifestyle and roster stability that we once enjoyed. Money has not been mentioned.

Pilot numbers: TCX 350 for 24 aircraft, BY 490 for 31 aircraft. FCA 360 for 30 aircraft. If you do the maths it quickly becomes apparent, there is little flex in the system at FCA. The pilot numbers have been significantly higher in the past at FCA.

We don't do the hours, but when things go wrong as they inevitably do, roster stability goes out the window very quickly!

The origional point I was making, relating to the thread topic is that BA do not offer the terms and conditions to new pilots that that their present pilots enjoy. BA's joining conditions are just not that good. The better they are though, the better it will be for new joiners and all the other airlines down the chain. Pilots joining at present will, to some extent be riding the coat tails of those already there.

This is not BA bashing; BA are still the best, but that margin is slimmer now than it has ever been, and one day we may wake to find that BA don't actually offer a better package than their closest rivals when all is considered. That day thankfully is not here yet, but sitting inside BA denying this is smug, and it will get the better of them!

(For those that can get the wrong end of the stick - not all BA pilots are smug)

Boeing 7E7

I am not prickly.

I see your point that in order to earn more at AMM, you must go touring every month and not be at your base.

And then you spend the extra money on food and drink anyway, so I can see that you are not better off really.

To include ABA allowances whilst talking about charter life, where you are based at one airfield is a little confusing.

If you were MAN or LGW based on your 757 or 320 fleet, I suspect you would be working at main base nearly all the time, so you would not earn the extra you talk about.

Our payscales are identical to yours to nearly the penny, so I think a realistic charter take home figure is approx £3000 per month.

Good luck with your summer, see you in the middle of the night in Turkey I imagine;)

Its not hard to do a CBA to work out whether life at BA over the remainder of your career will leave you better off financially than you'd be if you otherwise stayed where you are.

Take the 24 PP's on the BA pay-scale, work out (depending on your age and what you think NRA/CRA will be when you retire) how long you'll be in the RHS and LHS and whether you'll be SH/MH or LH and add up the totals.

Compare that with a CBA based on your speculated career progression at your present company.

Add a few yearly RPI pay-increases, postulate a few recessions with no pay-increases and at age 34, its still financially in my interests to move from my present company although I won't.

But the break-even point shifts rapidly in favour of your status quo if you're not presently in BA as you approach 40 because the top BA PP's are well into 6 figures which means you're catching up/over-taking at a rapid rate.

Its hardly a de facto BA are better...inspite of the fact that some can't seem to grasp that.

Now add all the intangibles/cost neutral issues like RHS occupancy times, time off, FD, BLR, small company/big company etc etc and make your judgement.

Easy right?

:ok:

Stu Bigzorst, well said. I'm confident that you made the right choice.

SR71, how can you claim that RHS occupance is cost neutral?
I think time to command has a big impact on job enjoyment and of course nett pay.
Many BA appliacnts/new joiners seem to think its just 10 years to a SH command. Well it may have been in the past , but now it will be 15 or 16 year absolute minimum.

By the way , why do people think a BA new F/O netts £3600???
This is bollox. You will nett £3300.max.

What I mean is that based on a CBA, some will prostitute themselves to (most of) a life in the RHS because ultimately financially, over the duration of a career, life at BA will still net them more cash than their existing status quo.

For someone in their late 30's, it is cost neutral because there is more than one way to arrive at the same financial position - a short time in the RHS, followed by a long time in the LHS if they stay where they are, OR, a long time in the RHS and a short/no time in the LHS at BA.

This is, of course, a choice open to everyone and I have some sympathy for the "If you can get paid in line with your expectations sitting in the RHS, who would want to sit in the LHS?" argument.

But there are others, for whom 20 years in the RHS is too bitter a pill to swallow even if financially they'd be better off by doing so.

You makes your choices and, in this industry more than most (any?) others, you have to live with them.

:ok:

I am sure that, for many, the sole inspiration behind flying is not the cash. Indeed, for those that started in the last 5 years or so it is quite the opposite - you have to have an aversion to the stuff (£83K spent so far, poorer income than my previous job etc).

One of the fundamental motivators is taking on the responsibility of occupying the LHS. I imagine that the type of character that BA are seeking is one who relishes and is more than capable of handling that responsibility.

The thought of joining BA and never achieving that goal is on a par with losing my licence indefinitely.

If BA could offer a good package, with a reasonable or even a quick time to command, then there would be hundreds of us swotting up right now.

Their choice!

Just to put a different spin on this, I have recently joined BA, I am young enough to look forward to being able to have a command in my late 30's. The thing that we have to realise is everyone has different reasons, I was offered command with my previous airline, but decided to leave anyway. I really have no interest in command and mainly joined BA because of the range of aircraft that I will end up flying and for other good benefits like staff travel. So it is horses for courses, I am happy not having to think about command for the next 15ish years, others will not be so happy.

Once again, it seems to be a case of being in the right place at the right time. We've got cadets taking their commands on the 747 and 777 at the age of 36/37 enjoying the 6 figure salaries that go with that. All I will say is that BA probably will be a very good bet for anybody under the age of 30, especially with the potential retirement age increasing next year. However, as previous posters have said, it's not just the money. There is an awful lot of niff-naff in BA that can and does get you down if you let it.

Shuttlworth,

"By the way , why do people think a BA new F/O netts £3600??? This is bollox. You will nett £3300.max."

Well, I'm a recent Eurofleet DEP. And in a regular month, £3300 is definitely NOT my max. Nor is £3600 for that matter. And this also happens to be the case for my DEP mates too...... Mind you, we are working quite hard!

Anyway, as someone has already rightly said, I think our focus is all wrong here. Instead of all the bitching and infighting that we're good at, we should be concentrating on restoring our conditions that have been slowly eroded over recent times. The airlines may have had troubles in the past, but the good times seem to be rolling now. And I don't see any of it coming our way! Or is it just me......

Regards,

Cuban_8

Cuban_8

Be assured, it's not just you.

Just to add my two pence to this:

The choice at a well known BA franchise is

1. Say no

2. £460 gross if you want your hours to count towards the industrially aggreed 775 hours plus flight pay.

3. £139.50 per flying hour gross if you don't want it to count towards the hours i.e. a longish flight will drag in £1300+.

AND YOU GET AN ADDITIONAL DAY OFF OWED IN OPTION 2.
:ok: :ok: :ok: :D :D :D

I'm about to come up to London for an assessment day for future employment at BA. From reading up through this thread I wonder whether this is such a good idea...

BA doesn't sound like a regular major in terms of T&Cs and everyday life. I can't see how such a life style being so unaccpetable from a low cost could be more acceptable from a large carrier. At the end of the day, they all make you life as miserable.

Are my doubts founded ? Should I really bother showing up ???

Turn up for the experience if nothing else. Make the decision as to whether to join or not after you receive an offer.

Cuban 8

nice to hear your not slacking with the birdseeders! I can only wish I was getting £3300 net a month!!

YOu know what it is like at the old touring company - more of the same!!

cheers

togaroo