Hi

In any other industry if a business carried out its functions in a multiple of locations, be it car production or whatever, and it decided to close its plants at sites 2, 3 and 4 but leave site 1 open, would it not be completely unfair / illegal to sack (or make redundant) a worker at site 1 in order to transfer someone in from one of the other sites just because he had worked for the company for less time?

My thoughts are with those with those facing an uncertain future in these difficult times. I hope that the 90 day notices are a worst case and that as things shake out the future will look a lot brighter.

Litebulbs,

The case you quote is only applicable with a merger. If BMI is kept separate and transfers to BA are offered on an individual basis then people can decide to accept or reject whatever is offered. I suspect many would accept a full BA offer even if this meant going to the bottom of the MSL. BMI would then quickly shrivel to a small rump and could then not be described as a regards

binsleepin _ I appreciate your comparison but it still would not work because company B has bought Company A with plants at 1, 2 and 3 - it is then company B - ( the new owner of all plants) which has decided that it is to close plants 1 and 2. Not Company A which no longer exists.

The closure decision is with the new owners

Since the age discrimination act of 2006 people cannot be forced to retire at 55, the reverse of the coin is seniority and LIFO are questionable in terms of legality because it discriminates against younger workers. What is not questionable is employment law. If a position is made redundant at plant A and a worker at plant B is made redundant to allow the employee from plant A to relocate to plant B that is illegal because it is the position that is made redundant not the person (I know in reality it's all about the people). The worker who was made redundant was done so to make room for the other worker. The position is not redundant and that is illegal. If BA/IAG/BMI want to close a base they have to give at risk to the affected people and enter consultation. The consultation process is very likely to discuss options in new roles (eg another base) or for some who may want, a redundancy package. I really believe that all will be ok. As for seniority well it's not going to last, easy, Ryanair, Emirates all have got rid of it. What's the solution to the new system for say bids on holiday leave ect? Random computer program? Points awarded due to time worked / productivity maybe.

Sir George Cayley
It's FAR more clear cut than that! As I already explained, fewer pilots are required!

FREDA
They don't! Recruitment is currently suspended!

If anyone thinks/fears this means 'curtains' for those currently issued with 90 day notices, I strongly suspect there will be slightly better news to follow. In BA there is a strong tradition of pilots sticking together and allowing those wishing to retire to go with a nice golden goodbye. I have little doubt BMI pilots will feel the same.

Good luck to all!

Barcli,

In this case though it is a holding company that owns company A and is now buying company B. While they are kept separate the holding company can do whatever it wants to the newly bought company.

This was the case recently when Kraft bought Cadbury's and closed a factory it promised to keep open and transfered production to other factories with spare capacity and cheaper production. see here: Kraft to close Cadbury plant it offered to keep open - Telegraph Those working at the closing factory had no right to the jobs at other Cadbury's factories of employees who had been at the company for a shorter period of time, let alone at other Kraft factories in general.

Regarding LIFO etc: bmi went to some length in conjunction with BALPA a couple of years ago when the pilot headcount had to be reduced. A matrix by which redundancies would be made included a performance element along with sickness/attendance criteria so that the legal/HR bods were satisfied that a challenge by a disgruntled pilot made redundant would be able to be defended against. That was agreed between the company and the union and as such formed part of the Agreement For Service (AFS) and the pilots' contract.
I'm not saying whether or not it would stand up in a court of law, etc.- just that an up to date mechanism broadly linked to length of service that was designed to deal with a redundancy situation has been in place at bmi for a while now.
BA have decided that this method will not be used even though they technically don't own the company yet; a by product of which would save them the expense of offering the affected pilots a position at LHR along with the relocation package. Could this be the primary driver in this sorry mess?
BTW, when BA shut down its outstations did it summarily dismiss all of the crews based there, or was a relocation package offered?

But if there is no obvious correlation between age and position in the seniority list, then it can hardly be discriminatory to make decisions based on it. Can it?

In most airline seniority lists these days, this must surely be the case.

That said, I do agree with you and hope that those with "at risk" letters will be re-deployed. I was, when it happened to me.

That said, it seems cruel when the distinction between being a bmi LHR pilot and a bmi BFS pilot has such enormous ramifications.

Likewise, it hardly seems fair for redundancies to have ever been entertained based on the distinction between, say, being a BA 747 pilot and a BA 767 pilot.

We are all pilots. The fact that an airline chooses to base us at one of their bases, or type rate us on one of their types ought not to necessarily prejudice our employment subsequently.

LIFO only needs to be shown that the average age of the workers dismissed are younger than average of the employee workforce for it to be discriminatory. At every airline you will find the bottom of the SL is younger than the top. The matrix mentioned gave a primary weighting to service so would again be open to challenge. In every other industry it's clear cut as described in the plant A /B examples. The job of BALPA is to mitigate the loss of any jobs and NOT to transfer one at risk notice from one person to another. It's not nice the way these pilots have been treated but it is normal practice given that their position is being made redundant. They will be consulted now on options such as a new position in the combined ba bmi or if they do not want to move country other options. Seniority is a system which will have to be replaced in our industry as it has in others. All bmi pilots are supporting action to mitigate those at risk positions

An interesting choice of types. Both will be in decline again at some point relatively soon. So what happens when these fleets are phased out and at the same time BA decide to reduce pilot numbers, due whatever unexpected calamity hits the industry at the time?

What is to stop BA making those pilots redundant as clearly LIFO, on its own, seems to have been rendered impotent, legally?

In a similar vein, what would happen to the BA pilots at Gatwick if it were closed?

If your answer is "LIFO Agreement" be under no illusions it won't be solely based on that when push comes to shove. BMI have an agreement based on LIFO and it's pretty clear what BA have decided is legal regarding that.


Possibly time for ALL pilots in the UK to ensure that their company's redundancy criteria is up to date and workable, and leaves no room for surprises. To discover the pool is limited to certain fleets would be a travesty and a game of Russian Roulette every time you made a fleet bid.

Yes, the 747 and 767 will be phased out but they are being replaced by 380s, 777s and 787s.

What happens when and if that happens is you take that opening gambit to your union. Which is hopefully sensible enough to realise the company don't care which pilots operate which machines as long as the planned cost reductions are met.

If the union has the right relationship with both members and the company they then discuss which solutions can be amenable to both groups. If the costs can be met the company is happy.

We have to remember this is not personal. It is a business. We are unit costs, with regulatory requirements. If those costs can be met AND avoid industrial action with it's own associated cost, then all are happy!

BA/IAG are not in business to be our friends. The managers are there to make money! If we as a company of pilots decide WE want redundancies based on seniority do you think the company care? As long as its legal (different argument) and achieves the cost base the company wants they can be negotiated with.

In this case, I hope the seniority/LIFO etc arguments are being put to BMI members by their cc which I am sure had the foresight to have a contingency plan for the chance of redundancies as soon as it was mooted there would be a reduction in the IAG slot uptake. With the consequent pressure beimg put on the current pilot numbers. If they didn't... I hope they are now thinking very quickly on their feet.

There is no pleasure to be taken in the misfortune of others. I could so easily be in the shoes of the BMI pilots and may be put in this position in the future. Aviation is a fickle place. We cannot however blame company bosses from doing their job either. A successful business made through those hard nosed decisions is one that maintains job security and the bottom right hand corner of that pay check. Horrible to be so cold but true.

I feel terrible for those currently affected and hope that wise heads manage to reach a position affecting as few as possible while drawing those into a company that is intent on being successful through very tough economic times. The future for all of us under that umbrella may not be rose tinted, that view on aviation should be left with your PPL, but it is definitely brighter.

I think you are missing the point of some of the posters here.

What they are eluding to, is what will happen when a fleet is downsized/removed. Can the employer then make the outgoing fleet pilots redundant and directly recruit pilots on to the new fleet. Thus removing the more expensive (based on years of service) existing pilots, to recruit cheaper direct entry pilots.

One would think theoretically - not BUT if it can be argued that the existing pilots no longer have the relevant type rating on the new aircraft, then by virtue that they are not qualified to fly the new type, they become surplus to requirements, unless they get the type rating themselves.

The Unions will be brought in to consult about mitigating positions but if the intention of the employer is to start stripping out the seniority list of the more expensive staff, then I would imagine there is little that the Unions can do. Even if the 6 month recruitment window of compulsary redundant staff was enforced, if the Company was sufficiently over crewed to be able to maintain the flying programme for 6 months, it would negate this possible recall option of the displaced staff.

This is becoming a hot potato and the possibilities for the penny pinching bean counters are just coming to light. With WW and a crack team spending their days just thinking up new ways to reduce costs, these sort of discussion are going to become more and more prevalent and Unions are going to have to up their defense teams with equally sharp minds to remain one step ahead!

No. Employment law is quite clear about this, you cannot make some one redundant and then replace them, the argument about fleets is a red herring in this case.

It may be a minor point but BA have not made these decisions regarding BMI, it is IAG. BA will not have control until BA takes over BMI. So please castigate the correct organisation.

Besides, where would we find the hundreds of long-haul wide body pilots with sufficient experience to jump straight onto a 777 or 380? The last recruitment drive fell short of suitable 744 DEPs and the traditional route into the company is via the 737 or 320 fleets.

I less inclined to call it as you see it Juan Tugoh.

I have friends in other industrys that have been made redundant because their industries legislated that they were required to have a particular qualification on a certain date. As they did not ave this qualification, they were made redundant and others that had the same job title but had actually passed the exam were employed to replace them.

Hence I think that the employment laws are slightly skewed. I agree a like for like re-employment by someone else with the "same qualifications" would not be allowed but if the new staff member actually had different and relevant qualifications (such as the new aircraft type rating) then this I believe would effectively fit the scenario I mention above and possibly the existing "non type rated" pilot may be displaced legitimately.

Feel free to discuss...

I would suggest though that either test cases, factual experiences or the actual words of the law be used rather than gut feelings to verify a particular view point would be helpful.

If companies in the City started getting rid of secretaries because they happened to be working on Apple Mac's not PC's, there'd be uproar. Especially if the secretaries were only working on those machines because they'd been told to.

The law is an a** if it allowing companies to get rid of pilots because they happen not to be rated on the right type.

How on earth could anyone decide what was the right type?

The same applies to bases.

BA certainly recruit Direct Entry Pilots. Sometimes there is a requirement for a certain type, but more often than not, aside from an hours requirement, any pilot gets a go.

They then push you onto a type that you may or may not fly.

To then want to get rid of you because you happen to be on that type, seems to me to be more arbitrary than should be defensible in law.

That being the case, the law needs working on.

It doesn't take long going down this path, before one can imagine a scenario where even legacy pilots are totally responsible for the cost of their ratings.

WW has been spending too much time with MOL.

The two main points that seem to be being discussed here are the redundancy and the prospect of BMI remaining a subsidiary.
Having been involved in a BA subsidiary in the past, there are a couple of things I can throw into the pot for consideration.
Once this becomes the responsabillity of BA, they already have existing well tested methods and agreements for dealing with this sort of thing.
Firstly, they will not be able to run a subsidiary company with any aircraft type carrying more than 100 pax unless this type is not the same type that in already operated by existing mainline crew (long established union agreement)
Secondly, they operate a system that makes staff redundant in the exact way that BMI seem to be proposing already ie, seniority only applies within your base.
You are afforded protection in line with your joining date and fleet, but only at your existing base, so if they close your base, or dispose of your fleet at your base, you may only bid for what may be available elsewhere. If there is nothing available or suitable, you are redundant. Been there, seen it, got the tee shirt!
I have no doubt that BA will be happy to look at employing most if not all the BMI crews, but if they are forced to apply individually, they will only join as new starters with no seniority, and as new FO's.
You have my sympathy guy's and girls, it's an awful place to be.

Perhaps this is something that needs to be written in to pilots "Agreements For Service" and verified by employment solicitors that "In a redundancy situation, a pilot will not be prejudiced by current fleet or lack of type rating"?

The discussion on base redundancy determination is still up for debate as to whether it has any validity. As someone has already stated, there may already be precidence with the Kraft case but I would need to read the actual details before being able to comment on it.

There is of course the TUPE / Non-TUPE argument.

The final outcome of contractual issues, I suspect, will boil down to whether or not this is viewed as TUPE or not.

Not going to get tied up in the why's and wherefore's as Im not a solicitor. However, all I know is it can make a significant difference.

That is all.

Good luck to all those affected. Its never a nice situation to be in.

Somebody else who clearly can't be bothered to read the thread.:rolleyes:

My sincere best wishes to the BMI guys. Talking from experience it's a torrid time, but it will get better.

4468,

If what fiftyfour is saying is correct, do you condone a business acting unlawfully, in the name of business?

Litebulbs

Are you accusing Lufthansa or IAG of acting illegally with regard to the sad demise of BMI? If you are, I strongly suspect you are wrong. Perhaps you would prefer the company to simply fold, and ALL jobs be lost?

4468,

Where did I say any of that? A poster has said that some employees were treated unlawfully and were compensated for being wrongfully dismissed. You responded to that as you did, which is why I asked the question of you.

JazzyK,

Are you suggesting that the union/association that represents all the pilots in BMI goes to the new employer and says "sorry but we would prefer you keep pilots 1, 2 and 3 and make pilots 4, 5 and 6 redundant instead because pilots 1, 2 and 3 have been with the company longer". If I was pilot 4, 5 or 6 I would be most upset. to say the least....

Many people have very valid reasons for having a lower seniority than other colleagues e.g. sometimes they weren't born when someone else joined the company or perhaps they spent many years of their life serving their country rather than going straight into a much higher paying civilian job. Why should they be any more liable for redundancy than anyone else?

As has been said already you cannot sack an individual from a position and then place another individual in that same position.

Its a hard call, but BA does not operate regional basing so therefore regional positions are redundant in the big picture. HOWEVER BA needs pilots so should offer these pilots to relocate to LHR to retain their jobs, if they do not wish to relocate then fine redundancy it is. Seniority plays very little part here in the eyes of the law. If BA were not to offer relocation and then to employ other outside pilots within 6 months of redundancy notices, then I think they will be on a sticky legal wicket.

What I am suggesting is that if the current decisions being made about who is in potentially in line for redundancy is not what the members expect, want or wish to stomach then it is for them to suggest a different course of action through their union.

The employers do not care if employees 1, 2, 3 or 25, 3255 and 1 go as long as the cost base the reductions require are carried out. They want it done the most simple way within the law.

The employees may wish a more complex system...voluntary redundancy of high earners? To offset compulsory redundancy of more lower earners? These solutions are to be brought to the table by the union.

As for who goes...the arguments for LIFO... You pay your money you take your choice. I worked for 10 years in other airlines before joining BA. I gave up my command elsewhere to be an FO again with the associated pay cut. To be in a company with greater future prospects and more potential job security. Those were my choices. Career choices we all have to make. For some they are more at the whim of fate than others, however life is not always fair....

If you can come up with a better, transparent system, not subject to personal judgements or the whim of an assessor to line up employees for redundancy then please go ahead.

Last in first out is simple. I know where I am on the list. No amount of sucking up to a manager, being in with the training department or going out of the way to be a company man can change that position.

I'd hope (as has happened in the recent past) as colleagues faced with compulsory redundancy we do all we can to avoid all of them rather than feed people to the wolves. Eventually though there comes a point where they still need to be fed...now who do you choose to sacrifice? The new joiner with 15 years in a pointy jet in their past or the 16 year FO on the verge of their first command? You write the letter to the families and explain why one deserves the boot rather than the other?

Actually Binsleepin, you can do that, it's called Bumping:

Redundancy Bumping Rules - Redundancy Rights - The Solicitor

Having experienced first hand (courtesy of Jet2, who bring a whole new approach to redundancy proceedings who hired at the same time as putting a few of us into redundancy).

bluepilot:
Please be careful with your assumptions. From earlier in this very same thread:
BA are unlikely to recruit any new pilots for considerably more than 6 months! Ask anyone in the hold pool!

However, it is for the BMICC to propose to Lufthansa/IAG a more palatable mechanism for dealing with their surplus.

4468, BA are and have been offering contracts to new starters on the new pay point deal (i know of people starting next month for example). If at the same time they are making people redundant without options then this I think puts them in a legally difficult situation if they do not offer alternative employment at LHR.

no sponsor, I believe Jet2 offered alternative employment at other bases before compulsory redundancy when your base closed, or do I have this wrong? regards BP

Isn't the point that BA aren't doing anything at all at this point. IAG are giving notice that roles may be at risk of redundancy. It seems this makes all the difference as any surplus will be dispensed with before BA gets the keys to BMI, sidestepping the legal issues you mention.

Like other posters, my personal feeling is that this isn't the end of the story yet. It may well transpire that some roles can be, after negotiation, saved by relocating to LHR. Time will tell.

Hi bluepilot

If as you say, you know of people starting 'next month', presumably they were made their job offer at the beginning of Feb? Some BMI pilots have just been given 90 day notices by their employers (Luftansa???) which means POSSIBLE redundancy mid July? Even if it WERE BA calling the shots, I see no moral or legal dilemma? BA will not be offering any contracts to new hires, whilst making people redundant. If they did, then of course legally BA pilots would be in jeopardy too. Perhaps that is what people here would REALLY prefer???

Edited to add: if you imagine LH/IAG don't know the law here, I suspect you may be either wrong, or they have at the very least calculated the potential downside to their actions. Either way, like a supertanker, it is now set on a course.

Like others, I don't for one moment think that those sitting on 90 day notices have too much to worry about with good handling by the BMICC! EVERYONE has said what top blokes those currently under threat are. I personally would genuinely take a hit to ensure They have the opportunity to share with their families a good summer and Christmas, I have already done it for colleagues within BA, and I feel no less obliged to those currently inhabiting a different terminal!!

[QUOTE]JazzyK,

Are you suggesting that the union/association that represents all the pilots in BMI goes to the new employer and says "sorry but we would prefer you keep pilots 1, 2 and 3 and make pilots 4, 5 and 6 redundant instead because pilots 1, 2 and 3 have been with the company longer". If I was pilot 4, 5 or 6 I would be most upset. to say the least....
/QUOTE]

Well, with reference to my earlier post, given that there is an agreement in place, and an agreed mechanism for dealing with a redundancy situation - I would suggest that the above scenario should never have taken place. The bmi AFS is explicit (Part 1 sects.12 & 13) for the case of "reduction of fleet complement at base" and when "a pilot is required to change base at the behest of the company".

However, I suppose it might be suggested that the complete closure of a base doesn't necessarily fall into any of the above categories; I would be very sceptical of the notion that the number of outstation pilots + TRIs + Flt Ops Managers exactly equals the required headcount reduction for any slots that BA may have had to give up.

Historically within bmi any base closures has seen the affected pilots given the opportunity to relocate to LHR; if it was associated with a general reduction in pilot numbers, then the matrix (which includes a LIFO element based on company seniority) would be used to reduce that overall headcount.

So Jazzy K, with the above agreement and the historic way in which similar situations have been dealt with, what would you expect the representatives of the pilots to say to the new employer? The method that has been used goes against the current AFS, or put another way- the contract that pilots 4,5 & 6 knowingly signed up to, and the one that pilots 1,2 & 3 expected to protect them.
I don't want to see any bmi pilot out of a job, but if it has to happen then it should be done in accordance with existing agreements.
-No replies to my previous post re: past base closures in BA. Does anyone with a reasonably long memory know what happened then?

Anyone working for an airline that has a seniority list should be worried by the scenario being played out here.

This makes sad reading, typical of the BA/IAG approach towards things i'm afraid . I've seen it first hand.

Best of luck to everyone involved.
Someone mentioned the middle east earlier - the fact that it's not home etc. I can say that from a very neutral point of view, although it is not home, you do get used to it and all companies offer lots of leave to get home anyway. Fingers crossed that no one is forced to apply due to redundancy, but should the situation arise, it is not as bad out here as people say on the ME forum. Everywhere has positives and negatives.

4468, BA mainline pilot redundancies are not going to happen. As regards to when a contract is offered is kind of irrelivant, the fact of the matter is pilots are yet to start with BA whilst others face redundancy, i think it would be difficult case to justifly to a tribunal should that happen. As others have said BMI have entered a consultation period therefore nothing is set in stone and I am sure most BA pilots would not wish to see any pilots out of a job. You cannot argue against base closures as they do not fit the BA business model at all, but you can argue relocation or alternative employment / roles. Lets hope that the BMI CC can win this case , perhaps supported by the BA CC?? I wish everyone involved all the best, mergers / takeovers are never easy or pleasant.

STICK TO THE TOPIC!
 

I have just done some "housekeeping" to keep the thread on-topic.

Please stick to the topic!

Halfwayback

bluepilot

I agree.

Please don't forget that WHOEVER is doing the dirty work here, it is NOT BA pilots, with whom our BMI colleagues will soon be flying the line!

Careful Mr.Hudd.

"Bishop" kept me in a job for a very long time when other airlines were regularly falling by the wayside. We weren't always happy with the way he did it but we weren't set up.

He was a businessman, ran a tight ship and delegated.
When it came to the time for his retirement, he had set up the agreement with LH and held them to it.

If the economic situation had changed in the meantime, then LH should have built that into their strategy. LH allowed BMI to fail as it didn't know how to handle the situation.

If "Bishop" could foresee and deal with the numerous economic downturns since the sixties, why couldn't LH ? Because they didn't try.............

Sleeve wing
Dont be naive,
bishop ran the company, took the profits on a jet to jersey every year and charged 4k or much more to turn it said jet around, as every BMI employee knew.
He sold it at the time that suited him to maximise his personal wealth.
Lh were left with little to profit from and all that was left was a poorly thought out bankrupt business model.

Fact, lh wanted to get rid,
Fact Iag were the only credible bidder
Fact, mass cost cuts had to be made.
Fact, the bmi cc snubbed the ba cc sealing the only chance they had to make this relativly painless.

I KNOW, that BMI flight crew are good honest hard working pilots, but we also know they have been horribly strung along by their own management into thinking they have a strong case to sell their slots, and have been run into the ground in the last few years.
But they have also been terribly let down by a bullish and naive CC that thought they were due the earth and could face iag without the help of the bacc,
bad planning and a loss that will be irreversible I fear...

As an ex BM pilot, I think Red 7 has hit the nail on the head.

7,

Smokescreen off! Most succinct and accurate post on this to date I think. Having read the coms from the BMI cc I'm of the very same opinion. Those of us who have been with BA long enough to have seen both feast and famine know that our CC have steered a pretty safe path through shark infested waters. It's a shame that the BMI cc appear to feel that they knew better, whilst having a view on their situation that seems to defy their reality.

Hopefully sense will prevail and negotiation with realistic expectation can save as many jobs outside Lhr as possible.

Good luck to all.