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.