Hypocritical ?
 

Nothing ceases to amaze me after talking to a BALPA rep. Following the potential EU increase in pilots hours,he informs me that his next little venture is to meet his counterparts SELPA to discuss a joint stance should IAG implement the proposed ruling.

You would assume that BALPA would be supportive of EU initiatives that will, over time, increase aviation industry profitability, thus securing a considerable number of jobs during a period of uncertainty as a result of this prolonged recession and the onslaught from low cost rivals.

I hope BALPA will consider the implications of attacking a loyal employer as they may very well end up with their very own IB express waiting to taxi out and relieve them of their generous remuneration.

The beauty of responsible FTL laws is that they apply to everyone! So every airline will be treated the same and thus have the same chance of being profitable. Please don't mix safety with economics. It doesn't end well....

Not you is it Duncan? No? Just wondered.... anyway:

BALPA and other EU cockpit associations position is well known so this is not exactly breaking news to anyone here. Like you, I think most professional pilots regard profits as important but we also have a responsibility for the safe operation of flights - and profits are less important than safety.

Admit it, you've not been following the negotiations and mechanics of the BMI merger either - have you?

Duncan ? One can fully understand your concerns, however it's unreasonable to put the IAG group at a disadvantage should rival airlines accept the ruling. I'm sure other EU member state unions will not adopt such gung-ho approach as displayed by this BALPA representative.

BALPA . . Gung Ho ? Shome mishtake shurely :hmm:


They could/should have been a bit more Gung Ho many many times in the past (particularly as regards recognition at a certain Irish LoCo, & in allowing another Orange version to freely decimate the terms & conditions offered to new FO's) but they have always been a little too "cautious" for any of that nasty stuff.

Gung Ho, I say old chap :=

ROFL stand by whilst I pick myself up :D

Wonkier talking about stuff they know nothing about and as usual getting the wrong end of the stick. This, despite the wrapping is another of wonkers attempts to paint BA pilots and BALPA in a bad light. Trying to make them look bad when they stand up for flight safety is the wrong fight.

That said - well done Wonker for highlighting, unintentionally, the very important BALPA campaign to try to prevent the worst excesses of the Eurodisaster cocking up something important.

Totally agree, safety is paramount and under no circumstance should be compromised.However we must balance the proportionality of excessive safety against the profitability of our employer.

An increase in working hours may mean working a few days off, particularly on the shorthaul side, but is that such a bad deal when nearly 38,000 employees ability to pay their mortgages rely on a strong secure employer?

FTL, in my view, can safely be increased by 100 hours pa.

Have you ever flown 900 hours in a year?

And there's the rub. "In your view". We're talking about pilots' FTL's here. How do you qualify this view?

763 jock, he/she is cabin crew.....possibly has flown 900 hours a year but with no idea of how this affects pilots.

Are you seriously saying that we could go up to 1000 hours a year?

That is insane!

Which absolutely and without doubt makes you.......errrr..... not aircrew.

This is the typical management response that comes from viewing an airline through spreadsheets instead of red eyes due to the 5th early.

But eh, how about we move FTLs, that have been developed scientifcally over a number of years, to the lowest common denominator. Namely management bonuses

"763 jock, he/she is cabin crew.....possibly has flown 900 hours a year but with no idea of how this affects pilots."

Probably bloody 19 years old as well. Be interested in their view 30 years down the track. No doubt behind a comfy M-F 9 to 5 by then. In Waterside....:ugh:

Longer FTL's means the airline can run their operation with less crew being they can push the existing crew harder. If anything, the number of jobs will either stagnate or decline slightly. The only thing increasing will be shareholders' profits.

I doubt you are actually a pilot. If you are, your inadequate understanding of what the FTL reform is about is worrying at least.

It's not just the extra 100 hours.

7 earlies on the trot
16 hours sby (discount only from 8 hours)
Indefinite home delay (just keep 'resting')
All flights operating to level 2 without the added protections we have now.
Etc.

It took a crash in America for the FAA to wake up (pun intended) and do something about it.

BALPA have been fighting these new proposals with scientific backing. The CAA have just rolled over into a caretaker role until EASA takes over and those responsible get their cushy jobs at EASA.

FPS, indeed you are correct, I don't fly now but have flown in the past. I now work considerably longer hours, sometimes during the night and mostly early mornings.
Having recently helped my company out during the cabin crew conflict, I did have the pleasure of working alongside the flight crew community. One fact that became apparent was the admission from all of your colleagues regarding the nice lifestyle that is taken for granted, particularly by legacy carriers which is unsustainable.
I'm afraid times have changed and there's an urgent need to tighten our belts and only then can we look forward to a promising future.
One point I can clarify is the EASA will under no circumstances compromise the safety aspect of flying, which will of course be of immense comfort for our customers.

:zzz:

Don't feed the troll, he's learn't a few new words at University obviously.

:ugh:

Good point Wirbelsturm, however (sorry)....

Given that we still don't know what form the final limitations will take, and options such as a Judicial review are being discussed, which could slow down the process even further, IAG are a long way off implimenting anything ( and BTW the changes could have a detrimental effect on our cabin crew, but this whole debate seems to have passed them by) .

SEPLA have their own problems close to home at the moment so I somewhat doubt they'll be warmly welcoming a BALPA rep to discuss joint tactics any time soon....in other words Waterside I suspect that if your story is correct "you've been had".

University was late 70's, business management degree Wirbelsturm, so mildly educated in the needs of a business in order for it to succeed and prosper.
Falling yields, increasing fuel costs, low cost competition, middle eastern competitors attacking our markets and a workforce unwilling to accept minor changes (as was the case for CC) all leads to an uncertain future for all of us working for legacy carriers.
When alls taken into consideration, is 100 hours pa so unpalatable?
It equates to just over 8 hours per month. If the result is a stronger, powerful and more secure airline I really don't see the problem.
What's the option? Carrying on posting losses year on year? A setting up of a subsidiary company working to lower hours but on lower remuneration?
I constantly hear that early mornings are a problem. Maybe some sort of cap on early flights in a month could be a solution. There's numerous ways to solve small issues.

Dear oh dear,

and a degree in business speak to boot.....the vast majority of BA (IAG) worked out long ago that it is still a state enterprise for all intents and purposes. This particularly includes WW and his cronies. They gave up long ago of any pretense of a company that is run for it's owners......