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......

"Economic social strata"

30k pa, ford Mondeo driving, Nokia 3210 using box"

"You're a tick"

Tory boy has spoken! In all honesty, I enjoyed your post BlackandBrown. Elequently put. Certainly brought a smile to my face.

:(

Hope you don't need it for your day job.

I've got an MBA, so also a little qualified to ascertain that these changes will, at the moment, have little effect on major companies who will continue to use their existing systems.

The 'broad brush' approach used by EASA covers many, many airlines in Europe who do not have the benefit of restrictive FTL operations and thus, for those employees, these regulations are a boon. As with the levelling of any playing field there will be winners and, potentially, losers. Whether the 'looser' restrictions will be adopted by those airline who currently run tighter national regulations remains to be seen. As with all EU regulation this is open to adjustment and change. It is wise however to object to potential changes before the company feels it can introduce them without resistance.

As to the ridiculous 'pilots can do another 100hrs a year' statement, it shows that you need to take the blinkers off you touted degree.

Fatigue is a major issue above and beyond the realms of 'tiredness'. Fatigue is a long term effect which reduces an individuals ability to process, retain and act upon sensory input. Many factors affect fatigue. A few nights out of bed and a few early starts when you are in an office with regular time zones, meal patterns and a standardised biometric pattern will make you tired but not fatigued. Constantly crossing time zones, attempting to sleep outside of you normal rythmn, meals out of synchronisation with both daylight patterns and time patterns all lead up to the onset of fatigue.

In a recent study scientists found that drivers suffering from scientifically derived fatigue performed, in a driving simulator, far worse than those who consumed twice the UK legal drink driving limit of alcohol.

One hull loss can kill a company. Pan Am? The Americans have seen it after Colgan and that's the reason why they have tightened up their FTL's. I feel a major EASA re-write will be up and coming.

Extra 100 hours a year? Perhaps for serving tea and coffee, not for landing a 200+ tonne jet at 180mph.

:ugh:

BlackandBrown
 

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. Sick to my :mad: teeth of managers NOT PILOTS deciding what is safe and what is not safe.


Where will it all end Waterside? A big smoking hole in the ground?


Is that what it will have to take for "ticks" like you to see the light?

Just in response to the original post about a little Iberia Express appearing in BA - it has been there for years and is now starting to grow quite significantly. If I was a BA pilot I would be feel pretty threatened by the increasing presence of BA CityFlyer. I cannot see BA short haul in the future in a model other than that of BA CityFlyer and similalrly Iberia short haul will probably end up all in Iberia Express. The cost bases of these airlines are way lower than that of the parent company. Sorry for hijacking the thread though.

Michael O'Leary interview: You live and you learn

He's spot on about this industry.

Having just returned home from a FTOCM I now have it on good authority that Cabin Crew and Flight Crew hours will not rise above our present limit. However the BA 2 man operated flights will increase above the parameters of present operational limits.
I'm sure there's operational savings to be made which will not suit a minority of our colleagues but plans have now been signed,sealed and delivered.

Here's to a successful and profitable future !

WW, you previous posts supporting another series of actions have been a tacit web of lies, half truths and deceit and now you expect us to believe you when you waffle on about :

I think you find yourself posting above your pay grade as the increased productivity demanded by the BMI merger has just been announced including the requirement to increase 2 man (SH) sector lengths. No surprise there.

BA, nor any other UK company, cannot change it's current rostering without tacit approval from the CAA that the new system would both comply with the EASA regulations AND be acceptable under the Fatigue management system. Both of which would be under the auspices of the BACC as they are set out in the BA pilots MOA.

Good try, no cigar (or champagne that's been on ice for years)

I'm not sure how anything appertaining to the EASA proposals can be regarded as:

, since there is still a long way to go before the BA/CAA process.. I believe we're at least a year off that.

I agree with Wirbel, I suspect for some reason (accidental?) WW is confusing scheduling changes due to the BMI tie up with changes due to the EASA proposals.

And surely BA pilots have a scheduling agreement in place. Any change to that will require BALPA approval.

I think Waterside Waster is a troll.

Your previous posts, old chap??
I was actually talking about longhaul operation, not SH.
Change is coming, absolutely no doubt about it - let's hope we all face up to the challenge and help make IAG the worlds most profitable and secure airline group. Our focus must be essentially on our customers and it's imperative we deliver a world class product at a competative price.
To achieve this we must embrace change together. :ok:

Agreement is an agreement, and that's a non contractual agreement. I think you'll find BALPA doesn't run the airline. Decisions are made on floor 3 Waterside, not at 5 Heathrow Boulevard :=
Embrace change and the future will be very rosy indeed!

Really?

Our BALPA negotiated scheduling agreement forms a part of our T's & C's. I think you best go and check your facts......

Mmmmm....Isn't that what BASSA thought?
If I was you I'd consider an hour with an employment barrister - good luck!

I don't think I need any advice about employment law thank you. Seems pretty clear to me...

'This Agreement will form part of the crews’ contract of employment and will supersede the limits and definitions in the OPS General/Basic manual Section 7, Cap 371 and the ANO. Where items are not covered in this agreement then the limitations and definitions laid down in Section 7 of the OPS General/Basic manual, Cap 371 and the ANO will apply. This agreement will be subject to seasonal review.
No changes will be made to this Agreement without prior consultation and Agreement between the Company and the BALPA Company Council."

This is not BA, but another BALPA recognised UK operator. As per my previous advice, I would check your facts before talking about deals being signed and sealed.

:OYes it forms part of your contract as did the cabin crews scheduling agreement which included crewing levels.
Now a little law lesson for you Jock - certain terms of a collective agreement are not apt for incorporation into each individual employment contract. The collective agreement BALPA has entered into is to cover the general planning and deployment of 3000 flight crew employees but the agreement is not the stuff of 3000 individual contracts. Do you know what terms are apt for inclusion into your individual contract?
I must also point out that most employment contracts contain a clause allowing the company to make 'reasonable changes' to any terms of employment from time to time and therefore even if the terms of your collective agreement is contained in your contract of employment, then the company is able to vary the terms under that clause.
Now to your point that the company must consult BALPA, you are correct. Consultation can be a very loose process that quickly decsends into 'failure to agree' and then into imposing what I would consider as minor changes to contracts of employment. Now surely BALPA are not going to become aggressive over that?
After all any changes will put us on a sound financial footing.
Don't cancel your appointment with the Employment Lawyer ;)

Wonker

You have no idea what you are talking about with regards to FTLs, you've made that very clear, so I'd leave the safety case argument for/against in the hands of those of us who do know.

As for change in BA, yes I agree with you, it is coming and we will all have to swallow a dose. But if you really are a manager in waterside I'd be careful how much change you wish for. I arrived into BA via a fair few years in the world of Low Cost. The biggest difference I've noticed between the two?

Hell of a lot of managers in BA.

:hmm:

BMR,

Wonker has penned himself as a 744 pilot, Cabin crew and now a manager. :ugh: Perhaps a tomato gardener who failed to get into Hamble?
He is drumming up all the arguments from BA vs BASSA, a conflict which he assured the Pprune community was sign sealed and delivered to BASSA on a plate, that should give you an idea to how much credence many put on his 'ideas'.

After that defeat he has peddled every bit of anti pilot rhetoric he can drag up on these forums and given us more doom scenarios than Hollywood in 2012.

Change is ALWAYS apparent in business, a business that stagnates is a dead business. As flight crew however we are well aware of the need to change and subsequently our conditions are significantly different to 10 or even 15 years ago and sufficiently in line with comparable carriers.

There are far wider ranging issues with respect to FTL's than WW narrow mind can comprehend. The cost of change might well outweigh the cost savings involved especially when it comes to Safety, insurance and global brand positioning.

Interesting that WW picks on extended 2 man operations, they are the ones under the most scrutiny due to their fatiguing effects.

Nice try Wonker, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

There's as much chance of BA adopting EASA FTL as BA Pilots not commuting lonmg distances pre flight.....:\

You are appearing to others as an arrogant individual - please don't get personal.
Having spent another midnight shift in FTOCM bouncing ideas around, I really need some down time so unfortunately cannot contribute until later today.
Sleep easy guys - cuddle and embrace your partner as strong as you would change!!!

You sound tired. Those pesky night shifts can be hard work.