Why?

Because sadly we live in an era of corporate greed. ‘Spare’ crew simply increase the wage bill and cost base.

We are talking flight safety here, in a never seen before situation. Maybe it comes only second to cost cutting at your airline...

Please can you enlighten on the flight safety issue ? I would not operate a flight if I thought there was any (whatsoever) compromise to safety.

I think GS-Alpha is trying to point out that for some airlines at least, it costs nothing extra to have a pilot actually commit aviation, because they are paying them for (many) more hours than the pilots are actually flying

Maybe it’s just a sensible way of keeping within the 90 day currency rule.

I would also like enlightening. If it is a question of the equipment - aircraft can be grounded longer for D checks; yes there will be the odd defect, but if the aircraft has been maintained / stored per the manual I cannot see too much issue. I was sceptical of how Ryanair were managing their equipment by doing circuits every few days - I can now see the sense of currency and keeping the machine out of the storage programme.

Fact Check
 

I picked this up on LinkedIn, is this factually correct?

" I picked this up on LinkedIn, is this factually correct?"


I rather suspect it doesn't tell the full story. FWIW over the last 24 hours I've had several e-mails linking to Facebook etc which have led to a few of these posts..it's nice to suddenly be popular but even I have my limits..:oh:

The only difference between any of the posts has been the number of years "loyal service"...I've also seen exactly see the same post on at least one other social media site..

It looks like it's crafted to sound as if it has been written by the individual who has posted it but in reality all the messages seem to all have a common origin..UNITE or BASSA by any chance?

BASSA/UNITE have a problem as only 40-50% of cabin crew numbers are members

It’s sad for their members that it would appear they haven’t learnt any lessons but then Len loves a ‘good industrial dispute’. They could still salvage something perhaps but they need to talk and introduce just a little bit of realism. But this is the same union that refused to
operate legal flights in the snow when the pax (who they now claim they are all about) were stranded at the other end of the country.

Yes, this is factually correct. I have been with the company for 30 years, and the new "Corona fleet" contract would mean a 65% pay cut for me. Combined with massive changes in t&c's.

Like so much of the propoganda from UNITE it is not entirely factually correct.

It says that all BA employees are facing redundancy notices and being offered new contracts. That is correct for some departments. As an example the pilots, while facing difficult negotiations are not being threatened with redundancy and new contracts.

There was a letter sent to the various BA unions. Much of each letter was identical but the part threatening redundancy and re-employment on new contracts should negotiations fail was not universal.

UNITE's tactics are, as usual, blunt and ineffective. Without question BA is taking advantage of the crisis to achieve industrial aims but whatever your views negotiation is the way forward. UNITE's tactics are reminiscent of the disastrously conducted cabin crew strike in 2010.

Yes, you are right. Sorry. Pilots and engineers are not included in the mass redundancy. Just cabin crew, contact centres, ground staff and head office (although there are probably a few people in there exempt from it)
Be interesting to see what happens around 13 June

Cardiff engineers are certainly included in mass redundancies and severe contract changes. As are global ops in waterside. I believe it is only flight crew who not affected. Through not fault of their own I must add! Flight crew are the only department not affected by furlough. This is why only BALPA are talking to management. 23,000 other staff were furloughed. They found out via the media that they were to be made redundant and possibly allowed to reapply for their jobs on lesser terms. The various reps were also furloughed. Unite meetings which have taken place with management have only achieved intransigence in the company starting point. They will not engage in negotiating their proposal.

LHR engineers are all under threat of redundancy with reduction in pay snd conditions for those who remain employed. BA was already having trouble recruiting suitably qualified engineers, after this they will have no hope.

I doubt that there will be any shortage of engineers looking for work, any work, for quite a time.

Out of interest, are you a WW cabin crew member Chijmes (as opposed to MF or LGW?), as that may explain the massive drop in pay and conditions? Very tough situation, sorry to hear.

Just a start...9bn to LH - Gov stake
 

Just a start...9bn to LH - Gov stake
...more Govs to follow.

Surely UK employment law would suggest redundancy and almost immediate rehiring in the same role (on a new contract) would not actually be redundancy? I would have thought this would have fallen under unfair dismissal realms.

What is it that Unite are actually aiming for, by not going to the table and negotiating? Surely they don’t for a second believe that BA will just drop it? It feels like they’re just letting crew down, (mostly legacy crew but also MF as well to an extent) and at the end of the 45 day period, BA will do what they want anyway?

Pretty easy to get around that - simply dismiss most of the existing crew citing the drop in demand and rehire new crew as and when (if?) demand picks up.

LH is looking to cut 10,000 jobs and has already ceased operations in its subsidiary Germanwings.

Be of no doubt - a lot of people are going to lose employment and the market will be flooded for several years to come with people looking for new jobs.

It is illegal in many countries to fire someone and hire someone else to do the same job before a certain time has passed (three years where I come from).

UK employment law allows them to make significant changes to their roles, after consultation, and then re-hire on ‘new’ contracts/roles. In this case they are making, for example the legacy crew role (main fleet) redundant and are creating new roles that are (in the eyes of the law) different and with new Ts&Cs and due to significantly changed economic climate they require fewer people. So they can then rehire subject to some sort of selection process. This is entirely legal and happens all the time - if it were not the case, then by definition businesses would never be able to change.

LH have been bailed - but at a cost - the government now have a stake (with all that entails) and they are now subject to political interference and loss of existing shareholder value. I believe this is not what IAG want to happen and want to remain in control of their business and it’s destiny.

Assuming the German government (at least initially) want an arms length relationship (assuming the stake gets shareholder approval) with LH - LH will still have to right size the business to deal with the current state of the industry, which will mean redundancies - they cannot escape this reality I believe LH had balance sheet issues/weakness before this crisis (despite being profitable), IAG is in much better shape in that respect and hence more options within their own control.

And this will be the case at BA. Colleagues acknowledge that. The issue is how the redundancies are managed and the need for permanent change to contracts. IAG has stated that BA can only afford the bare minimum statutory compensation for redundant whilst stating that it I should going ahead with the purchase of Air Europa.

In my position, if I’m ‘lucky’ to be selected to be interviewed for my role, I shall see my earnings drop from over 40k pa with incremental increases to a maximum of circa 18k pa, including variables, with no increments pay scales. This after 20 years service. BA are not negotiating this, they are consulting, very different.

Correct. This isn’t a negotiation, it is ‘consultation’.

According to ACAS, the employer only has to demonstrate they listened to the arguments, then can end the consultation (June 14th?), and continue to do whatever it was planning anyway.

Regarding pilot redundancies, they say they require a headcount reduction of over 1100 pilots, across all fleets.
As things pick-up, hopefully that number will reduce.

It is clear to anyone that BA/IAG are using this crisis to screw everyone they can.

Ok, perhaps the article I saw drumming up support wasn't strictly correct with the facts. It stated the whole of the Cabin Crew staff would be made redundant and a lesser number rehired. I'm sure it would be pretty difficult for a defence lawyer in an employment case to argue that the entire Cabin Crew role was now somehow different.

As I understand it Unite state that they (and other representatives) received initial HR1 redundancy notices for the entire work force and reported that across IAG a 75% reduction in flying. The pilot community were offered a temporary deal via BALPA which they accepted. The government furlough scheme was then introduced. BA was initially reluctant to accept the government scheme but the unions convinced them to do on the understanding that the HR1 process was suspended. This should have allowed time to work out solutions to the crisis. It was the company’s intention to potential issue mass redundancy in excess of the current possible 12000.

Questions are still being asked about what happens to staff who cannot or will not accept the new contract. The proposed process is that suitable staff will be interviewed and assessed as necessary for a new contract. In effect everybody outside of BALPA’s protection is being dismissed, certain staff must reapply and new contracts are then offered. On the face of it this is against employment law but speaking with knowledgeable people including the obvious employment law specialists, there are many loop holes to circumvent the basic legislation.

Nobody outside of the leadership knows what tricks are up the management sleeves to create the cheapest work force in the UK. The only certainty is that homework will have been done and a solution which can be defended found. It was stated by the Unite rep at the select committee hearing that no (current) legal challenge exists to stop BA’s action. Legal remedy can only take place after the forthcoming events of June 15th.

Editted to add. I must be clear that this isn’t not pilots versus the rest within BA. The pilot community were not furloughed and BA management has itself created the separation of the community, no doubt deliberately. At the select committee a conservative MP asked if BALPA would support Unite in industrial action. An odd question I thought but I think he was discretely checking if BALPA felt BA’s actions were justified. He re-tried by asking if pilots would feel safe with cheap, inexperienced and demoralized cabin crew managing safety in the cabin. The BALPA rep answered no.

The unions at BA never talk to each other (Balpa being the worst).
I would not at all be surprised to see Pilots being redeployed as Cabin crew .The retention and retraining costs may justify this even though morally ( in my humble opinion ) it's wrong.

They like to quote the ‘bad’ news from IATA.

Ok then, here’s one.
(Look at the black segment).

To base the destruction of contracts as necessary for the airline’s survival is clearly opportunistic, and maybe delusional.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b8a1196a1.jpeg

As the new rates that BA are touting are £32G PA for a CSM and £24G PA for the rest, it would be probably the Lhr Legacy CC who are posting potentially taking a 50/60% pay cut. Unfortunately even without C19, it’s a buyers market at the moment. Paying the present crew £50G + PA is not sustainable when BA can get the newer contract Mixed Fleet, and for example Virgin cabin crew, for around 50% of that.
A tough time for all the Unions.

On that chart other than crew, administrative and some station expenses (a little MRO which they are doing) there isn’t much else you can influence.....

I am sure there are a few TCX, BE and now VS crew who would like employment...it’s time to (try) to talk.

i suspect, rather than salaries and allowances, the biggest cost to IAG is all the restrictive agreements and rostering complexities that cost most.

I am not condoning IAG in my posts, just pointing out facts. Emotional
campaigns and rhetoric usually achieve little (remember the NUM and how that ended ?).

Accepting the world has changed and talking constructively is the only way forward imhobut we may already be past the point of no return.....

They can't even do that, as the attrition rates for the mixed fleet crew are fairly high. Also, the majority of trainers are WW crew, the largest cabin crew block in the company. Your figures are a bit off, not all those EF and WW crew members are on £50K+, the CSD's only but not main crew. They have signed a contract and worked their way through those pay scales so they deserve it. I think that it's time for BALPA and BASSA to put old rifts aside and have a sit-down and brainstorm, as if they get away doing that to the cabin crew, I wouldn't be surprised if that all of the sudden, pilots joining get to pay for their type ratings, salaries reduced, no more night stops etc

There are a few cabin crew with 35 years plus seniority on that 50k plus figure. With these pay scales BA has made record profits. With the current crisis they would change the pay scales but why on a permanent basis. Huw Merriman, the select committee chair asked Walsh if he would return pay to staff when the market improved. Walsh would not answer that question. The final point is that cabin crew on higher pay scales are not only a minority, they are a dwindling minority. MF is constantly growing as legacy crew leave the business.

That is why the mixed fleet contract exists and why no one has been recruited onto a legacy contract for many years.

For you to state that someone’s salary is unsustainable and so should be halved because new recruits are earning so much less, is a very dangerous game to start playing. You are talking about real people here, with real jobs, real families and real expectations of what mortgage they could afford to maintain. Companies like BA find it all too easy to ratchet down salaries for new recruits - particularly going forwards from this point of over supply for fewer jobs. Would you really be happy if your company shortly recruited pilots on half the current salaries, taking advantage of the abundance of experienced pilots that are about to be clamouring for too few jobs, and then in five years time came back and made you redundant, inviting you to reapply for your job on that halved salary? “After all, yours is unsustainable”? Is that really the kind of business practice you condone? I really despair when I hear or read comments such as the one you just made.

Having witnessed it at first-hand, and knowing intimately BA's snidey management tactics, if I were senior staff I'd be preparing for a brutal TUPE.

ECC - this is not a TUPE situation.....

Not to my knowledge they aren't.

We could argue that it’s understandable that the relationship between the unions is sour, considering pilots volunteered to break the cabin crew strikes last time. Something I think that was morally wrong, and now I wonder, how those pilots, engineers and ground staff who volunteered feel as the company has shown their true colours. But it’s time to put differences aside and work on this together as I fear they will get away with it. It needs to get legal very soon!

GS- Alpha

You misunderstood my post. I’m not condoning any of BAs possible actions Of course nobody thinks their proposals are morally just. Just stating the facts as they are.

One of my relatives is LH FC, and almost certainly to be made redundant under the same BA management regime, I’m on your side.