Indeed. So provided the pp34 pilots can prove to their paymasters they are twice as meritorious and productive as those in pp1, they have nothing to worry about!

Exactly - it cuts both ways but there are other human, behavioural and additional contributions that can be measured (and some technical) that don’t conflict with safety. If you can’t demonstrate any you get a standard salary for grade. I”m not saying I agree but just putting another point of view. In the States to work on the ground everything is bid on seniority (look at the age profile for Florida stations). They get the job based on years of service (provided they meet a minimum) not because they are best at the job or have amazing customer service - is this how we would recruit for our own business ? Don’t shoot me down, just saying.....

I don’t think anyone with a half sensible outlook would argue against that. I think the issue is a temporary problem leading to permanent changes. What is so hard? Tell us what is needed and let us sort it out.

I must end it here because I have a bit of chair flying to do.

sure it’s another point of view but it’s idiotic none the less. You’re obviously not an airline pilot

Thanks for acknowledging my point of view, I am an airline pilot btw just no longer for BA but I also have worked outside this sphere.

FWIW to BALPA who know this any contract signed under duress is void in law.

In China Southern, you can get a ‘safety bonus’ of $6000 per year.
For keeping quiet about any incidents?

No.
If they're doing an equivalent role with no extra responsibilities then yes - they should be earning the same.
No, loyalty doesn't count for anything. Experience should, hence why more experienced staff should be given more responsible roles, such as training capt.

Nonsense.

A TC role should be given to someone who is good at training. The skills required are mostly human (communication, empathy etc). It may be a 10,000 hour pilot would make a better trainer than a 20,000 hour pilot. But the 20,000 hour pilot is invaluable on the line for his experience, which is absorbed by co-pilots when they fly with them.

Rising salaries are normally paid to retain experience, which is a requirement in an airline.

Fair point, replace the word "experience" with "aptitude" in my post. Those with aptitude should be given the more responsible roles. Sitting in the same job for 20 years is not, on its own, a good enough reason to be paid more.

The BA pilot pay structure chooses to reward loyalty. When you start, you earn below market rate (particularly if you obtain an early command), but you do so in the knowledge that your salary will rise over time and then you will one day be earning a decent salary. This actually benefits BA, so much so that when considering moving to a flatter pay structure several years ago, it was decided it would be far too costly to do! In my opinion, fair is being paid in accordance with what you signed up for when you joined the company, together with any negotiated changes thereafter. If you did not like the terms and conditions, why sign the contract? Given the above, it is common practice (certainly within BA) for new entrants to gradually have lesser terms and conditions because they can be more easily adjusted to reflect the ever reducing new entrant market rate.

As an example of how this benefits BA, I have only relatively recently started earning that higher wage and as it arrived I went part time. So BA have done rather nicely out of me - a full MPE at below general market rate and then a fraction of an MPE when I started earning that more costly salary. My lifetime earnings are considerably below those of an EasyJet pilot where such a salary structure does not exist.

For the cabin crew, yes I totally agree that many of the legacy crew are on a very decent wage. Do they deserve it? Yes I very much believe they do. That is the salary they were recruited on, and which was negotiated throughout their careers. Would BA like to reduce their unit costs by ending those salaries? Of course they would! But you cannot just change someone’s salary without negotiation - that is not playing fair. It has always been likely they would have more negotiating power to achieve their aim, once MF numbers were high enough. Just at they closed NAPS once BARP numbers became high enough. It is the game that BA plays. However, fire and rehire is totally unacceptable. That being said, whilst BA are going about this in a very aggressive way, I think attempting to avoid being consulted with at all, is a dangerous game to play.

Hi GS Alpha - a very enlightening post. Just for clarity a part time post is not an MPE (manpower equivalent) it’s a HCE (head count equivalent) a full MPE (how BA measure it) would be a half MPE (part time role) and then, say, paying 2 other people the other equivalent half an MPE to make a whole. So if BA paid two people as 50% PT that is equivalent to 2 x HCE but 1 x MPE i.e the two people = 1 Manpower Equivalent. MPE is usually how they measure overtime etc so if you have 3 people earning lots of OT(3 x HCE) you would still have three people but with the OT costs could be equivalent to 5 people’s salary or 5 x MPE if that makes sense ? Semantics I know but there is a difference.

i also agree they have to attempt to talk and try and consult - no idea (especially as current circumstances unprecedented) how a court would view a blanket refusal to even attempt to consult. BA have filed the S188 as they are legally required so for BASSA to say we won’t talk until you remove it does seem a precarious position to take.

Still no.

You can be the pilot with the greatest aptitude, but not so great at understanding and correcting a junior pilot's ways - and therefore you should never be a trainer.

As has been pointed out above, the top salary is "the" salary, and you have to suffer a discount on the way up there. At my airline, FO's are paid terribly (take home around £1400 after loan repayments) and they only stay as they are on the path to "the" salary. To then say that everyone should settle for the intermediate or lowest discounted salary is very wrong.

HPP - you are right, which is why the whole structure would need to be looked at from entry upwards. I am not sure BA will accept doing nothing is therefore the only option though. If they are looking for structural changes.

i guess if just looking for a temporary solution, when is temporary no longer temporary - 1 year, 5 years, when margins return to pre-Covid levels ? BALPA have a tough negotiation.

TOM100, my understanding is that if full time, you are 1 x MPE, and if say 50% part time, you are 0.5 x MPE (hence why I said I am now a fraction of an MPE). I think that is what you are saying too? Or am I still misunderstanding? Either way, going part time as you start earning above market rate works nicely in their favour with such a salary structure, enabling them to have their cake and eat it so to speak. The incremental pay structure has more benefits than disadvantages for the company which is why they continue to support it. (They love to focus on the disadvantages because it helps to keep their inflationary pay negotiations suppressed).

For clarity the position, precarious or otherwise, is coordinated by Unite and GMB who are heading the stance against BA and requiring the S188 to be rescinded. For further clarity, consultation in this context is worthless. Negotiation and consultation have very different responsibilities and outcomes. BALPA were in negotiations due to their starting position of not being furloughed; look what happened. Consultation provides no protection or influence for members of unions affiliated to unite or GMB.

I believe today is the deadline for BA to register pilots to the furlough scheme. Not doing so may be an indication of BA’s intentions going forward.

Your thoughts - in what way?

Well knowing BA it must have crossed their mind to furlough those at risk knowing there’s a good chance they can take advantage of “the grey” in order to then make those people redundant and pay them
their notice in accordance with their reduced monthly furlough pay.

Cheers plastic. I thought that. As it’s not happening now I wondered what PC thought it indicated

PC767 - my point exactly, I am guessing there is no recent precedent of consulting (or negotiating) whilst furloughed due to a pandemic. Not all the senior Unite key players are necessarily furloughed and the concept is untested so I guess high risk on both sides.....is it reasonable to say Len McClunky et al could have engaged as head and senior bods at Unite who are not furloughed, do the reps gets employed outside BA by Unite to represent members ? I really don’t know.....am sure both sides are getting expensive legal advice........

To play Devil's advocate: in an airline environment where the roles of captain and first officer are clearly defined and require only a minimum standard to be met and maintained, why should a company value loyalty, and why should salaries increase the longer you've been there. Companies in every sector only pay the minimum salary they need to retain staff. I'd suggest that the salaries on offer for pilots are still FAR in excess of what people would accept.

**** thats complicated. Every other gaff uses FTE Full Time Equivalent

@ GS-Alpha

I am not involved, but as I see it the only real questions at the moment are:

1) Is BA's action legal ( short-term) ?
2) What are the effects (medium/long-term ) ?

I believe FTE and MPE are the same essentially......dunno why BA use MPE Think it is to do with factoring OT hours rather than just physical heads, we digress....

I have it on good authority that BA have declined to put any pilot on furlough from tonight’s deadline.

Can’t be that strapped for cash...

But in other news they are also playing the "look how strapped for cash we are" card..

https://www.theguardian.com/business...on-coronavirus

Sounds familiar......

BBC News | ARTS | Aer Lingus sells artwork

:} I’ve seen it all now.

Paisley and Renfrewshire North MP Gavin Newlands is bringing forward an emergency bill to the House of Commons which, if passed, will prevent companies from dismissing staff and rehiring them on contracts with worse terms.

Probably won't get parliamentary support, but if it does ???? Greater number of overall pilot redundancies out of revenge and because it will mainly be cheaper LIFO sacrifices ?

I left 22 years ago, but one thing that has not been mentioned is the billion pound "black hole" in NAPS. I appreciate that has been closed to new contributions and accruals for some time, but there must be quite a few crew on all "teams" that have a big vested interest in ensuring BA keep paying into the scheme to fill the black hole? Was £300 million a year afaik before Corona. Even a 10% reduction of pension over a potential 20+ year retirement (even in this day and age) equates to a lot of cash.

A 'final salary' pension scheme that was a British Airways responsibility less than 15 years ago will be paying out 35% less to existing pensioners from August this year.

Be very worried if you are in an underfunded final salary pension scheme within the 'BA realm'.

[QUOTE=NoelEvans;10808186]A 'final salary' pension scheme that was a British Airways responsibility less than 15 years ago will be paying out 35% less to existing pensioners from August this year.

Be very worried if you are in an underfunded final salary pension scheme within the 'BA realm'.[/QUOT
what is the source for this 35% drop!!

Well they maintain a seniority system which stops anyone ever leaving, so I'm guessing they place some value on it.

This might not help the dynamics of the relationship (not that there is much of one anyway).

https://www.travelweekly.co.uk/artic...-of-air-europa

Indeed. The same PR job. One-trick pony.

This may be nonsense.
What is your source?

I believe that once in payment, the pension is safe.
Also, I believe legally safe, is the ring-fenced NAPS pension.

Ironically, the amount saved from closing NAPS almost exactly equates to the ‘special dividend’ paid out to shareholders last year.

I think Noel might be talking about the BMI scheme, and the sequence of events which ultimately led to it entering the PPF?

I have just been on my NAPS website and there is no mention of this 35%cut . I always thought that one you were drawing a pension it was safe. Who knows these days!

As I understand it, once a pension is in payment then it is protected for life and paid in accordance with the rules of the scheme, even if that means cannibalizing the future pensions of those not yet drawing them. (Doesn't seem very fair to me, but when was anything to do with finance ever "fair"?) However I understand that the company is legally obliged to make up the shortfall, if it can... What I was highlighting is the fact that if BA doesn't make money in future and can't pay their £300 million a year "fill in" then the black hole shortfall will persist and at some point the pensions for those taking them in the future will have to be cut. There must be plenty of NAPS members still in the employ of BA who will stand to lose a lot of money if BA does not "thrive" in future and to a lesser extent deferred members like myself. So salary cut now or smaller pension later?