BALPA are on record as wanting “LIFO+”. Essentially LIFO, with some nods to other criteria (mainly disciplinary it looks like) to ensure it’s just about legal.

The stated at risk numbers are indeed dire. They are also complete fantasy. There is no way they actually want to get rid of that many pilots; they simply want to maximise cost savings, and they know exactly how BALPA will approach this. LIFO would be difficult to imagine if indeed 1100 were made redundant, but given that they actually just want the cost saving equivalent, we are far better to be demanding that LIFO be part of the matrix (as per our agreements).

I think it (LIFO) is in the ‘contract’, the Memorandum of Agreement, as a ‘general principle’.

I agree LIFO should form the basis of any agreement I just don’t see BA going for it, there is already a disconnect between what constitutes a “skill” BALPA seemed to suggest a type rating was not a skill but being a pilot mentor was, not convinced BA would agree.

lets hope the company and BA can reduce or even eliminate the pain.

Part time for all until the situation improves. Simple.

Exactly.

If they want/need a headcount reduction of 75%, then put everyone on temporary 75% contracts.
The flexibility for the recovery is obvious.

gets my vote. Worked very well (from a pilots point of view) at Spotty M.

Although that’s clearly what most of us would like to see, the issue for the Company is that it’s not quite as black and white as that as the Manpower Equivalent (MPE) might be reduced by 25% but they will still have 100% of the cost of 4500 recurrent Sims, SEP training and medicals (quiet at the back!)..

And none of the cost and sluggishness of recruiting and training pilots as things recover. Cruz’s main aim for BA is an increased ability to adapt quickly.. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if flexible part time for all was the plan from the start. There was a hint in the granting of all aspirational part time at the start of all this, with a clause that BA can temporarily return you to full time at a time of their choosing.

I do not know about BA, but the cost of having 2 skippers at 50 % instead of 1 skipper full time at another well-known British airline was close to 20 000 pounds/year. I guess it is just a bit lower for FOs. Let's say it is 15K.

1000 pilots x 15 000 pounds is 15M pounds/year of extra cost with 75 % against massive head chops.

But now you need to take into account:
- Cost of redundancy
- Cost of retraining
- Cost of re-employing those people if market picks-up quickly
- Loss of market share if opportunities arise, but you do not have the people to compete for it.

And I guess those 15 000/year of extra cost easily fade away with the facts mentioned above, especially taking into account that aviation is expected to be back at 19s levels in 2 or 2,5 years.

75 % is probably the wisest option for everyone. The problem? Many people will like it and want to stay on it post-COVID19!

From my own experience, I would change that ‘Many’ to ‘Most’. You do not have time to realise just how much you have sacrificed/given to the company over the years, until you go part time. (The current situation is giving people the time, but they are probably so anxious about their job security that they probably aren’t thinking about much else).

75% gets my vote.

All I can say is it is complete BS if any captain goes based on fleet and seat. I know it becomes more difficult where we may or may not see fleets removed. When I passed my command course there were some who failed....twice. They now sit RHS on the fleet. Under the proposed fleet and seat they would be safe. Madness!

The cost of demoting on type is nothing, it’s completely legal and the flexibility is huge. As people point out the job is “pilot officer” as per our contracts. The contract then says base and rank. If base is not a position then there is no way rank is either. Our contracts also state LIFO in principle.

Anyone sign a new contract when they became a captain?

Despite all of the above I will hope to see options to avoid CR as I do not wish to see any pilot made CR.

You speak sense Bex.

Junior Captains get plonked into the RHS and take the respective salary and stripe reduction. The company saves cash and retain people with the proven ability to step up when the need dictates. This is valid for types being retained.....

That said, this doesn't necessarily help when the company needs to start moving and re-introducing people into the RHS.

Roster reduction with the associated pay cut seems to be the most logical way forward. I wonder, if a vote was put to the workforce, whether any such action would be voted for...

Just a note that if it comes to it beware of '75% for all' unless you have certain garauntees. At a our airline last winter following many lifestyle/workload complaints the training department were extremely excited to announce 'flexible' options of 50% or 75% options for Trainers... That would mean you could 'only' be rostered two or three weeks of the month as a trainer for the associated pay cut... When it was pointed out to them that was supposed to be the current balance of training/flying as per our current contract and that nobody would be dumb enough to sign up to that, the room fell awkwardly silent and it has never been heard of since. My only point is managent's interpretation of part time will not necessarily reflect what is fair, unless its carved in a contract made of stone, which considering BA's attitude, make sure they can't find the stone.

Its just one of those things. There are a number of anomalies created by seniority. I agree that Cat C pilots who have failed multiple shots at their command then sitting at the top of their copilot list is frustrating, but we all knew the system we were signing up for was based on seniority and I accept it as the core principle behind our treatment.

Recruitment has created similar quirks, like a number of Airbus captains being junior to the BA cadet copilots they fly with. Them’s the breaks. I have no idea what BA actually want but have faith in BALPA to get the best they can. Even if I didn’t I don’t have any control over it so I should by rights just wait for the box to open and see if the cat is alive or dead. I don’t have the patience for that in the current strained times so I come on here to read what everyone else thinks and share a moan. It helps!

I would be finding this whole business a damn sight easier if I could have this argument over a beer downroute somewhere!

JWSCUD. We all signed up to our MOA and the initial proposal in no way represent that.

Another in favour of part time for all. Aside from the obvious worries over the last 2 or 3 months, I have been loving the extra time at home and would be looking to stay part time permanently if I remain in a job!

I understand that this would have increased costs for the company in medicals, sims etc but surely other benefits such as reduced fatigue/sickness from not being worked to the bone would make up in some way for that?

Salary wise a cut of x% across the workforce would obviously save a massive amount more than taking out the salaries of the bottom x% of the MSL, so the savings there could also cover the higher costs of running with a larger workforce on part time contracts.

You are quite right for the next year or two Jet II. I was thinking more of the longer term.

P/T is the answer. The sims could be mitigated by doing 1 OPC/LPC a year (FOQA) Medicals get the Nigels to pay for them (ok might not be liked). The only thing then is any insurance / social costs. But the flexibility of having part time crew you cannot put a price on it -(that's assuming any BA pilot will respect their employer after being treated in my humble opinion - so badly.

Another vote for part time - reduce the cap on a sliding scale until everyone is retained.

The cost of temporarily employing extra heads (continuation training, medicals, and admin) is money found down the back of a sofa compared with being able to quickly react to the needs of a recovering market.