If I were a rep involved in the discussions, the first thing I would do is determine the minimum number of redundancies BA will accept. Next I would determine a cost associated with that minimum number. Which cost do you want them to use; a PP24 long haul Captain or a PP1 FO as set out by our MOA? (Personally I’d prefer to need to find a smaller cost saving rather than a larger one). Finally, I would investigate alternative collective ways to find those cost savings, reducing the requirement for compulsory redundancies to an absolute minimum. The talks are still ongoing because both sides are doing their utmost to minimise compulsory redundancies. What more is there to understand?

It would be hard to enforce or even argue, in court, for a clause that has been superseded by new legislation. An illegal clause in a contract cannot be used as a legal basis for a case of unfair dismissal or the reverse. The issue of LIFO has been tested a few times and as it, in many cases, now seems to encompass an element of age discrimination - it is impossible to have 30 years in a company if you are only 21 - it may not be a great argument to rest your redundancy scheme upon, irrespective of its appearance in an MOA written many years before.

The debate about LIFO is getting boring. It’s been done to death. One thing to remember; Balpa are pressing ahead with LIFO+ (if we believe the newsletters) so you can be pretty damn sure they’ve had legal advice that has validated that approach. Just for all the armchair lawyers out there.

But I’ve been told by somebody above, who appears to be employed by BA, that the redundancy criteria in the MOA has been made legal, so that’s the assumption I’m going by.

I don’t work for BA so I don’t know what your MOA says. I just believe in agreements being adhered to, otherwise its a slippery slope that affects everybody’s future.

Im not on the Airbus. I used to be. Got quite a few hours in it. Its stated in my licence I have an A320 rating. I believe BA would have great difficulty in saying I did not have the skills to fly an A319/320/321.

I will be signing up for the new part time. Do I want to? Not really, but I will take a hit and save my colleagues. I would imagine the vast majority of pilots in BA will be applying to do the same.

AIUI the new contract isn’t enough to counter the headline number in the s.188, unless they’ve reduced that number or are weighting the salary of each pilot accordingly?

This theory is so stupidly complicated and littered with holes that it must be true.

Another one for 87.5% but I would like to know what that 87.5% is of. Current pay, pay -15%, pay - 15% and demotion? It makes a difference

If you read carefully, you will notice that I wasn't "tar[ring] 4500 pilots with that brush", my comments were quite clearly targeted at those pilots coming up with those statements. The fact that you are becoming 'twitched' about it appears to be a problem more with you. As others have commented, those statements appear to a minority. That minority is a miserable mob. Just to clarify.

Wouldn't it be nice to find a way to keep all pilots in jobs? As I have mentioned previously, these are extreme and unprecedented times. Stop thinking of 'normal' times, they don't exist.

Good luck.

I can’t quite believe what I’ve been reading over these last few pages.

It massively saddens me that colleagues have a few of others so wrongly tainted.

These are hard times for all of us. But please spare me the “pulling up drawbridges/gilted cages diatribe/JSS voted in by senior folk”
its just wrong and it worries me that some are willfully misrepresenting others to make a point. It only serves to widen divisions, not mend them

The wide divide within BA has always been there and it has been getting wider for many years. Now is the perfect storm for this company

Yep...

And as some of us know despite rumours of green shoots elsewhere there some are very keen to keep on using the word "crisis" so as to keep the fear of this perfect storm out there front and centre in the mind games that are going on.

I don't envy the reps....

There need to be HUGE 'green shoots' to turn this from a crisis:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ed41978bfc.jpg
(Care of 'Flight'.)


Just trying to inject some reality. If you don't have that "front and centre in the mind" you are losing touch with reality.

Everything is relative Noel ..when every missive from your OpCo CEO and Group CEO, hunkered down in the bunker contains the word "crisis" then other airlines scratching around to get pilots in to cover work, and running advertising campaigns to get passengers back has the appearance of tiny tiny "Green shoots"..

What, a statement that they have concerns over being able to afford permanently reducing their income with an unscrupulous employer waiting in the wings to take away even more? No one in BA wants any colleague to lose their job. No one.

I'll be blunt, your vocal campaign to extend the retirement age is aimed at benefiting you and your financial situation/retirement. It would, should it ever come to pass, have huge knock on effects for the generations of pilots who follow, but you don't seem to consider any of that, or feel it relevant to your personal situation.

And you come on here and call others selfish?

Please......

I don't believe you have a valid argument here.
Contacts usually specify "pilot" as the job description. They don't specify aircraft type, nor is there usually any reference to training appointments.
LIFO, in my opinion is the fairest system, if it's already in place when you accept a job's terms and conditions.
Redundancies based on poor performance or character peculiarities may well result in unfair dismissal claims. Subjectivity might be argued.

Two criteria apply:

1. That which is most cost neutral
2. That which is legal

Even if a pilot off a closed fleet has a valid alternative type rating, it will need maintenance in respect to retraining in both simulator and aircraft, the amount of retraining will depend on individuals & how long they have held a dormant type rating, including liaison with the regulator.


Point 1 therefore would not be satisfied.


Point 2 may not be satisfied as the displaced current & qualified pilot would be displaced by someone who is not current nor has an up to date qualification. Therefore currently “unqualified” to operate.


Someone within the management would have to sign off this significant training cost, not sure in the current climate where the authority would lie for this.......


Good luck to all, it certainly appears to be getting worse.....

Just to correct you on that one. I don't see any campaign for the retirement age to be extended ever having any change to BA pilots' retirement ages. The French will block that any changes to international flights by pilots over the ICAO limit for international flights.

I am only interested in regional pilots on domestic services. Those pilots have nowhere near the salaries nor pensions that BA pilots have and have probably suffered far more disrupted careers. (And some of them are facing a 35% reduction in pension from this August.) To deny them the right to work up to their State Pension age, as the general public can and is pretty much expected to do, just because it doesn't fit your 'agenda' is selfish. For younger pilots, those under 59, this will be a two year 'State Pension drought' that they will have to suffer. Trying to deny them that, especially those facing that 35% pension reduction, is selfish. Generations of lower paid regional pilots would clearly benefit from being able to continue regional domestic operations up to their State Pension age.

And please quote where I called anyone "selfish"?

Of course this has nothing to do with the wealthier pilots in BA, but I didn't bring that up here, you did. Just to clarify.

thetimesreader84

‘Gilded lifestyle’?

Don’t forget, the punishment for daring to have this perceived privilege, is to have nearly half of it confiscated by HMRC!

50% of bugger all is still bugger all, whereas 50% of a fortune is still a fortune.


PS. LIFO is a dead duck. It has been thrown out at every redundancy round i've been involved with in the last 20 years. It can be used as a portion of the criteria, but not solely.

Good luck.

It's not just the job description, skills and qualifications are differentiators too

"Fair selection criteria

Fair reasons for selecting employees for redundancy include:

• skills, qualifications and aptitude
• standard of work and/or performance
• attendance
• disciplinary record

You can select employees based on their length of service (‘last in, first out’) but only if you can justify it. It could be indirect discrimination if it affects one group of people more than another.

Do not rely on length of service as your only selection criteria - this is likely to be age discrimination."

https://www.gov.uk/staff-redundant/c...ory-redundancy