Isn't that exactly what has been done? When the vacancies are worked out X -> L moves take priority over pilots from other fleets. Maybe I misread the latest FAN.

Sorry but I don't find any of the arguments compelling about why you think Airbus should be treated as one fleet. If things were reversed and LGW became the short haul base and LHR was purely long haul you'd all be furious if the senior LHR pilots came down and took your jobs.

No personally I wouldn’t actually because we were told from day one ad infinitum that BA is a seniority driven airline but now you’re suggesting that pilots flying the same aircraft should be ordered by which runway they operate that same British Airways aircraft in and out of not the MSL? Furthermore Gatwick and Heathrow are 25 miles apart it’s not as if anyone is relocating.

There is no such thing as a LGW Contract. A colleague of ours recently won a grievance against the company over this very issue.

I’m sorry it’s either seniority or it’s not, you can’t have a foot in both camps/ ideologies which is my main beef with Balpa over what they’ve done. Claiming that they’ve secured a LIFO deal but then marginalizing the LGW Pilots is not cricket IMHO.

Is the immunity for 787 pilots still in place?

787 and A350, yes. Classed as high efficiency employees and pulled out of the line of fire because BA claimed they couldn’t fly the current schedule without them. Except some of those “high efficiency” pilots have never flown the aircraft in question and not even started their training. Quite how they have a status of such importance to the operation being - at this point - completely unproductive is a mystery.

WhatTheDeuce

No you are correct the FAN is clear. As your statement reads.

The LGW argument is complicated by employment law, company precedent during closure of BA and bmi outstations and the fact that a LGW contract does exists. Separate pay structure and rates, rostering and scheduling. Where I understand the anger is that if you move base you are not presented with a new contract to read and sign. The same can be said when you pass a command course though. I completely understand Rex’s anger in that respect because I was fuming when the proposal was fleet and seat. The difficulty is LGW pilots cannot simply displace LHR pilots due to legal agreements and the somewhat questionable bumping of others with the same qualifications.

I again would say this is not driven by BALPA, I would probably say it is not even driven by the company but by legal advise.

We have to look what BALPA has achieved. 1255 down to estimated 270. 985 jobs theoretically saved. A employee group which has come together to save jobs and provide a income for some 300HCE in the CRS. How many did BA let go? 10750 I saw in a press report, down from 12,000. The mitigation came from us by working together. If you are CR right now you will no doubt be angry. I would too! Maybe 8 weeks ago I was hoping I would get out of this mess with a career break and a protected return into BA. I am pleased we have that option for those who find themselves in that position.

We talk about junior guys taking the hit. We envisage young guys and girls fresh out of flight school with little commitments and forget about the training loan. The reality is many do not fit into this category. I have flown with some really interesting and experienced people from different careers or military backgrounds and I hope they are still with us.

RexBanner

Yep, baffles me. I bet it is legal advise again on that part.

The root of all of this unease stems from the MOA being out of date and kilter with the law when it comes to redundancy.

All pilots are now paying for this in all of the ways (and more) being discussed here. Until this “Elephant In The Room” is truly addressed with transparency and aligned properly with UK law, the complexities of this mess will become more and more entangled. Misguided efforts to maintain sole LIFO (or tokens) as per the outdated MOA only costs the employees, not the employer...as is unfolding. Priority needs application on this point, before the crisis deepens...

how is it “out of date”? And what would you suggest as a replacement? Just cull those on by fleet? By age? By cost? Fancy a career forever looking over your shoulder or being killed in the rush for the most modern fleet ?
LIFO isn’t perfect, but IMO it’s about the best thing we have.
could you explain how it’s at odds with the law too? Perhaps BAs retained lawyers have made a mistake and should have looked on Pprune for their legal advice?

I think the ring fencing of the 787/350 fleet is a game changer...and I do think it's highly unfair to be potentially CR'ing pilots who might have been online for some time whilst protecting those who perhaps haven't.

But OTOH there might now need to be some recognition that there has always been a danger, even in BA, of the practice some have indulged in- i.e. hanging on in a slowly shrinking fleet because they didn't fancy another course "just yet", wanted to optimise their move for Fleet seniority/destination selection purposes or simply because they wanted to continue to fly an iconic aircraft.

3Greens

Reality check needed.

LIFO has not been used as a sole means.

Where in the MOA is the now applied selection procedure written?

I didn’t say it had. In fact the MOA doesn’t say anything of the sort either.
I believe we have used the general principles of LIFO, whilst recognising high efficiency workers and BOTH sides lawyers are confident that those general Principles respect the agreements and are legally sound. But perhaps you have a better legal opinion?

Could they have chosen a more divisive phrase than “high efficiency workers” ? Yuk.

I know. And I’m hearing that an unfortunate quirk of that is that some very recent joiners who were lucky enough to be placed on the 787/350, And haven’t even started their courses Are being kept on due to this and longer serving pilots let go. This doesn’t sit comfortably with me as how are they high efficiency when they aren’t flying the line

I have no problem with BA choosing to protect pilot jobs, be they ‘efficient’ or otherwise. However, if these pilots haven’t actually started their training yet, courses should really be allocated in seniority according to the currently open supplementary bid, and the remainder then placed in the CRS. The problem then of course is why couldn’t the upper seniority of CRd pilots enter the CRS rather than these most junior? It is a bit of a can of worms which most people find uncomfortable, however the fact of the matter is, it is extra jobs saved, and that is a good thing. (I did read somewhere, that any pilot currently on a course, who does not have the seniority for that course when the bid has been processed, will be removed from said course. So it may yet be their destiny to enter for the CRS).

Walnut

Started already/starting soon at LGW July/August: BDA, BGI, UVF, KIN, ANU, CUN.
777-200

Definition of efficiency?
 

I think in this instance, efficiency can be defined as their potential to fulfil a function, at considerably lower cost.

LIFO+ is vital, a career in BA is a very long term bet. Without LIFO+ pilots would constantly be vulnerable to being considered inefficient and at risk of fire and rehire. It wasn’t long ago that 787s were grounded with engine problems, pilots sitting at home for prolonged periods and 747s covering their work.

Agreed. So long as the 2010 equality act is adhered to and understood on both sides of the fence .......ideally written into any agreement..

i would think both sides legal teams wouldn’t have sanctioned the method if it wasn’t legally sound.

And after this catastrophe, it's abundantly clear that management intend to turn the airline into a place no one would want to spend an entire career...