RexBanner

Could it be that BALPA / BA Flight Ops have done some smoke n mirrors on the numbers to try and protect a few more crews perhaps?

RexBanner

To be fair, a lot of 787 pilots are flying almost full rosters. Can't speak for the 350.

However, the key here is training. With the new 787 deliveries, the training department allegedly was unable to deliver enough courses to get enough pilots on line to cover this. So the idea of then chopping further 787 pilots would be nothing but damaging to the business.

I can't argue a case for the, albeit tiny, number of pilots yet to complete training. However, I'd guess its just for legal simplicity.

Which then raises the contentious issue of training some new joiners from scratch onto the type whilst potentially dumping some 777 pilots/those with previous 787 rating...

Wiggy, that was what I was referring to in my last sentence above. It is contentious - but then again, what about the whole process isn't.

BALPA have raised the issue with Flt Ops and awaiting a reply....problem as ever is Flt Ops Management are not the quickest, or smartest.

It cost more in the short term to train the new guys and so makes no sense against BAs mantra of wanting to save money....

Could the problem be a legal one, as I understand it a company has to give 45 days notice if it wishes to dismiss staff If these people were either not employed when BA started the process or had just been given a contract with no break clause at that point, there is a conundrum

IAG do not wish to save money, half the cabin crew are getting a pay rise! They want to cut T&Cs, union representation, contractual rights and obligations and the remaining legacy staff. If it was about saving money and the business a large proportion of post 2010 contracts have a lay off clause without pay included. At the drop of a hat millions could have been saved. This is about profits which equal better dividends (as demanded) and leadership bonuses,

PC767, It is about survival, both in the short term and the long term.

PC767

Did you look at loads, number of flights, especially on the North Atlantic, and the number of aircraft parked up at LHR and elsewhere before forming that opinion?

Given the antics threatened by UNITE I’d suggest keeping the some of the cabin crew sweet was probably a smart move.

Lawyer....possibly. If their contracts stipulate A350 they will be wary of braeaking it. That said lawyer only ever offer the most conservative advice. It is up to managers to apply common sense....or not. A previous Flt Ops management team would of seen common sense and understand the costings.

until you have served 2 years at a company you have essentially no right to claim unfair dismissal, so BA could do what they like. Presumably the BA contract also has some form of probationary period, which could easily be deployed in this scenario.

City forming the opinion that the baseline scenario (2019 capacity minus 35%) is too optimistic.

Baseline for 2021 or for the rest of 2020?

monkey.tennis

It’s unfair if you’ve been dismissed from an active fleet when there are others from a redundant fleet hanging on doing nothing useful for the company instead...

no; what would be unfair (as you put it) is if we disregarded the Co tract we all signed on joining. Why should someone who’s done 30years be made redundant because someone who’s been here 5 minutes is on a more active fleet.?
If you want to see what unfair looks like, join Wizz or Emirates where you can enjoy a career of looking over your shoulder for the spectre of redundancy until the day you retire.
My wife is is HR, and she said at the start that if a business is trying to preserve immediate cash flow then you make those redundant to whom you don’t have to pay a severance. I.e those who have served less than 2 years & those who are on probabtion. No tribunals, no cash leaving the business right now. Long term is makes little sense to cut your cheapest people, but in a crisis long term thinking goes out the window.

PC767

Spot on and has been the point from Day Uno

Sure they want to cut T&Cs, but to say that the moment BA/IAG don't need to save money simply displays a blind unwillingness to face the facts, facts that are available out there in the real world beyond theUNITE/BASSA bubble.

Next thing is we'll be hearing claims that BA only grounded the 744s to give themselves an excuse to cut T&Cs/reduce numbers in legacy fleets...oh hang on, we've had that one ...

No we haven’t had that one and nor shall we. Nobody from unite/bassa is suggesting that things are rosy, the current situation is dire and required decisive action, in March. I read elsewhere that the A scale ground staff have agreed a solution to cut cost, on a temporary basis. Unite/bassa are requesting temporary solutions and an agreement to when and how staff loses now can be restored over time, later on. While elements of the BALPA deal are harsh to some, overall the underlaying figure is an 8% reduction on salary, Negotiations for cabin crew have not yet commenced but I would be beyond flabbergasted if a similar deal was agreed. It won’t be.

Have I misunderstood? BA Have moved to the implementation stage because bassa&UNITE refused to engage. There is to be no further negotiations. BA have set out their proposals on ONE and offers of employment have been sent out to those crew who didn’t take VR and weren’t made CR. Are you now saying you think BA are going to sit and negotiate after 5months of waiting?

Likely a daft question but will the 747 crews get put onto the A320 assuming that's where the slots will be, or does a game of musical chairs start.