Altruism is often talked about but, like 'safety is our primary concern', only happens if it doesn't cost much. True altruism is rare.

Pilots were served a Section 188 notice.

UNITE/BASSA carried out a widely reported public campaign about BA's opportunistic raid on Ts & Cs. I am sure that if they had been willing to talk and BA refused that would have been reported and worked against BA. UNITE/BASSA thought that stamping their feet was better despite WW disabusing them of that tactic in 2008. BASSA has always represented their members badly and is led by people with little acumen. I think you are incorrect in saying BA would not talk.

Pilots on dead fleets being retained at the expense of juniors is as a result of past agreements. It was LIFO in all but name. It is patently absurd to keep surplus top earners and give them a costly conversion course at the expense of an already qualified on type junior (cheaper) pilot but that is an agreement prevalent in aviation. I am sure BASSA would be upset if agreements were ripped up on a whim. I remember reading a well respected BALPA rep saying that it is what protects loyalty and long service and I also remember thinking it is almost unique in that in any other walk of life if you are surplus then bye, bye however long you have worked for the company.

As both M.Mouse and White Van correctly state Section 188 notices were issued to BALPA.

The Section 188 notice was not given to BALPA until a few weeks had passed, as Alex Cruz admitted yesterday when he was in front of the Commons Transport Select Committee. He was unable to explain why BALPA was not included initially.

No doubt for reasons of fairness, BALPA was subsequently given the same treatment. However, the tone had been set with the other unions.

M.Mouse

Perhaps you can explain how the pilots strike was settled last year, because some BALPA members were quite vocal about it being “unfinished business”?

The dispute last year was “settled” because the arguments were lost & the group came back to work with their tails between their legs.

The comparisons here between CC & FD redundancy infer equal communications via section 188’s. Pilots never had a threat of dismissal and re-selection for rehire on the first section 188, so very different.

Regarding comments on LIFO, the Transport Select Committee yesterday required data on average ages for the various groups affected by redundancy/CRS compared to those retained. When this data materialises there may well be redress/scrutiny with relation to the 2010 equality act.

I do not know who the Count and Survival are. However, making inaccurate "factual" comments do not help in Disputes.

I think the Count is/ was a BASSA member heavily involved in the CC Strike, which led to the formation of Mixed Fleet. Possibly not the greatest result for their members.

I have no idea. Complete fiasco from start to finish in my view but totally irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps BASSA were advising BALPA?

...
According to the Count's own noble writ, he appears to have been "a (relatively) young BA 747 co-pilot" in 1982.

Since then he seems to have morphed into BASSA cabin crew (as Cessnapete suggests) and retired from that as well. He's not listed in Burke's Peerage. Does that explain anything ?

Sorry to say that age has little to do with it. BA recruit a selection of ages as it recruits Ab-Initio pilots, Direct entry pilots from other airlines and ex military pilots. So you will find a 'joining age' spread from '20 ish' to '40 ish' without a problem. It also seems that BASSA were quit happy to follow LIFO with respect to the MFU from what can be gather from social media. :E

With a memory as poor as yours, I trust you no longer have access to a flight deck.

Let me remind you how BA pilots assisted as strike breakers in 2010, which directly led to the formation of Mixed Fleet. Unfortunately the novelty of this new fleet soon wore off on BA flight crews, who started to bid away from MF trips.

As for your own dispute last year, it was a total failure but caused BA to issue a profits warning . No doubt the company have a score to settle there. The cabin crew action in 2010 bought the Legacy crew another ten years, and only ended with the Covid crisis. As for the situation now, feeding the crocodile ten years ago hasn’t helped BA pilots at all.

Ouch....
I remember that very well and I do wonder what those pilots think of their actions today. I mean, if I volunteered to break my colleagues strike based on a company lie, then years later the company treats me like dirt and disregards my loyalty, then I’d feel like an absolute buffoon and a hypocrite. They have gotten very wrong a lot of times (BASSA) but one thing we have to give it to them, is that they didn’t fall for the company porkies and the pilots did. Sorry, but it’s true....

Now you are really talking nonsense....I don't think many of us (certainly on Long Haul) looked at the bid packs and thought "oh that's a mixed fleet trip , I must bid "away"..On the 777 I certainly saw no shortage of senior'ish pilots in places ranging from TLV to SIN.

BTW since for whatever reason "the strike" has been brought into play with: "Let me remind you how BA pilots assisted as strike breakers in 2010" would either you, or perhaps Raph737 who seems to have a view on well BASSA did, care to remind us how many UNITE members operated as Cabin Crew during the strike, and how many of those were BASSA members actively breaking their own strike?

FWIW I operated as PIC 4 longhaul sectors on the 777 over that strike period and the crew composition was typically 50% BASSA ( first two sectors the CSD reported for duty and worked, on the other two the position was filled by a Purser working up), 25% either non-Union Ground Staff or UNITE Ground staff and the other 25% was made up typically by 2 or 3 pilots...so lets not try to perpetuate the myth that the pilots caused the BASSA strike to fail.....plenty of UNITE/BASSA members worked.

Count, and others, clearly do not care about Redundancies in 2020.

They are too concerned with re-running the BASSA cock-ups of 2010.

at this rate, this thread should be moved to Jet Blast.

If I recall correctly in 2010 WW gave each department a savings target and imposed a deeadline along the lines of 'reach agreement by xx date or I will impose changes'. BASSA, in their true 1970s style had a mass meeting at Kempston Racecourse and on a show of hands voted for 'no more negotiation'. All the other unions negotiated their departments savings.

WW was the first BA CEO who said what he meant and meant what he said. MF wasn't even on the table at the time, he wanted things like the ludicrous Disruption Agreement. For those unaccustomed to the agreements made when BA was a nationalised industry, in a nutshell, an example would be a Singapore London flight might divert to Manchester due fog. The CC would have to have two local nights in a hotel in Manchester before positioning back to LHR where they would then take their 'minimum base turnaround' days before being avilable for work.

WW must have thought all his birthdays had come at once because he promptly introduced MF while BASSA demonstrated their stupidity. When the strike was settled it was a joy to see BASSA claiming that the return of the strikers suspended staff travel as a victory.

As it happens I thought that pilots working as CC during the strike was foolish given the inevitable antagonism this would cause when eventually everybody was back at work after the disruption.

just to put some meat on this bone. Yes, about 270 pilots were made compulsory redundant, but against the S188 target we have;
270 CR
220 VR approved (apparently; and rumours were > 300 applied)
300 in CRS (“off the books” as paid for by the rest of us)
50 to RAF, Etc

Total that up, it comes to 840 pilots leaving the business. They’re rough figures, so we could reasonably say 700-900 pilots are no longer working for BA. Much closer to the approx 1100 that BA wanted.

I’m not saying BA won’t be back for more (I think they will be), but I do actually think they are satisfied with the outcome for round one.

However Balpas response to a clearly deteriorating situation, and their application of the phrase “consideration should be given to the principal of LIFO” was and is wrong. LIFO May prevent pilots being “in the wrong place at the wrong time” but its application at BA has definitely allowed pilots on golden ticket fleets to be in the right place at the right time, and I’m yet to be convinced it’s any more fair.

Balpa can dress it up however they like but the fact is that it ceased to be LIFO the moment you had pilots with a weeks service to the company remain whilst more senior pilots walked the plank. Don’t even start on pilots length of service with a subsidiary airline counting towards their length of service with BA. Lets face it though, people have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their own, nothing about the process is fair however you choose the victims. But it’s extremely disingenuous to dress it up as something it’s not.

It looks like the announcement of a second national lockdown is coming in the next 48hrs, so the “my union is better than yours argument” is the least of your problems, and any aircrew irrespective of the airline they work for. The real enemy here was an incompetent government/ PM who looks like that they wont extend the furlough scheme for aviation, another full month grounded and we will be talking about CR in every UK airline coming October 31st. Who cares you have a grudge against BASSA, you’re all equally screwed!

RexBanner

Amen to that. I was in the 'safe zone' until leapfrogged by about 100 folk, some of which hadn't stepped foot onto a company aircraft in anger yet. Seniority is not everything it seems.
​​​​

Agreed. What is needed is an MOA with agreed, and transparent detail on redundancy, obviously maintained & guided by evolving current laws. It follows that a responsible employer should not shift costs of that agreement onto the remaining workers. How individuals subsequently choose to square their morals with charitable organisations/paths beyond this should be a personal matter for them.